In 2008, researchers at Cardiff University conducted one of the most comprehensive studies ever attempted on British journalism. They analyzed over 2,000 articles from the UK's leading newspapers and found something that shocked even media critics. A full 60 percent of the stories consisted mainly of wire copy or PR material, reproduced with little or no additional reporting. Only 12 percent of articles showed evidence that journalists had independently generated the story.

This pattern has intensified dramatically since then. As newsrooms have shed staff—American newspapers have lost two-thirds of their journalists since 2005—the public relations industry has grown to outnumber reporters by roughly six to one. The result is an information ecosystem where much of what appears as journalism actually originates from organizations seeking coverage. Press releases, media kits, and PR-generated research flow into newsrooms designed to handle three times the content with a fraction of the staff.

The consequences extend far beyond questions of journalistic craft. When news organizations cannot independently verify claims, investigate alternatives, or provide critical context, they effectively transfer agenda-setting power to whoever can produce the most polished, story-ready material. Understanding this dynamic is essential for anyone trying to make sense of how news actually gets made—and whose interests it ultimately serves.

The term 'churnalism' was coined by journalist Nick Davies to describe the process of churning out stories from pre-packaged material rather than original reporting. What began as an epithet has become an analytical category, with researchers developing sophisticated methods to track how PR content migrates into news coverage.

Studies consistently find that press releases form the backbone of much news content. A 2010 Australian study found that nearly 55 percent of news stories were driven by some form of public relations activity. German research has documented similar patterns, with one study finding that 62 percent of political journalism relied substantially on PR inputs. In the United States, a Pew Research analysis found that campaign coverage often consisted of little more than repackaged announcements.

The pattern is particularly pronounced in specialized beats. Health journalism draws heavily on pharmaceutical company releases. Technology coverage frequently echoes product announcements. Business journalism relies on corporate communications. Science reporting depends on university press offices. In each case, the organizations being covered have become the primary generators of information about themselves.

What makes churnalism so prevalent is that it often looks indistinguishable from independent reporting. A skilled PR professional crafts releases in journalistic style, with quotes ready for insertion and data presented in news-friendly formats. Wire services, themselves under pressure, may add a sentence or two before distribution. By the time material reaches readers, its origins have been thoroughly laundered.

The academic literature distinguishes between 'information subsidies'—material that reduces the cost of news production—and outright manipulation. But this distinction matters less when newsrooms lack the resources to evaluate what they receive. A press release from a credible-seeming source, arriving on deadline, often gets published simply because no one has time to do otherwise.

Takeaway

The proportion of news derived from PR material reveals journalism's actual production process—one increasingly dependent on sources with vested interests in how stories get told.

The structural transformation is stark. Between 2008 and 2020, American newspaper employment fell from 71,000 to 31,000. Local television newsrooms have experienced similar contractions. Meanwhile, the public relations and communications industry has grown steadily, now employing an estimated 270,000 professionals in the United States alone.

This creates what media scholars call an 'information subsidy' asymmetry. Organizations with communications budgets can afford to produce story-ready content continuously. They maintain media relations teams, hire former journalists who understand news values, and commission research designed to generate coverage. Newsrooms facing these organized information campaigns often have a single reporter covering beats that once employed entire teams.

The asymmetry operates across every dimension of news production. PR professionals have time to cultivate relationships with reporters. They can respond instantly to inquiries while newsrooms struggle to return calls. They produce polished multimedia packages while journalists shoot video on phones. They conduct and publicize research while newsrooms lack budgets for original investigation.

Consider a typical beat reporter covering healthcare for a regional newspaper. She faces dozens of pitches daily from hospital systems, pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers, health insurers, and advocacy groups. Each pitch arrives as a complete package: data, quotes, context, and often photography. To ignore all this material and develop original stories would require weeks of work per piece. To meet daily quotas, she must rely on these subsidies.

The result is not necessarily inaccurate coverage, but coverage whose agenda reflects the priorities of well-resourced communicators. Stories that no one pitches go uncovered. Perspectives from organizations without PR capacity remain unheard. The news becomes a curated selection of what sources want known rather than what journalists independently discover.

Takeaway

When one journalist faces six communications professionals, the question is not whether PR shapes news but how much independence journalism can maintain under structural disadvantage.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of PR-driven journalism is its invisibility to audiences. Readers cannot distinguish a story developed through original investigation from one assembled from a press release. The byline suggests authorship. The institutional brand implies verification. Nothing in the presentation reveals how the story actually came to exist.

Journalism's conventions actively obscure these origins. Reporters remove 'according to a press release' attributions because they seem unprofessional. Editors strip language that might suggest the story wasn't independently developed. House style emphasizes active voice constructions that imply journalistic agency even when the reporter simply reformatted source material.

Academic researchers can trace these origins through detailed content analysis, comparing published stories against distributed press releases. But ordinary readers lack access to the original materials and the time to conduct such analysis. They must trust that news organizations maintain editorial standards—a trust that industry economics increasingly make difficult to honor.

Some outlets have experimented with transparency measures. The New Zealand Herald briefly required journalists to tag stories generated from press releases. Academic journals in health reporting have called for disclosure of industry-sponsored research. But these initiatives remain exceptions. Most news organizations resist transparency about their production processes, fearing it would undermine already fragile credibility.

The result is a kind of soft deception operating at scale. Audiences believe they are receiving independently gathered information when they are often receiving material designed to serve particular interests. This deception need not involve false statements—most press releases contain accurate information. But accuracy differs from independence, and readers cannot assess independence from what appears on the page.

Takeaway

Journalism's conventions hide the true origins of stories, making it impossible for audiences to distinguish independent reporting from sophisticated public relations.

The transformation of journalism from investigation to aggregation represents a fundamental shift in democratic information infrastructure. When news organizations cannot afford to independently verify claims or pursue stories that no one pitches, they become distribution channels for organized interests rather than independent watchdogs.

This is not a story of villainous PR professionals corrupting noble journalists. It is a story of structural forces reshaping an industry. Advertising revenue migrated to platforms. Subscription models struggle to replace lost income. And communications professionals, doing their jobs effectively, filled the information vacuum that understaffed newsrooms created.

Understanding this dynamic matters because solutions require addressing root causes rather than symptoms. Fact-checking initiatives cannot compensate for reporting that never happens. Media literacy cannot help readers identify sources they cannot see. Only sustainable journalism funding can restore the resource balance that independent reporting requires.