Over three days and 48 sessions at Newsgeist 2026, the rooms at Hamburg Media School and Der Spiegel buzzed with ideas, curiosity — and a dash of unease about what lay ahead for news. From Oct. 16-18, 160 journalists, technologists, business leaders and researchers from around the world tackled the most pressing questions facing journalism and the wider information ecosystem.
Newsgeist is an invitation-only “unconference.” It is the second one CNTI has convened, this time co-hosted with Hamburg Media School. There is no set program. Participants arrive with the questions they want to raise and pitch sessions on the first night. The agenda unfolds from there. Topics ranged widely, as you’ll read below. As one participant put it, “We started talking about liquid content, but quickly found ourselves coming back to the role of journalism.” Apart from the Ignite talks, there were no formal speakers; instead, session conveners guided the discussions. As always, Newsgeist operated under the Chatham House Rule so participants could speak candidly.
An element participants expressed particular appreciation for was the global mix of people in the room. With attendees from 34 countries, conversations that might have stayed local quickly became international. Combined with expertise across journalism, technology, business and research, the weekend’s discussions rarely landed on a single view. Instead, they moved toward new ideas, planned collaborations and other steps forward shaped by many perspectives.
Another highlight is always the Ignite Talks, a format that requires planning and more than a bit of bravery: each speaker gets five minutes and 20 slides that advance automatically every 15 seconds. This year’s talks ranged from reporting on Russia from exile to AI licensing and the blooming field of creator journalism.
These takeaways can’t capture everything discussed at Newsgeist, nor do they provide a definitive consensus. Instead, they reflect broad themes across the weekend that we want to share with a broader community.
MCPs, Liquid Content and Building the Future
Some of the weekend’s most forward-looking discussions were about how journalism should adapt as AI tools increasingly sit between news outlets and their customers. Drawing on technologists, journalism practitioners and founders, these conversations moved quickly from diagnosing problems to concrete possibilities.
One session explored Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers, a technical standard that lets AI tools connect directly to a publisher’s content. Some participants saw MCPs as journalism’s best current bet for creating value. MCPs can give publishers more control over their content, a potential path to revenue, and data on how that content is used. Business-to-business uses were seen as the clearest near-term opportunity, with early interest from fields like law and finance, where clients need reliable, up-to-date information from curated sources. Some also asked the harder question: “Did we already give away too much for this to be valued by agents?”
A related session explored “liquid content”: for centuries, news came in fixed formats that looked the same for everyone. Online publishing, and now especially AI, makes it possible to reshape information for each reader. The thesis of an unpublished research paper by Hakon Mosbech was referenced as a starting point for discussion: news delivery will need to fall into one of two camps: flexible AI-shaped information or authentic personal voices. The paper argues that middle ground (where much of traditional journalism sits) is disappearing. Some participants suggested that adapting is more of an editorial challenge than a technical one, because news providers are often wedded to publishing definitive stories reflecting current events.
In contemplating the strongest path forward, one participant suggested that rather than asking AI companies how they use news content, the industry should ask what information is missing. Where do AI models have an information need that journalism can provide? This could include some critical areas of reporting such as war coverage and oversight of authoritarian governments.
How Journalism and AI Fit Together
The MCP and liquid content discussions were one part of the broader theme throughout the weekend: where journalism fits in an increasingly AI-mediated information world. There is still no unified sense of how to contend with this, but the discussions showed greater awareness and acceptance of the role AI and other technologies will play. The Newsgeist discussions focused on the external and internal changes this new environment requires.
As one participant noted, from the consumer’s perspective, AI overviews and chatbots have made the internet better. Another observed that tools like ChatGPT have become the first stop for many seeking information, yet journalists have little influence over what those tools say. The question for news providers now is what they can offer that those quick answers can’t.
Participants also considered that more of journalism’s audience may soon be AI agents acting on people’s behalf. That makes it critical to act now and share ideas, successes and failures on liquid content, MCP connections and co-creation with LLM companies.
Several sessions considered how news organizations need to adapt, including how journalists and technologists work together. Participants shared real examples of communication and workflows that have worked, and those that haven’t. One challenge is letting journalists experiment, get familiar with AI, and vibe code in ways that are useful and “don’t make IT grimace.” That raised practical questions: How can news providers build flexible infrastructures? What are the new roles and the right level of friction between editorial and IT? Some organizations are creating hybrid roles, such as “editorial developers” and “editorial product” teams. Whether they sit on editorial or in technology teams varies. Across the board, participants wanted more ways to share what’s working across the industry.
