This study investigates young adults’ perceptions and evaluations of interventionist journalism. Drawing on 30 in-depth interviews with Austrian young adults, it explores the legitimacy of interventionist journalism, depending on forms of interventionist journalism, topic and platform. Findings indicate that while objectivity remains valued, it is increasingly understood as fairness and transparency rather than strict neutrality. Interventionist journalism is deemed appropriate when journalists are evidence-based, transparent, and address issues of clear societal importance. Notably, expectations vary across platforms: neutrality is preferred in traditional outlets, whereas advocacy and value-driven reporting are not only accepted, but expected, on social media. These findings point to a generational reconfiguration of perceived journalistic legitimacy and relevance, highlighting the need for adaptive professional norms that reconcile factual rigor with moral engagement. The study contributes to scholarly debates on the functions of journalism and provides implications for media organizations seeking to sustain and strengthen trust among young audiences.
Leonhardt et al. (Wed,) studied this question.