Media's Second Push Into Video Is Not Slowing Down
The Verge reports that media companies' renewed shift toward video shows no sign of easing, echoing an earlier wave that reshaped newsrooms.
According to The Verge, the move by media companies toward video is not losing steam. In its weekly newsletter, The Stepback, the outlet argues that what it calls a second round of the pivot to video is still gathering pressure on publishers to produce moving-image content for online audiences.
The Verge points readers to the work of its reporter Mia Sato, who covers the demands placed on people who make content for the internet. The newsletter is written to break down one major story from the technology world each week, and this edition treats the continued push toward video as that central story.
The outlet's framing begins by looking back roughly a decade, to the first period when many publishers bet heavily on video. The newsletter then presents the current wave as a return of many of the same pressures, with video once again seen as a central way to reach audiences.
The available summary does not list specific companies, figures or outcomes, so the reporting here should be read as The Verge's assessment of a broad industry trend rather than a detailed accounting of individual decisions.
Background
The original pivot to video took shape in the mid-2010s. Social platforms, especially Facebook, rewarded native video with better distribution, and autoplay made clips feel like a default way to consume content. Many publishers responded by building video teams, hiring on-camera talent and reworking their coverage to suit short, visual formats. Some of those bets worked for a time, but many were later scaled back as platform priorities shifted and advertising rates for video did not always match the costs of producing it.
The sector also changed in the years that followed. Video-first platforms such as YouTube, TikTok and Instagram Reels created large audiences for individual creators, which pulled attention away from traditional outlets. Short vertical clips became a common format, and newsrooms began to treat video as a core product rather than an experiment. Production tools have also become cheaper and faster, which lowers the barrier to making video but raises competition for the same viewers.
A second push tends to draw on these lessons while facing new conditions. Publishers now have more data about what holds attention, but they also operate in a crowded environment where algorithms can change quickly and where audiences are used to free video from creators with no newsroom behind them. Understanding this history helps explain why the same argument keeps returning to the industry.
Why it matters
For readers, the shift shapes what kind of journalism they see. Video can explain complex events vividly, but it can also favor speed, emotion and format over depth. When a newsroom reallocates staff and budgets toward video, reporters who write, edit and investigate may find fewer resources available for their work.
For the business side, the stakes are about revenue and dependence. Media companies that build audiences on platforms they do not control face sudden changes in reach when algorithms shift. Video can bring large numbers of viewers, but those numbers do not always translate into stable income, which makes long-term planning difficult.
The trend also affects workers. Video production often requires new skills, new hours and new equipment, and layoffs in earlier waves showed how quickly these investments can be reversed. A second round raises questions about whether companies will treat video as a durable part of their work or as another temporary bet.
What to watch
Watch whether publishers announce new video teams, formats or partnerships, and whether those moves are backed by clear budgets. Pay attention to changes in how platforms rank and pay for video, since those rules shape which outlets can afford to keep investing.
Also look at how audiences respond. Engagement figures can rise without sustaining trust or subscriptions, so the more useful signals may be retention, repeat visits and direct support from readers. Finally, note whether newsrooms describe their video work in terms of journalism or simply as distribution.
Viewpoints
Commentary from our columns: three angles on this story.
The Ledger the business angle
The question for every newsroom in this moment is not whether video works, but whether it pays for itself. A video clip can travel far and fast, yet reach and revenue are different things, and too many media companies have learned that lesson the hard way. Building a business on a format owned by someone else means accepting rules that can change overnight. The smarter approach is to treat video as one channel among several and to measure it by what it returns after production costs, not by views alone. Subscriptions, sponsorships and direct relationships with viewers tend to hold up better than ad rates tied to an algorithm. If a company cannot explain how its video budget connects to durable income, the pivot is a gamble dressed up as a strategy. Investors and staff deserve clearer math than a chart of rising impressions.
The User what changes for people who use it
For people who read the news, the change is less about technology than about habit. A story that once arrived as a few paragraphs may now show up as a sixty-second clip, with the reporting compressed into what plays well on a phone. That can be useful when someone needs a quick overview, but it can also make it harder to find the context behind a headline. Viewers may find themselves watching more and reading less, often without noticing the trade. The practical advice is simple: when a video touches on something important, look for the written version or the original source. Choosing where to spend attention is still a personal decision, and it helps to notice which formats leave you better informed and which only leave you entertained.
The Skeptic open questions and weak points
Before accepting that a second pivot to video is inevitable, it is worth asking what has changed since the first one. Publishers once made similar promises, and many of those video operations were later reduced or shut down. The argument that audiences demand video sounds persuasive, but audiences also say they want careful reporting, and it is not clear that both demands can be met at the same budget. There are also open questions about measurement: viewing counts are easy to inflate and hard to compare across platforms. Enthusiasm from executives is not the same as evidence that the strategy works. A healthy skepticism would ask for data on repeat audiences, revenue per story and the cost of production compared with the written work it replaces. Until those answers are public, the trend deserves scrutiny rather than applause.