Rethinking the Business of Journalism
Other sessions throughout the weekend considered the news organization of the future through an even broader lens: the business side of journalism. This of course breaks the long-standing divide between editorial and business. Many journalism schools will need to develop new coursework that moves away from the traditional view of the profession to leaders who must manage their mission alongside a viable revenue plan. Nonprofit news is no exception; in a conversation on philanthropy, participants warned that grant funding is narrowing. As one put it, “The funding highway in America is moving from six highways down to three, and it’s going to be an ugly traffic jam.”
Building a stronger business also means deciding what to stop doing as news providers. “We don’t have a process for evaluating what should stay and what should go,” one participant said. Participants contrasted journalism’s view of failure with the tech industry’s, where a failed venture is treated as valuable experience for the next attempt. Some noted that journalists tie their identity so closely to a single product that ending it feels like personal failure.
Within news organizations, participants questioned how the role of the editor-in-chief should function, and also called for product, editorial, technology and risk teams to work side by side. Many said future journalists will need curiosity, adaptability, teamwork, product thinking and marketing skills more than mastery of a single specialty. Proposals included reverse mentoring, pairing the oldest and youngest staff members to learn from each other. Others pushed back, asking whether it’s reasonable to expect journalists to balance being business-minded, covering stories, and handling distribution and promotion.
From Audiences to Communities
Many conversations about audiences began with self-reflection. In a session on arrogance and humility, participants observed that journalists are often seen not as being of and for the people, but as part of the political class. “Are journalists becoming arrogant, or are arrogant people becoming journalists?” one participant asked. Some argued this sense of authority has kept the profession from adapting to a world where audiences hold power of their own.
Earning that audience back means building relationships on more equal terms. One approach is for news providers to create spaces where readers can gather, such as a Facebook group or Discord server, start the conversation and then step back so the community can largely run itself. “We need to be present to guide and provide a framework, and leave the community to do the rest of the work,” one participant said. Others described turning their most engaged readers into ambassadors who help grow the community. Several argued that when people do pay, it’s less a transaction than an expression of belonging. As one said, “Subscribing is about love.”
Across sessions, many questions about audiences came up:
- If most people have stopped commenting, should news providers close comment sections, use AI to moderate them, or redesign them so reporters start and join the conversation?
- How can news providers turn their most engaged readers into ambassadors who help grow the community?
- Do young people avoid news because of the formats — or because news providers cover topics they don’t care about, or talk down to them?
- Are creators a lasting partner for news organizations, or a temporary patch for reaching young audiences?
- Can bundling with other publishers, creators or entertainment help turn readers into paying subscribers?
A Shared Fight for Reliable Information
Finally, achieving the overarching goal of a vibrant information ecosystem (and some shared sense of reality) depends on many kinds of institutions working together. Across sessions, participants agreed that journalism cannot think of itself as working in a silo or as the sole “owner” of truth. Indeed, the true north star is not journalism itself, but a healthy flow of dependable, verifiable information, no matter who delivers it. “Journalism is not the threshold; truth is the threshold,” one participant observed.
A key question emerged: who are journalism’s allies? One session explored which knowledge-producing fields might fill that role, including scientists, librarians, teachers, museums, lawyers and civil society groups — many of them facing their own crises of trust. Participants spoke of the value in building stronger networks across these fields, treating them like partners instead of solely sources for a story. One shared example was coordinating journalists, scientists, first responders, and local communities during climate disasters so that accurate information reaches people when it matters most. These alliances are also important in the fight against government attempts at information control.
The stakes are high. Many worry that as people turn to fragmented platforms and sources that confirm what they already believe, societies are losing the shared facts democracy needs. As one participant put it, “A diversity of opinions is healthy — a diversity of realities is dangerous.”
A special thank you to the sponsors of Newsgeist 2026: Der Spiegel, FT Strategies, the Knight Foundation, Zeit Stiftung Bucerius, Funke and the City of Hamburg. We also thank Hamburg Media School and Der Spiegel for hosting, and everyone who made the weekend so rich. Let the conversations continue, both at future Newsgeists and beyond.
Share
