Technology, from apps to algorithms, can feel as seamless in our lives as the air we breathe.
But technology isn't neutral. As a foundation focused on technology and social justice, we see it every day. From the precarious and often-exploitative working conditions of the tech industry, to the amplification of online hate in countries that have seen mass atrocities, to the algorithms pushing content about self-harm and suicide to teenagers, or anti-democratic narratives – the giants of the attention economy are optimising for profit, not the safety of vulnerable and marginalised people.
And so, to us, this raises some basic questions:
- Do the stories we consume help us understand our digital world?
- How do we help ensure stories expose harms – and hold accountable today’s most powerful corporations?
At Luminate, we partnered with USC Annenberg Norman Lear Center to examine how these harms and corporate practices are represented in news and entertainment coverage in the UK, US and France.
They analysed 76 TV episodes and films, 174 print articles, and more than 100 hours of TV news coverage across these three countries. They also surveyed over 2,000 audience members.
And their findings, presented in a report called "Off the Hook," shine a light on a major gap in public discourse: while audiences engage with stories about the dangers of social media, they rarely see those harms linked to the structural decisions made by technology corporations, in the same way that other harm by corporate actors is represented – such as the fossil fuels industry or Big Tobacco.
TV news: missing context, misplaced focus
Often, TV news offers a narrow lens. Social media harms are widely acknowledged, but rarely contextualised.
Coverage disproportionately fixates on CEOs over systems or survivors: Elon Musk alone accounted for over 25% of all TV mentions – more than the term 'social media' itself.
Meanwhile, social media’s impact on democracy, public health, or elections made up just 5% of TV news coverage combined.
And mentions of systemic concepts like "attention economy" and "surveillance capitalism" appeared fewer than 50 times across all channels.
The result: audiences are left with a fragmented picture, focused on individuals rather than corporate practices, and intrigue and hype over harm.
Print news: a fuller picture, but too few voices
Print often offers a more comprehensive picture of how technology companies shape our world, with 67% of articles mentioning key sources of harm, including profit motive (35%), algorithms (33%), monopoly power (28%), lobbying tactics (11%), etc.
Strikingly, while over 90% of articles acknowledged harms, only 5% featured voices from people directly affected. 70% of sources quoted were men, just 16% were people of colour, and only 15% came from non-profits.
That absence leaves the tech policy discussion largely in the hands of tech CEOs with vested business interests and excludes survivors of online harm, the general public and a diversity of voices from shaping our understanding of how to address the myriad of serious crises in which the role of tech corporations is implicated.
Scripted entertainment: blames users, fatalistic framing
Most films and shows frame these issues as family problems or teen crises. 40% of episodes focused on youth, but fewer than 10% identified tech firms or business models as the source of harm.
Of 76 TV episodes and films analysed, only six pointed to corporate practices, and just one - from South Park - depicted any form of collective action.
The net effect: the blame is put on social media users, but the root causes remain invisible, and it sends the message that change is too complex or not possible.
Audiences: a clear appetite for better stories
However, audiences still see through the gaps. In survey data, over 80% of people said they want stories in the entertainment content they consume about whistleblowers, online abuse survivors, and communities standing up to Big Tech . Younger and more progressive audiences expressed the strongest interest.
In other words, people want narrative depth. They want stories that diagnose the problem - and give them agency to imagine a way out.
An opportunity to shift narratives and hold power to account
For journalists and creators alike, this report offers a framework for what a more expansive form of storytelling about the digital age could look like – and identifies ways to get us there. Including:
- Craft stories that show the full spectrum of social media harms: From marginalised communities to public health or climate change.
- But always draw attention to the key drivers of harms: Expose and challenge the systemic, fatally flawed business models of social media and tech corporations. Such representation of systemic underlying issues has been done successfully many times in stories about other powerful economic sectors – Erin Brockovitch, Blood Diamond, The Constant Gardener, Thank You for Smoking have all made a lasting cultural contribution. The tech justice conversation is yet to have such touchstones, although the research singled out The Good Fight, having built a storyline around Section 230, tech accountability, and the silencing of whistleblowers.
- Avoid the tech CEO personality cult: While important and relevant, it shouldn’t obscure the deeper structural drivers of how the business models of technology corporations shape our world, and how we can prevent harm.
- Flip the script from common industry practices: Journalists, who are accustomed to highlighting systemic problems, might consider lifting up the personal stories of those most affected. Entertainment creators, who are exceptionally skilled at telling character-driven stories, have an opportunity to show how corporations’ practices are drivers of harm.
- Model collective action, not just individual resilience: “Gloom-and-doom” stories can make people feel like complex problems aren’t solvable. Rather than portraying harms as inevitable or insoluble, the emphasis could shift to what communities and institutions can do to challenge and change the system.
A useful resource for the tech justice movement
We hope these findings reveal critical strategic opportunities for the tech justice movement and that the report offers insights and data that will help:
- Design campaigns grounded in where audiences are at in their understanding of tech issues.
- Support journalists and creators in telling more accurate, representative stories, particularly lifting up the voices of real people impacted by harms.
- Use this data to push for greater media accountability in how tech harms are portrayed
- Equip advocates with evidence that the public is ready for bolder storytelling.
At its best, news and entertainment, help us make sense of the world: not just as it is, but also how it could be.
This important research shows there are huge opportunities to tell a fuller picture of the challenges we face – and in doing so, take us one step closer to technology that advances social justice and protects our human rights.