Liberating Talent Requires Liberating Leadership First

Deborah Turness finally said what I’ve been hoping someone at her level would say.

Creator journalism is “fast becoming the show.”

The former head of BBC News gave a speech last week, urging newsrooms to let journalists build direct relationships with audiences on YouTube, Substack, and TikTok. She said it’s time to stop treating broadcast as the center of everything.

It matters that someone at her level said this out loud.

It also matters that she waited until she left the BBC to say it.

I see this all the time. Leaders know what needs to change, but they only speak up once they’re out of the job.

Inside, the pull of the institution is too strong. Speaking out feels like betrayal. Or career suicide. Sometimes both.

So the truth gets whispered in hallways. Shared quietly. Saved for the exit interview.

What makes the BBC respected is also what puts it at risk.

The BBC has always been the gold standard for journalism. That pride built trust over decades.

But that same pride now stands in the way of change.

I’m certain the conversations in those rooms sound familiar:

“These creators aren’t real journalists.”

“We have standards. They have ring lights.”

“This isn’t how we do things here.”

The pushback against creators on new platforms isn’t really about ethics or quality. It’s about identity. It’s about who gets to call themselves a journalist.

That attitude is hurting legacy news faster than any algorithm.

Ready to transform artificial intelligence from a buzzword into your personal revenue generator?

HubSpot’s groundbreaking guide "200+ AI-Powered Income Ideas" is your gateway to financial innovation in the digital age.

Inside you'll discover:

Download your guide today and unlock a future where artificial intelligence powers your success. Your next income stream is waiting.

Get Your Guide

Not everyone agrees with Turness.

Jon Laurence — former Sky News, now VP at Newpress — called her "one of the most significant traditional executives to offer a meaningful response to the creator-journalist phenomenon." But he pushed back on the format question: broadcasters can never compete with creators on personality within the constraints of impartiality. Instead, they should leverage their talent’s decades of collective expertise to “fight on depth.”

He has a point. He works with one of the most successful independent long-form creators in the business, Johnny Harris.

But here’s the problem. You can’t focus on depth if your best people are burned out from the daily grind. You can’t use their expertise if digital is always an afterthought.

Letting people post on TikTok isn’t enough. You have to create the conditions for real depth.

That comes back to leadership.

Turness talked about liberating talent. But she left something out.

You can’t liberate talent without first liberating leadership.

Journalists are ready. They see what’s happening. They watch creators build audiences while their own stories get lost in the 6 pm rundown. They want to be part of the change.

People inside already know what Turness is saying. They’ve been waiting for leadership to do something.

But unless leadership sends a clear signal, nothing changes.

I’ve seen newsrooms where training took place. The tools were there. Everyone nodded along in the workshop.

Then everyone went back to editorial meetings that were still 90% about broadcast.

“What’s the 5 pm lead?”

“Can we slice this for social?”

“Who’s doing the live shot?”

Same conversations. Same priorities. Same structure. Digital stays an afterthought.

Here’s what gets me.

You can send people to every creator workshop. You can hire consultants. You can talk about being digital-first in every meeting.

But if the daily editorial conversation doesn’t change, if leadership doesn’t show multi-platform thinking in every decision, people will keep doing what they’ve always done.

People watch what you prioritize, not what you say.

Turness called for a “flywheel newsroom” — digital-first production where broadcast becomes the byproduct, not the blueprint.

That’s the right vision. But without daily practice, it’s just a speech.

Here’s what I’ve learned about what actually moves the needle:

1. Curious leadership.

Leaders who study creators instead of dismissing them. Who can name five news creators doing it well. Who watches TikTok not to mock it, but to understand why it’s working.

When I ask news executives which creators they admire, most can’t answer. They haven’t done the homework. They’re leading change they don’t fully understand.

2. Story-first thinking.

Every editorial meeting should start with: “Where does this story live best?”

Not “What’s the TV angle?” Not “Can we cut this for web?”

The story comes first. The platform follows.

It sounds simple, but it means rewiring decades of habit.

3. Relentless consistency.

Saying it once isn’t enough. Saying it in a speech isn’t enough either.

The message has to be everywhere. Every day. In every editorial decision.

People need to hear you ask about TikTok strategy so often that it feels normal. They need to see you celebrate digital wins just like you celebrate ratings.

Transformation isn’t a memo. It’s a thousand small signals that add up to real permission.

What would it take for a sitting news executive to say this while they’re still in the chair?

Transformation doesn’t happen from the outside. It happens when someone in power decides to use their power for change while they still can.

Turness gave the speech. It mattered. It backed up what many of us have been saying for years.

But the eyerolls don’t stop just because someone important agrees.

They stop when leadership decides that the discomfort of change is better than the cost of staying the same.

They stop when the person running the newsroom walks into the meeting and asks, “What’s our TikTok strategy for this story?” and actually means it.

They stop when showing up on new platforms isn’t just a side project for young producers, but the expectation for everyone.

Trust has moved from institutions to individuals.

That’s true for audiences. It’s true inside newsrooms, too.

Journalists don’t trust leadership to protect them during change. They’ve seen what happens to people who try new things and fail. They’ve watched colleagues get burned for being early.

Leaders don’t trust staff to adapt. They see the resistance, the eyerolls, the ‘we’ve always done it this way’ attitude.

Both sides wait for the other to move first. Someone has to break the cycle.

It has to be leadership.

Because you can’t ask your people to be vulnerable, to try new platforms, to risk looking foolish, if you’re not willing to do the same.

Liberating talent starts with liberating yourself.

From the fear of not having all the answers.

From the comfort of doing what’s always worked.

From the pull of the institution that keeps everyone in place.

Turness pointed to the future. The real question is whether anyone still inside will actually move toward it.

What would it take for your organization to actually liberate its talent, while leadership is still responsible for making it happen?