Journalism faces a significant challenge in maintaining trust as audiences increasingly turn to online content creators who produce work resembling traditional journalism. Although journalism remains a cornerstone of democracy, it now competes with creators who often build large and deeply engaged followings, which rival (or even surpass) established news outlets. A new report suggests that this trend is driven by the contrasting ways journalists and creators connect with their audiences.
In The Future of Trustworthy Information, Julia Angwin explores the shifting dynamics of trust in the digital age. Through her work at the Shorenstein Center, she is exploring the roles of content creators and how they compete with, and can inform the work of traditional journalists. In particular, she examines their relationships through the lens of who today’s audiences trust and why.
Benevolence: Motives that prioritize the audience’s best interests.
Integrity: Adherence to principles that align with the audience’s values.
These elements are critical for both creators and journalists but manifest differently in their practices.
Demonstrating ability
Traditional journalism emphasizes expertise in reporting processes—verifying facts, cultivating sources, and concise writing—but often fails to make this expertise transparent to the public. Reporters rarely highlight their qualifications, and newsroom norms discourage reliance on personal expertise. Efforts to enhance trust, such as detailed reporter biographies, remain underutilized and ineffective.
In contrast, creators highlight their expertise directly. Many specialize in specific domains, such as doctors debunking medical misinformation or leather workers analyzing luxury handbags, and prominently feature their credentials. They tailor storytelling to build trust by guiding audiences through evidence before reaching conclusions. They also emphasize visual storytelling, as today’s audiences gravitate towards video-based content. The use of green screens capitalizes on this trend while reinforcing credibility by presenting data in real-time.
Perceived benevolence
Audiences increasingly question journalists’ benevolence, with only 23% of Americans believing national news organizations prioritize the public’s best interests. Skepticism stems from perceived political biases, sensationalism, and the profit motives of large media conglomerates. Individual journalists often struggle to overcome institutional distrust, especially when constrained by editorial policies.
Interestingly, audiences do not perceive creators as benevolent either. Particularly when it comes to product reviews, audiences are skeptical of trustworthiness. Creators counter this by positioning themselves as community servants. They frequently respond to audience requests and tailor content to viewer interests. Transparency about financial motives sets them apart; many creators decline brand partnerships or disclose them carefully, recognizing authenticity strengthens trust. This direct engagement fosters a perception of benevolence that journalists often lack.
Upholding integrity
Both journalists and creators navigate a low-trust digital environment where misinformation proliferates. Accusations of sensationalism or bias often undermine journalistic integrity, while creators address skepticism around product endorsements. To reinforce integrity, creators disclose sources, provide citations, and avoid overt monetization. Visual evidence and informal presentation styles humanize creators, enhancing their perceived honesty.
Implications for traditional journalism
The rise of content creators offers valuable lessons for journalism. Creators enter the digital space understanding that trust must be earned, not assumed. Their focus on transparency, responsiveness, and audience engagement contrasts with journalism’s historical reliance on legacy credibility. This gap underscores the need for journalists to adopt practices that tangibly demonstrate trustworthiness. These practices include showcasing expertise, engaging directly with audiences, and maintaining transparency about financial and editorial motivations.
Journalists must prioritize meaningful accountability to rebuild trust with the public. They often need more consequences for mistakes than creators, who face immediate audience scrutiny for errors. Engaging directly with affected communities and investing in public editors and reader feedback mechanisms can enhance transparency and foster trust. While resource constraints are real, addressing the trust deficit is essential to journalism’s core mission: holding power accountable. Small steps in this direction can help restore credibility and public confidence.
OpenAI’s ChatGPT Search, an AI-driven alternative to traditional search engines, raises pressing concerns for news publishers, including attribution errors. OpenAI promotes its collaboration with select news organizations and uses mechanisms like robots.txt files to give publishers some control over their content, However, questions loom about its impact on journalism. These worries echo the backlash from two years ago when publishers discovered their content was used—without consent—to train OpenAI’s models.
OpenAI markets ChatGPT Search as a platform to enhance publisher reach. Yet, new research from the Tow Center for Digital Journalism, as reported in the Columbia Journalism Review, reveals significant issues with the tool’s ability to accurately attribute and represent content. This undermines trust between publishers who are working with OpenAI. It also represents a significant concern for publishers whose content is misattributed or misrepresented because of the risk of reputational damage. And, as such, it poses challenges for newsrooms adopting AI technologies.
Unreliable attribution and false confidence
The Tow Center analyzed ChatGPT Search using 200 traceable quotes from 20 publishers, including those with licensing agreements, those in litigation, and unaffiliated entities. Traditional search engines consistently surface the original articles in the top three results.
However, ChatGPT Search fails to correctly attribute 153 of the quotes. It fabricates citations, credits rewritten versions of articles or misattributes sources. Notably, in only seven cases, it admits being unable to locate the source, prioritizing plausible but incorrect answers over transparency.
Unlike traditional search engines that clearly indicate when no match is found, ChatGPT’s confident delivery of inaccurate citations risks misleading users and damaging the credibility of referenced publishers. The findings of these ChatGPT search errors emphasize the risks of integrating AI-driven search tools into journalism amid ongoing struggles with content protection.
