🤔 Why Gen Z Is Choosing Depth Over Speed: Podcasts & Social Media

Please take a look at the corresponding Substack episode.

There’s a story unfolding in the data that should give us hope, even as we navigate what feels like an increasingly fractured information landscape. It’s a story about choice, discernment, and a generation that refuses to be defined by the tools they’re forced to use.

The numbers tell us something we might have missed while doom-scrolling through our feeds: young people aren’t giving up on quality information. They’re actually hungrier for it than ever before. They’re just learning to find it in unexpected places.

People trust podcasts more than social media. But is the trust warranted?

Governance Institute of Australia: Ethics Report 2025

Digital News Report: Australia 2024

This is Heliox: Where Evidence Meets Empathy

Independent, moderated, timely, deep, gentle, clinical, global, and community conversations about things that matter.  Breathe Easy, we go deep and lightly surface the big ideas.

Thanks for listening today!

Four recurring narratives underlie every episode: boundary dissolution, adaptive complexity, embodied knowledge, and quantum-like uncertainty. These aren’t just philosophical musings but frameworks for understanding our modern world. 

We hope you continue exploring our other podcasts, responding to the content, and checking out our related articles on the Heliox Podcast on Substack. 

Transcript

0:25

Okay, so navigating the modern information landscape, it really can feel less like a simple scroll and more like trying to walk through a minefield. Definitely. It's tricky out there. You're constantly looking for those shortcuts for the knowledge you need, but how do you actually know what sources you can trust? Yeah, and where are we as audiences choosing to place our faith, especially when it comes to really crucial information? Exactly. Well, that tension, that fundamental push and pull between convenience and trust, that's what we're really digging into today. We've got a pretty substantial stack of Australian research here, mostly drawing from the annual Australian Ethics Index and also the Digital News Report. big ones good sources yeah and our mission basically is to try and quantify public trust look at media consumption habits and honestly the results that they show this really profound and actually widening gap and that wider context the sort of atmosphere this is all happening and that's pretty key isn't it the ethics index shows that what people expect in terms of ethics is well sky high it's at an all-time high yeah yeah scored 92 out of a hundred So Australians expect a lot from businesses and organizations. But the performance isn't matching up. Not even close. Performance is consistently failing to keep pace. And this massive disconnect, it's created what the research calls the ethics expectation deficit. And it currently sits at negative 49. Wow. Negative 49. Yeah, it's a very wide chasm. It shows audiences feel businesses, organizations, they're just consistently failing to deliver the ethical standards people demand. Okay, so let's unpack that core dichotomy then, Wow. where digital trust is kind of, crumbling, maybe even rapidly, and where, perhaps surprisingly, it's actually finding some new, reliable roots. We probably have to start where the problems are most acute, right? Because the digital world just generally seems to be viewed as fundamentally less ethical than real life. That sentiment is definitely pervasive. When you ask people, a majority of Australians believe that people portray themselves as more ethical online than they actually are in real life. Right. The curated self. Exactly. And this creates a really skeptical environment, particularly for younger generations. You know, Gen Z figuring out what's real, what's honest versus what's just performative. it's getting incredibly difficult. Oh, I can imagine. And then you layer on top the constant flood of misinformation, actual fake news, and now this increasingly realistic AI-generated content. Yeah. The line between what's authentic and what just looks authentic, it doesn't just blur. Sometimes it feels like it vanishes completely. And the numbers really confirm that feeling, that sort of pervasive distrust, especially when we drill down into the major social media platforms They were formally included in the ethics index for the 2025 report. And, well... How did they do? They consistently rank among the most negatively viewed sectors across the entire economy, right down at the bottom. Okay, let's get specific then. What do those negative perceptions look like in... Like, hard numbers. So we measure this using the net ethical score. That's basically the difference between the positive views and the negative views of a sector or company. Got it. So a negative score means more people view it negatively and positively. Precisely. A negative score means the public consensus finds that sector unethical. And the platforms are sinking fast. TikTok gets a net ethical score of negative 32. Minus 32. X, which was Twitter, is negative 31. Facebook sits at negative 27. And Instagram comes in at negative 22. These are significantly negative consensus views. Not good at all. And what's really fascinating