The rise of influencers and the fall of journalism

Every year faculty members within each college select a peer as their Madison Scholar, and this year’s College of Business honoree is Dr. John Guo, professor in the Department of Computer Information Systems and Business Analytics. Madison Scholars exemplify scholarly excellence and achievement in their respective discipline. To mark Guo’s selection, he presented his research on the paradoxes of social media on Nov. 5 in Hartman Hall’s Forum.

Titled “From TV to TikTok: A Paradoxical View of Social Media Proliferation,” Guo’s presentation was a conglomerate of research papers that have previously been accepted for publication, and his ongoing research on the topic. 

Guo has been the recipient of numerous research-related awards and has had his papers published in notable journals such as Communications of the Association for Information Systems, European Journal of Information Systems and Information & Management. 

He earned a Ph.D. in Business Information Systems from Mississippi State University, a M.S. in Operations & Management Information Systems from Northern Illinois University, and a B.B.A. in International Marketing from Guangdong University of Foreign Studies in China. 

Prior to his Madison Scholar presentation, Guo shared the following insights about his research and how it can inform the future.

College of Business: Your Madison Scholar presentation is titled “From TV to TikTok: A Paradoxical View of Social Media Proliferation.” What inspired this topic, and what does the title mean?

Guo: It started with a dinner conversation with my daughter, a high school senior at the time. She was talking about Joe Rogan as a news source, and I asked if she ever watched CNN or MSNBC. Her response? “They’re boring.” That moment sparked a realization that there’s a subtle but significant shift happening in how younger generations consume news. Traditional journalism, with its emphasis on professionalism and objectivity, is losing ground to influencers and bite-sized content. The paradox is that while legacy media should be adapting, many outlets are either stubbornly resisting change or copying their TV content onto platforms like TikTok without tailoring it. There’s a disconnect between what journalists think audiences want and what audiences actually engage with.

CoB: Your research spans multiple studies on social media. Can you give us a high-level overview of what you’ve been exploring?

Guo: It started when I was a doctoral student, when I was writing my dissertation back in 2009. Facebook was just getting popular, so I was studying the proliferation of a new form of social media, and that segued into deeper research. Why do people prefer this format of communication? Over time, that evolved into exploring how users perceive value in these platforms. I’ve always been drawn to cross-disciplinary conversations—talking with colleagues in media arts, engineering, business—and those discussions helped shape my current research. What I’m seeing is a generational shift in news consumption, driven by convenience and emotional resonance. Students today aren’t watching cable news; they’re getting news and information from TikTok and X [formerly known as Twitter]. That shift raises deeper questions about motivation, identity and how technology shapes behavior.

CoB: Your work suggests that users often rely on social cues—like comments or likes—when evaluating content. What does that mean for platforms trying to fight misinformation?

Guo: It means there’s a dilemma. On the one hand, they want that critical mass to remain profitable and sustainable—always growing. So a large volume of interactions, even if they are fighting and arguing, is good from the platform standpoint because they are engaged in some way. They want that. But on the other hand, when misinformation spreads, it becomes harder to manage. Platforms like X have faced backlash for banning controversial figures, and that can threaten their user base. My research isn’t about policing content—it’s about raising awareness. We’re exploring ways to help users pause and reflect, like adding simple, clear labels to questionable content. We’ve tested different designs, and found that flashy animations don’t work well. What does work is straightforward messaging—bold text, high contrast and minimal distraction. It’s about helping users stay informed without overwhelming them.

CoB: How do you see your research informing the design of better social media experiences, especially in a global context?

Guo: We’re not trying to steer the wheel, but we’re helping users read the road signs. I often compare it to driving a car: we’re not telling people where to go, but we are encouraging them to pay attention to stop signs, speed limits and caution signals. In the context of social media, that means helping users recognize when content might be misleading. Instead of labeling something as “false,” we suggest a softer approach, like adding a clear, simple message that says “Disputable content—check third-party sources.” Our experiments show that subtle design choices, like bold white text on a dark red background, are more effective than flashy animations. We're trying to find that nuanced balance, not too sophisticated, easy to digest, but not so coarse either, so that people can understand the context.

CoB: What’s the “paradox” in social media proliferation that you’re referring to?

Guo: Really, it’s two-fold. You have a professional journalist who's constructing the news content that we're supposed to trust, we're supposed to have our faith in. But on the other hand, you have Joe Rogan and Under the Desk News, which are not professional journalism outlets, attracting a lot of attention.

And number two is that journalists and viewers have very different ideas about what makes news valuable. When you survey viewers as to what are the most important attributes when it comes to news content quality, and you ask these questions to journalists, you get very different answers. We're not trying to police that evaluation. We're not saying who's right or wrong. I'm saying, “Okay, journalist, I understand you're coming from your professional background thinking objectivity and independence is of the utmost importance, but your viewers don't think that. They want to see something that is more emotionally attachable.”

CoB: What’s next for your research? Are there new questions you’re excited to explore?

Guo: Yes! We are trying to expand our data collection. Right now, every single data item will take us approximately two hours to collect, and when it comes to research, generalizability matters, meaning you need to collect adequate large-sized sample data to represent the true population. I also want to pick the minds of my colleagues. What do they think? Many of them are my age and have children, so I presume they have a very similar experience to mine in terms of “my kids have very different news consumption behavior than I do.” So I want to ask, “How many of you have cable to watch CNN in the house?” I would guess a lot of them would raise their hand. But in my classroom, it's zero. How come these habits do not get inherited within the family?