Accurate attribution is critical for news organizations to maintain trust, brand value, and loyalty. However, ChatGPT Search frequently distances users from original sources by misidentifying premium publications or favoring syndicated or plagiarized versions.
For example, when identifying a New York Times quote, ChatGPT attributes it to a site that copied the article without credit. Such misrepresentation undermines intellectual property rights and rewards unethical practices. Similarly, it often cites syndicated versions of articles, such as attributing a Government Technology piece to MIT Technology Review, diluting the originating publisher’s visibility and impact.
These errors exacerbate publishers’ challenges with audience fragmentation and declining revenues. ChatGPT’s attribution flaws risk further eroding the vital connection between publishers and their readers.
Crawler policies and content control
In its marketing, OpenAI emphasizes its respect for publisher preferences via robots.txt files. However, the Tow Center’s findings suggest otherwise. Yet even those publishers that block OpenAI’s crawlers are not immune to misrepresentation. And those allowing crawler access saw little improvement in citation accuracy.
For instance, despite blocking OpenAI crawlers, the New York Times experienced content misattributions. Publications like The Atlantic and the New York Post, which have licensing agreements and permit crawler access, also faced frequent errors.
This inconsistency highlights publishers’ limited control over how ChatGPT Search represents their content. Blocking crawlers does not guarantee protection, and opting in does not ensure better outcomes.
Transparency, trust and revenue impact of ChatGPT errors
A core problem with ChatGPT Search lies in its lack of transparency. When it cannot access or verify a source, the AI often forms plausible but inaccurate responses. Thus, it leaves users unable to discern reliability.
Unlike traditional search engines, which clearly signal when no results match a query, ChatGPT usually fails to communicate uncertainty. This opacity risks misleading users and eroding trust in both the platform and the referenced publishers.
The rapid adoption of AI-driven tools like ChatGPT Search poses significant challenges for publishers. With an estimated 15 million U.S. users starting their searches on AI platforms, the potential disruption to search-driven traffic is profound. Publishers reliant on visibility for subscriptions, advertising, or membership revenue face growing threats. If readers cannot reliably trace content to its source, publishers lose critical opportunities for engagement and monetization.
What needs to change
To foster a sustainable relationship with newsrooms, Tow’s research recommends that OpenAI must address these challenges:
Commit to transparent attribution: ChatGPT must accurately cite original sources or explicitly indicate when an answer cannot be provided.
Increase accountability: To address systemic issues, meaningful partnerships with newsrooms—beyond select licensing deals—are essential.
Enable publisher control: Tools empowering publishers to dictate content access and representation will signal good faith.
ChatGPT Search’s flaws underscore the tensions between generative AI platforms and the news industry. While OpenAI claims to collaborate with publishers, its inconsistent handling of content undermines trust and fails to protect intellectual property.
As generative AI reshapes the future of search, publishers must advocate for stronger safeguards and fairer partnerships to ensure their work is accurately represented and valued. By addressing these issues, AI platforms and newsrooms can build a foundation for mutual benefit—and one that that will ultimately benefit consumers as well.
News influencers are transforming how people consume information on social media, emerging as a key force in the digital landscape. This new breed of news influencers are defined as having at least 100,000 followers on platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X (formerly Twitter), and YouTube and who frequently post about news topics. Most news influencers operate independently, with over three-quarters (77%) having no current or prior affiliation with a news organization. They combine personal branding with the dissemination of information, carving out a space that blends elements of journalism and entertainment with questionable accuracy.
A recent Pew Research Center study, America’s News Influencers, finds that roughly one in five U.S. adults regularly gets news from influencers. Younger audiences—particularly those aged 18 to 29—are even more likely to do so. Among this age group, 37% rely on influencers for updates on current events.
News influencers reach their audiences through multiple platforms, with X currently leading the way. About 85% of Pew’s sampled influencers are active on X, followed by Instagram (50%) and YouTube (44%). Many adopt a cross-platform strategy, with some maintaining a presence on five or more sites. While these news influencers skew largely male, TikTok stands out for its relatively balanced gender representation among influencers.
Diverse content and political landscape
Americans who follow news influencers encounter diverse content, including factual updates (90%), opinions (87%), humor (87%), and breaking news (83%). Among those consuming opinions, 61% report seeing a mix of views they agree and disagree with, while 30% say they mostly encounter opinions they agree with. Only 2% see information with which they mostly disagree.
Influencers cover equally wide-ranging topics, though politics and government dominate their content. However, this focus reflects the study’s fielding period—July 15 to August 4, 2024. During this time, significant events included the Democratic and Republican National Conventions, the first assassination attempt on Donald Trump, and President Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the presidential race. While U.S. politics takes center stage, influencers also address social issues such as race, LGBTQ+ rights, and abortion, along with international events.
Despite their prominence, news influencers present a complex picture regarding political orientation. Slightly more influencers identify as right-leaning (27%) than left-leaning (21%), though half remain politically neutral. TikTok stands out as the only platform where left-leaning influencers outnumber right-leaning ones.
