This article was originally published on ANA’s Industry Insights blog on November 12th, 2024.

I get it. We’ve all felt the impulse to turn off the news and disengage from its bad vibes. The divisiveness, the constant stream of conflict—it’s exhausting, and it’s no wonder so many people choose to tune it out—I share the same impulse.

But tuning out entirely comes at a cost. Beneath the barrage of polarized opinions and sensationalized stories, there’s still a wealth of exceptional journalism that we end up denying ourselves. Unfortunately, it’s not always easy to find, and these days, you have to wade through a sea of negativity to get there. But it’s worth it—always worth it—if it adds depth and understanding to our lives and makes us more informed and engaged citizens.

Brands, in their own way, face a similar dilemma. To avoid potential backlash and perceived risks of being associated with polarizing content, many have opted to pull away from supporting news altogether, choosing instead to focus on “neutral” spaces and apolitical influencers. Better not to take the risk.

This approach miscalculates the nature of risk and carries significant downsides. By retreating from news, brands not only close off opportunities to reach valuable audiences—they also weaken the media ecosystem and silence public discourse. The impulse, while understandable, reveals a fundamental flaw in how brand safety has been defined and enforced—and it calls for a complete reevaluation.

The shift toward apolitical influencers and the broader consequences

The move toward apolitical influencers is part of a broader aversion to news content that’s been building for years. What began as a strategic impulse to avoid controversy has been institutionalized through blunt brand safety mechanisms like keyword blocklisting. While these tools were originally designed to protect brands, they’ve made it nearly impossible to distinguish between genuinely harmful content and legitimate news reporting, resulting in the systematic demonetization of news media.

Terms like “election,” “immigration,” and even “health” are frequently flagged as potential risks, making it difficult for media outlets to sustain the revenue necessary to produce quality journalism. Meanwhile, less reputable sources—unburdened by these same restrictions—thrive. At the same time, there’s been a rise in fake, AI-generated, made-for-advertising content that gets monetized in place of the credible, fact-based journalism that traditionally serves as the fourth estate. This happens because of a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes “safe” content.

Redefining brand safety: civility, credibility, and context

Brands must rethink what “safe” means in today’s media environment. The real threat to a brand’s reputation isn’t the presence of political or social issues but how these topics are covered. Incivility, misinformation, and sensationalism are the true dangers. Instead of relying on binary definitions of risk that focus on keywords or broad categories, brands should assess the civility of the discourse, the quality of the information, and the credibility of the source.

To navigate this complex environment, brands need to move beyond binary definitions of suitability and adopt frameworks that prioritize civility, context, and credibility over sanitized or apolitical content. This means evaluating whether a piece of content is transparent, well-researched, and presented thoughtfully. It’s about shifting from a defensive mindset to one that actively seeks alignment with values like integrity and respect for the audience.

Brands need tools and a perspective that can differentiate between divisive sensationalism and nuanced reporting. Supporting journalism that challenges audiences while maintaining fairness and accuracy can help brands move beyond the limitations of traditional brand safety measures. With the right approach, brands can become active participants in shaping public discourse.

Investing in news: an opportunity for brands to shape the media ecosystem

Choosing to support quality journalism is practical. The audiences drawn to credible journalism are among the highest-earning, most influential, and most loyal. What’s more, due to suppressed demand for news content, brands can now achieve better performance and efficiency at lower costs than in other environments.

Choosing to support news is a proactive investment in a sustainable media ecosystem. By backing quality journalism, brands can reinforce the role of journalism as a cornerstone of an informed society. This is an opportunity for brands to lead by example, demonstrating integrity and mission alignment by standing behind transparent, responsible reporting.

Choosing to support news is a strong expression of brand maturity and a mission-aligned action. It positions brands as leaders who value integrity and responsibility, distinguishing them from those that shy away from complex issues. The audiences that trust these high-quality environments are more receptive to brands that demonstrate a commitment to maintaining a healthy information landscape.

Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater

Brands’ retreat from news content has often been driven by a desire to avoid feeding into an increasingly polarized and uncivil discourse. The intention is understandable — to steer clear of contributing to the noise. But this approach has backfired. By withdrawing entirely, brands have inadvertently penalized the very publishers who can maintain fact-based journalism and protect civil discourse from being drowned out by an unruly cacophony of user-generated content and AI-driven filler.

The misguided search for sanitized, “safe” spaces ends up demonetizing—and potentially eliminating—civil discourse. If we don’t evolve our standards for what counts as safe, we risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Supporting quality journalism is not just about mitigating risk; it’s about preserving the environments where thoughtful engagement and constructive dialogue can thrive, especially when that discourse is about politics and other issues of public concern. Brands have the power to influence the media ecosystem in positive ways, and should use that influence more thoughtfully, empowered by a new generation of tools. Because the real risk isn’t in engaging with quality journalism—it’s in abandoning it altogether.