The good news is that Americans express greater trust in news organizations than they did a year ago. However, this confidence has limits. Many still question whether journalists thoroughly investigate election fraud claims or identify AI-generated content. Rising trust creates an opportunity to distinguish professional journalism in a crowded information marketplace. 

Two new studies offer complementary perspectives. Pew Research Center documents the broader rise in trust, while the Alliance for Trust/Medill Trust Tracker examines confidence in specific reporting tasks. Together, they highlight where audiences’ express confidence and where doubts persist. Accuracy, independence and verification underpin journalism’s value, but audiences also need to understand how newsrooms put those standards into practice. 

Trust improves across audience groups 

Pew’s September 2026 survey finds that 62% of Americans express at least some trust in information from national news organizations. That represents a six-percentage-point increase from September 2025. Local news earns greater trust, reaching 75%, up five points. Trust in information from social media remains essentially unchanged at 38%. 

The improvement spans political affiliations. Half of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents trust national news information, compared with 44% a year earlier. Among Democrats and Democratic leaners, trust reaches 73%, compared with 69%. Trust in local news also increases among Republicans and Republican leaners, from 64% in 2025 to 69% in 2026. Among Democrats and Democratic leaners, trust rises from 78% to 81% over the same period. 

Younger audiences also express greater trust. Among adults under 30, 60% trust national news information, compared with 51% in 2025. Trust in local news reaches 72%, compared with 65%. These findings challenge assumptions that younger audiences uniformly reject established news sources. 

The gains offer encouragement across political and age groups. However, national news trust remains below its 2016 level: 62% today versus 76% a decade ago. 

Specific responsibilities reveal confidence gaps 

The Alliance for Trust/Medill Trust Tracker adds detail about confidence in journalistic tasks. More than 60% express at least some confidence that news organizations report midterm results accurately, but only 32% express high confidence. 

Meanwhile, 58% express at least some confidence that news outlets explain early results. The same share expresses confidence that outlets wait for conclusive outcomes before declaring winners. Just over half express confidence that journalists thoroughly investigate voter fraud claims. 

These distinctions offer a practical focus: make reporting methods and editorial judgments easier to understand. Election results pages can explain outstanding votes and the evidence supporting race calls. Coverage of fraud allegations can describe what journalists investigate, what evidence they find and how that evidence supports their conclusions. 

The same approach applies to business, health, and other coverage. Explaining sources, methods and uncertainties gives audiences a clearer basis for assessing journalism. 

AI uncertainty creates a service opportunity 

Medill finds that few Americans strongly trust anyone to identify AI-generated or manipulated election content. Only 20% express high trust in their own ability, and 19% express high trust in news organizations. Confidence falls further for political campaigns (10%) and social media platforms (8%). News organizations earn greater trust than campaigns and platforms, but strong confidence remains limited. These findings measure perceptions rather than actual detection abilities. 

Publishers can address that uncertainty by explaining where questionable content comes from, how journalists check its accuracy and what remains unknown. For example, coverage can establish whether a circulating video depicts the event it claims to show and explain the supporting evidence. 

Newsroom, product and audience teams each have a role in making this work visible. Journalists can explain verification methods. Product teams can make sources and corrections easy to find. Audience teams can ask whether these explanations answer readers’ questions. 

Together, Pew and Medill’s findings underscore the value of credible journalism in an information marketplace where people struggle to assess what they encounter. Coverage that investigates questionable claims and clearly explains the evidence gives audiences a reason to turn to professional news sources. This role strengthens premium publishers’ position as trusted destinations for understanding the news.