Why I unsubscribed from News24, and what that says about trust in online news

A personal decision becomes a wider warning about credibility, framing, and the fragile economics of digital journalism in South Africa.

Article link: https://open.substack.com/pub/johanosteyn/p/why-i-unsubscribed-from-news24-and?r=73gqa&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true

Audio summary: https://youtu.be/imQAfTLGqhc

Follow me on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/johanosteyn/

A few months ago, I unsubscribed from News24. I did not do it for attention, and I do not regret it. This is not an argument that News24 never produces valuable reporting, or that every journalist there is untrustworthy. It is an argument about an institution and a pattern. Over time, I’ve felt less like a reader being informed and more like a citizen being nudged. The tone of certainty, the speed of judgement, and the instinct to label complex, contested South African issues as settled “truth” have chipped away at my trust. And the uncomfortable part is that this is not just a News24 problem. It’s a symptom of a global shift in online news: incentives, platforms, and now AI tools are pushing media towards volume and persuasion rather than evidence and humility.

CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND

We are living through a trust recession. News has moved from newspapers and scheduled bulletins into feeds, notifications, and algorithmic recommendations. That means the business model and the distribution model increasingly shape editorial behaviour. When attention is the currency, the easiest way to earn it is to be definitive, emotive, and relentless.

South Africa is not immune to this. In November 2025, Reuters reported on a major support package linked to the Competition Commission’s work on platform dominance and its impact on local media revenues, highlighting how global platforms now sit between publishers and audiences.

In other words, even if a newsroom wants to prioritise depth and verification, the surrounding ecosystem rewards speed and engagement. That is the backdrop against which trust is gained or lost.

INSIGHT AND ANALYSIS

My central concern is structural: when a publication positions itself as an authority on what is true and what is “disinformation”, it must hold itself to an unusually high standard of fairness, context, and correction. When it falls short, the damage is amplified because the brand promise is authority.

This is why formal accountability matters more than online shouting matches. In 2025, the Press Council’s Press Ombud found serious breaches in a News24 Disinformation Desk fact-check relating to the Akkerland expropriation story, including omissions of material context, and ordered corrective action and an apology.

A second issue is how quickly commentary can slide into assertion, and how reputations are affected when language is framed with undue certainty. In August 2025, News24 published a clarification and apology regarding statements attributed to Renaldo Gouws, acknowledging that its earlier framing required correction.

These examples don’t “prove” political capture. But they do reinforce why readers become sceptical when an outlet speaks as referee while occasionally missing the basics of nuance, evidence, or context.

This is where the idea that democracy involves the engineering of consent becomes relevant. The modern version is rarely a cartoon conspiracy. It is much simpler: repeated framing, selective emphasis, and moral language that quietly narrows what feels “sayable” in public. When readers sense that happening, the instinct is to walk away.

IMPLICATIONS

AI raises the stakes. Newsrooms are adopting AI for transcription, summarisation, translation, headline testing, tagging, and workflow automation. Used responsibly, it can strengthen journalism. Used without strong governance, it can scale the very behaviours that erode trust: speed over verification and certainty over nuance.

In December 2025, the Thomson Reuters Foundation described how South African newsrooms are benefiting from strategic and ethical AI adoption, while also warning that weak policies and training can introduce bias and factual mistakes that damage credibility.

At the same time, platforms are reshaping the economics of news and the visibility of content, leaving publishers squeezed and audiences fragmented. This pushes institutions to protect their authority, sometimes by doubling down on the labels of “truth” and “disinformation” rather than by earning trust through a transparent process.

The Daily Maverick made a similar point in January 2026: journalism can be saved, but only if we recognise its role and confront the incentives and structures undermining it. 

CLOSING TAKEAWAY

I unsubscribed from News24 because trust is not a slogan; it is a practice. In a world where AI can increase output and algorithms can steer attention invisibly, the only sustainable advantage a newsroom has is credibility earned through discipline: clear sourcing, visible corrections, and humility about uncertainty. Democracy needs citizens who consent because they understand, not because they’ve been managed into agreement by certainty, repetition, or labels. My decision is small, but the question it points to is enormous: in the age of AI, who is informing the public, and who is engineering it?

Author Bio: Johan Steyn is a prominent AI thought leader, speaker, and author with a deep understanding of artificial intelligence’s impact on business and society. He is passionate about ethical AI development and its role in shaping a better future. Find out more about Johan’s work at https://www.aiforbusiness.net