there, I think, is how directly those trust scores seem to connect to your actual experience trying to consume news on them. Like you're trying to figure out if a headline is real or fake. Yeah. And the environment itself is basically flagged as untrustworthy from the get-go. Exactly right. The research shows audiences find it hardest to identify trustworthy information specifically on TikTok and X. The lowest scores. Yep. Meaning the platforms perceived as the least ethical are also the most challenging places to navigate if you're looking for factual content. it. It's a double whammy. Which leads to this huge contradiction for you, the user, right? Despite these, frankly, abysmal trust scores and the difficulty finding truth, we see this massive reliance on these platforms. A quarter of Australians now say social media is their main source of news. And that reliance, it's staggering among the young. For Gen Z, it jumps to almost two-thirds, a full 60%. Wow, 60%. Yeah, and that's a huge jump, too, 17 percentage points just since last year. So it creates this real tension. The generation that relies most heavily on social platforms for their daily updates is is simultaneously the most critical of their ethics. It's like being forced to get your main info from a shopkeeper you fundamentally distrust just because they happen to deliver the fastest. That's a really potent analogy. Yeah, you're going for speed and convenience, but that efficiency puts you squarely in that low trust zone. But maybe the search for information they can rely on, maybe that leads us nicely to the contrast. The emergence of podcasts. as a, well, a trusted oasis in this media desert. I think it does. Although when we look at the traditional media sector overall, you know, as a whole, it doesn't actually score that well either. Oh, really? Yeah. It continues to place near the bottom of the ethics rankings with a net index of negative two, which is actually down four points from last year. Okay, so negative two overall. That's low, but that's kind of lumping everything together, isn't it? Newspapers, TV, radio, podcasts. Absolutely. That's the aggregate. And within that generally low trust sector, we find these critical islands of sort of high ethical regard. The research specifically calls out radio, FTA, that's free to air television and podcasts as the top ethical platforms. They stand in really stark positive contrast to those deeply negative scores of the social media platforms we just talked about. Right. And here's where it gets really, really interesting for me, because podcasts aren't just viewed as like a trusted format in theory. They seem to be strongly linked to something very tangible. the willingness to actually pay for news, which has got to be the clearest signal of perceived value, quality, maybe even commitment from the listener. The data on this is really compelling. You're right. And it suggests something deeper, maybe a structural preference. Get this. A striking 46% of news podcast listeners actually pay for news in some form. 46%? Compared to just 17% of non-listeners. Wow. Okay. That is a massive difference. Nearly three times higher. It's huge. So we have to ask, right? is this just correlation or is there some causation? Like, could it simply be that people who are already willing to pay for news are just more engaged generally, and so they gravitate towards, I don't know, higher effort formats like podcasts? That's a fair question. Or, or does the format itself actually cultivate that sense of value that makes you want to to pay. That's the critical distinction, I think. And if we connect this to the bigger picture, like global trust research, we know that journalistic standards, transparency, those are the key drivers of trust in news. And I would argue that the podcast format, by its nature, often cultivates that value. I mean, think about it. A podcast often offers deep dive interviews, maybe a clear narrative structure, dedicated editorial oversight. it demands time and focus from you, the listener. Yeah, it's definitely high effort consumption compared to just, you know, mindlessly scrolling a feed. Exactly. And when you as a consumer commit, say, 30 minutes to a host, maybe an expert guiding you through something complex... that interaction just feels inherently more transparent, more high value, doesn't it?- It does.- Compared to getting like a two-line headline via some anonymous algorithmically curated feed, the format itself seems to satisfy that demand for transparent high effort content, which then makes listeners feel like it's worth paying for. It helps fill that ethics expectation deficit we talked about. That makes perfect sense. So instead of these fast, maybe superficial updates that require you to constantly be skeptical, listeners are choosing focused, curated depth that they feel more confident consuming. Okay, let's shift then to the Australian listener profile. Because the demographics driving this podcast growth are pretty notable, too, right? Yeah, they really are. Overall, podcast listening is sitting at a pretty robust 42% in 2024. That's a lot of people. But the surge, the real energy, is clearly generational. It's being driven by the very same group we were just discussing. The young, digitally