TNH Audience Survey 2024

Leaders in the aid sector come to The New Humanitarian for expert analysis, coverage of ongoing crises, and to hear the voices of people affected by humanitarian crises, according to the newsroom’s biennial reader survey. Respondents said they read TNH often and our journalism regularly informs their decisions and thinking on key humanitarian issues.

What our readers told us

Respondents continue to feel that mainstream media coverage of humanitarian issues is inadequate in both quantity and quality, with nearly three-quarters saying TNH fills an important gap in global reporting.
Our readers remain influential in the aid sector: almost half work in international NGOs, while 12% work for local NGOs and nearly 58% of respondents have decision-making power within their organisations.
Among respondents, 83% say our work prompted them to look into a topic, while 26% said our reporting has led to push for internal/external policy change in their work.
Readers told us we are at our best when delivering consistent coverage of ongoing crises, offering decolonised forms of reporting that amplify voices and stories from affected people, and expert analysis.

Our readers come to us often for journalism they trust

Half of respondents – there were just under 500 in 2024 – say they come to TNH at least weekly. The primary places they access our journalism remain the newsletter (70%) and website (48%). Our podcast has become a key platform for some 35% of respondents, a 20% increase from 2022, and 93% of listeners said they would recommend the podcast. 91% even noted that they have gained a better understanding of ideas and best practices due to TNH podcasts.

Nearly three quarters of readers and listeners come to us because TNH reports on issues that other news outlets do not. Another 70% say we publish investigations into the aid sector that are hard to find elsewhere. Some 36% of readers find us more trustworthy than other news sources, a figure that has remained consistent with past survey results, reflecting sustained confidence in our reporting over time.

Words readers use to describe The New Humanitarian.

How often readers come to TNH

Weekly (51%)
Daily (23%)
Occasionally (16%)
Monthly (9%)

Our readers continue to recognise that we excel in consistently reporting on ongoing crises, practising decolonised journalism in platforming the experiences and voices of those living through crises, as well as publishing expert analyses of humanitarian issues.

More than 60% of our audience reads TNH for coverage of global, cross-cutting topics. Nearly 60% are also drawn to our journalism for its creative presentations, regardless of the specific focus. Policy and conflict remain top of the list of topics our readers want to see covered more, followed by success stories and best practices. Some 30% follow for coverage of a particular region and 25% are looking for stories about a specific country, a significant decrease from 2022.

Readers of TNH also feel that mainstream media coverage of humanitarian issues is inadequate in quantity and quality, and that TNH fills that gap for them. This continues to echo results of past surveys.

Readers react to whether mainstream media is adequate in quantity and quality

“TNH fills a gap in media coverage. The nuance and in-depth knowledge of the sector is its strongest asset.”
“Mainstream media outlets leave many issues that are not considered of interest to an audience of a country in which they operate, and even when they do provide coverage on an issue, it is not usually sustained for long and lacks meaningful analysis. There is also little critical discussion and reflection on the humanitarian sector in terms of international organisations, and coverage on domestic humanitarian policy is only marginally better.”
“Most humanitarian aspects of crises are not covered by mainstream media unless the crisis makes top news.”
“Many small to medium crises do not get adequate media coverage.”
“Mainstream media coverage is not adequate because of the western dominated, foreign correspondent model that devalues voices of local and national journalists.”
“Narrow reporting with no depth and often one-sided not providing historical context.”

Our readers are decision-makers in the humanitarian space

Nearly 58% of respondents hold decision-making power in their organisations. This is a key insight, as it means our reporting reaches those with the authority to directly shape policies, allocate resources, and drive strategic initiatives. 11% of our respondents noted that our reporting has influenced a funding decision, while 18% noted that our reporting prompted a needs assessment.

Our readers are decision-makers in the humanitarian space

“Your emphasis on first-person narratives and an opinion piece on the significance of forced migrants’ voices in World Refugee Day coverage led us to start a new series in our own communications.”
“TNH informs policy discussions, allows insights from best practices, and keeps staff current on emergent issues.”
“Information produced by TNH has allowed us to analyse Venezuela’s situation in relation to other crises around the world, to support internal strategic decisions. As well, reports and analyses by TNH have supported our arguments in relation to the international response to the Venezuelan humanitarian emergency.”
“It has helped raise awareness on situations in Uganda and Ethiopia that initiated further assessments.”
“We are in the process of overhauling our grants program and TNH provides continuous topics for us to consider.”
“The TNH analysis helps me draft advocacy notes that can shift policy positions in the ongoing crisis in northeast Nigeria.”

TNH readers working in the humanitarian sector are usually decision-makers within their organisations

Some decision-making authority or influence (30%)
Significant decision-making authority or influence (20%)
Minimal decision-making authority or influence (19%)
Final decision-making authority (7%)
Others (24%)

We help them make better decisions

Readers told us about a number of ways TNH’s journalism impacts their professional lives – 77% said our work is important to theirs.

Where our survey respondents work:

Our journalism has helped inform funding decisions, set strategy, and develop programmes. Many readers see our reporting as a resource for their research and background information. A notable number of respondents mentioned that our coverage has helped inform and shape individual and organisational thoughts around decolonising aid and localisation.

Take-aways and learnings

In the survey, we asked readers for one thing they’d like to see us improve. Our readers and listeners suggest broadening our coverage even more by linking localisation to funding shortages and the politicisation of aid, as well as focusing more on feminist humanitarian action, the climate crisis, and NGO management. They also recommend adding more visual formats, such as photo essays and short videos, and including a comment section on our website. Finally, readers encourage us to continue amplifying local voices and exploring innovative partnerships.

We take all of this feedback on board to help us serve you, our audience, as best we can, and want to thank everyone who took the time to fill out the survey.