Why hyper-personalisation could undermine the authority publishers rely on

In attempting to give people what they want, could we lose the curatorial function of news gathering?

by Rob Corbidge

Published: 14:59, 27 November 2025

Listening recently to an old interview with The Lord of the Rings author J.R.R Tolkien, he offered an observation about the uniqueness of individuals that explained the difficulty of writing for anyone but himself. "Every single person in the world has a different spoken voice you know, we're all unique." 

This observation was punctuated by the pleasing sound of puffing on a pipe, which added a considered air often missing in our more fast-spoken times. Tolkien was a philologist first, a lover of languages, as anyone who has read his works can understand, but yet his broad learning could come down to seeing what the individual meant, and how each of those unique human voices contributed to the whole.

Allow me a jump here, as reading through some ideas about audience capture, this tangent of thinking about individuality led me to considering what we mean by "personalisation" in publishing and whether by attempting to do so, we are trying to personalise against an average person and therefore personalising against no-one. 

The primary issue with personalisation is actually one of definition. We go from "you read about fly fishing so here's some extra fly fishing stuff" to "here's a whole homepage curated to your general interest pattern" and all points in between. It means different things to different publishers, and bearing in mind the multiplicity of audiences, it should. In broad terms, we're trying to give the people what the people want. It's a technical challenge Glide CMS has risen to on many occasions, with our unrivalled content categorisation capabilities (shameless plug, well done Rob. Ed.). 

A new and deeper form of potential personalisation is now a prospect, "hyper-personalisation" and yes dear reader, GenAI features as the enabler. One senior digital news executive has recently raised this idea through the prospect of having different versions of the same story available to different readers based on their known preferences. You can see how this might work technically, although what it would contribute editorially is a tougher question.

With something like Sports reporting, one can see a use. If for example, you're interested in the performance of a particular up-and-coming athlete on the basis they're from your country, then the fact they came third in the event and all the coverage is about the winner, you might prefer a story that goes in on what a prospect they are. Could that be extracted from the canonical write and then rewritten using an AI tool to reflect your preferences? It's possible, although how clumsy it might be and how it would affect the flow and quality of the existing write is open to question.

It gets much harder when it comes to hard stuff though. Conflicts for example. History isn't necessarily written by the winners - ask the Mongols - but conflicts inevitably have the stories of at least two sides as part of what has made them a conflict in the first place. Questions of ethics and bias already revolve around such reporting, without adding a machine-enabled bias layer, and you can bet your bottom dollar that bias is already trained in, just ask the recently and quite publicly re-educated Grok. For many publications who set their commercial stall out on the basis of authority, having such variability drawn from a single content source eats away at the very foundations of what they actually are. In short, you pay them to tell you what's important, not to pander to your biases.

With that said, it's possible to offer another use of "personalisation" as it pertains to our industry and it's one we already know all about. In fact, I'd say its the single best tool we have to differentiate ourselves as the tide of slop rises - people.

There's been much discussion in recent years that audiences have shifted somewhat in preference to not only value what they are being told, but who is telling them. There's no doubt the dial of the "who" has shifted from general faith in news gathering organisations to that of individual journalists or content creators, whether they be part of an organisation or not. This is not something new really, and in the UK for example, you can argue it's a return to our usual rancour and dispute after just a few decades of post-war consensus, hence the current struggles of the BBC.

This, I would argue, is personalisation in the shape of people choosing people to interpret the world for them. Publishers are full of people who can do just that.