savvy ones. Yeah. The ones struggling with the performative ethics of social media. Precisely them. Gen Z has the highest listening rate by far. It's hit 61% for them. 61%. And that's a massive 14 percentage point increase just since 2022. It's not just them either. We're seeing Gen X listening climb quite a bit too, from 32% up to 37%. Okay. And younger women, specifically Gen Y women, they're rapidly increasing their podcast use as well, up to 49%. So these are the groups often seen as prime targets for digital information wars, maybe misinformation. Right. And they are actively choosing an alternative high trust format. So wait, these are the generations most fluent in digital media, the ones who grew up online. Yeah. But they're allocating their focused time, their real attention and effort toward high quality audio. That really suggests a search for substance over just speed, doesn't it? It really does. So what are they actually listening to in these high trust spaces? What kind of content? Well, the content breakdown seems to reinforce that search for substance, too. Specialist subjects think things like science, technology, business, health, they're the most popular topic category. That accounts for 20% of listeners.- Oh, okay. Topics where depth and verified expertise really matter.- Exactly, the deep dive, the structured learning, science. not just the quick update.- Makes sense.- Following closely behind are contemporary life topics that covers things like crime, broader societal issues, and also lifestyle fun, like food, fashion, arts. Both of those are at 17%.- Okay, still pretty popular. And it's interesting to note that traditional news, politics and international events podcasts, while steady, are actually slightly lower on the list, sitting at 14 percent. So that confirms the utility they're seeking. Often seems to be that specialized knowledge or maybe deep cultural insights that explain why. the why behind things. Yeah, the context. Rather than just the immediate breaking daily news cycle. Maybe they feel they get enough of the what elsewhere, but they need help understanding it. They're looking for clarity, explanation, perhaps, to fight the confusion the algorithms can sow. I think that's a really good way to put it. The overall growth, especially in that specialized listening, suggests that consumers are actively using the podcast format to build knowledge foundations. Maybe ones they feel they just can't construct reliably by skimming social feeds. It's like they're self-educating, but in a format they actually trust. Okay, so let's try and bring these two big threads together. The findings seem to paint a really complex, but maybe also a somewhat optimistic picture for you, the discerning media consumer out there. On one hand, Australians are deeply skeptical of online ethics generally. Very skeptical. Leading to those consistently low trust scores for the big social media platforms, which ironically often serve as the main gateway, the main discovery point for news for so many people. Especially young people. And yet simultaneously, they're showing very clearly where their appetite for high quality information truly lies. They're embracing the focused, curated content offered by podcasts, seeing them as one of the most ethical corners of the whole media sector. Right. Yeah. And the rise of podcast listening, particularly among Gen Z, remember, their overall news consumption is actually up five percentage points. It shows a generation that is absolutely not checking out of news. No, they're leaning in, but differently. Exactly. They're making a conscious, high effort choice. They seem to be choosing curated ethical platforms when they want deeper understanding, moving away from the chaotic, often untrusted algorithms of social media for that purpose. So the trust gap isn't necessarily leading to apathy, which is maybe what some feared. It seems like it's forcing users, forcing you to seek out high value, high effort journalism. Journalism they clearly value enough that they're increasingly willing to pay for it. And that is such a powerful signal to the entire media industry, isn't it? The data strongly suggests that quality, transparency, maybe even depth, these are the ultimate attractors in the long run. That willingness to pay, the search for specialist topics, the clear preference for this format over platform chaos, it all points toward a consumer base that's actively demanding and rewarding higher ethical standards. Which leaves us with a final provocative thought for you to mull over this week. Given the Gem Z is, as we've seen, deeply reliant on those low-trust social media platforms for news discovery. Mm-hmm. The starting point. But simultaneously, they're highly critical of the ethics of those platforms. and clearly hungry for high trust formats like podcasts for actual consumption and understanding. Will the continued growth of high trust media like podcasts be enough? Enough to insulate the next generation from the corrosive effects of misinformation? Or is that initial reliance on the platforms for discovery, for just finding the stories in the first place, is that a risk too great to overcome in the end? Something for you to keep thinking about as you navigate the news yourself this week.