Audiences value news influencers’ perspectives
Audiences perceive news influencers as offering distinct and valuable perspectives. Most followers believe these influencers help them better understand current events. Among those who rely on influencers for news, 65% say they enhance their understanding of current events and civic issues, while only 9% feel more confused. Another 26% say influencers make little difference in their comprehension.
When comparing news from influencers to other sources, 70% find it at least somewhat different. About 23% describe it as extremely or very different, while 29% see little to no difference.
News influencers with and without industry experience differ
News influencers with and without news media industry experience differ notably in their public personas. Those tied to news organizations are less likely to express political leanings; 64% avoid clear political orientation, compared to 44% of non-industry influencers. Although similar proportions identify as right-leaning (25% vs. 27%), just 9% of industry-tied influencers identify as left-leaning, compared to 25% of non-industry influencers.
Non-industry influencers are also more likely to connect their profiles to specific values or identities, with 22% doing so versus just 2% of industry-tied influencers. For instance, 8% of non-industry influencers support LGBTQ+ rights or identify as LGBTQ+, while none with industry experience express such views.
This research highlights the growing impact of news influencers in the modern information ecosystem. Operating largely outside traditional media structures, they offer audiences a mix of facts, opinions, and entertainment. While their rise enables more personalized and diverse information consumption, it raises important questions about accuracy, accountability, and the evolving role of professional journalism in a landscape increasingly dominated by independent digital voices.
Generative AI enables the production of content at scale. It has been found to generate narratives with essential elements like concrete characters, logical plot development, and coherence, which are all key to the story quality. Narratives play a vital role in conveying culture, enforcing norms, and sharing knowledge. But what happens to authenticity, emotion, and persuasive power in AI-generated stories?
A recent report by Haoran Chu and Sixiao Liu, Can AI Tell Good Stories?, examines AI’s potential to craft narratives that engage audiences and influence beliefs and behaviors. Through a new three-part series of studies, these researchers build on studies highlighting tools like ChatGPT, which show promise for AI-driven storytelling. However, they emphasize that impactful storytelling relies on authenticity, which goes beyond factual accuracy. Chu and Liu question ChatGPT’s ability to evoke narrative immersion and persuasion, elements often anchored in human creativity and personal experience.
The researchers also investigate whether labeling a story as AI-generated affects reader engagement. Overall, the study examines AI’s potential to tell compelling stories and influence audiences and how AI-generated stories compare to traditional human storytelling.
Study 1: Can AI tell good stories?
In the first study, Chu and Liu explore the question, “Can AI tell good stories?” They examine whether AI-generated narratives can captivate and impact audiences as deeply as human-created ones. This study emphasizes AI’s technical abilities in crafting stories. The researchers program AI to create stories, from short fictional tales to complex, multi-layered narratives, and then analyze how these AI-generated stories affect people emotionally and intellectually.
The study finds that AI can adhere to structural storytelling elements like character development, conflict, and resolution. Yet, it often needs more depth of human experiences and emotions that make stories compelling. Despite this, AI-generated narratives sometimes capture audience interest and influence certain beliefs or attitudes. The study concludes that AI storytelling has limitations but is advancing quickly, with promising potential for more engaging narratives. The researchers suggest that enhancing AI’s emotional intelligence and contextual understanding could further improve its storytelling capabilities.
Study 2: The influence of AI-generated stories on beliefs and behavior
The second study goes beyond the question of AI’s ability to tell a good story to ask whether AI-generated stories can genuinely influence beliefs and behaviors. This research investigates whether AI-crafted stories can impact audiences as effectively as human-created ones. It focuses on the potential to shape opinions, foster empathy, or inspire actions.
In this study, participants read stories created by either humans or AI. The participants are unaware of the source of each story, allowing the researchers to assess the impact of the content without bias. They find that AI-generated stories could somewhat influence readers’ opinions and emotions, especially regarding straightforward or factual topics. However, human-created stories tend to have a more substantial and lasting effect on the audience for more nuanced or emotionally charged subjects.
The study suggests that while AI-generated stories have the potential to influence behavior, they often lack the subtlety and emotional complexity required to create deep, long-lasting connections. This limitation is likely because AI needs more personal experience and an understanding of human emotions, which can make its narratives feel less relatable or profound. Despite these limitations, the study notes that AI storytelling could still be useful in specific contexts, such as educational or informative storytelling.
Study 3: Comparing AI and human storytelling
The third study directly compares AI storytelling with human storytelling, examining their strengths and weaknesses. This study seeks to understand whether AI can tell a good story and where it falls short compared to human creativity. The researchers analyze the storytelling components, including character development, emotional appeal, and the ability to engage audiences.
The findings show that while AI excels at consistency and structure. However, it struggles with the abstract aspects of storytelling, such as creating realistic emotions and building complex character relationships. For example, AI can write a well-organized story with a clear beginning, middle, and end but often struggles with subtleties like irony, humor, or empathy.
On the other hand, human storytellers can draw from personal experiences and emotions to create stories that resonate more deeply. This is particularly important for genres that rely on empathy, like drama or romance, where the audience connects with the characters’ emotional journeys.
AI can create content. It can’t tell impactful stories (yet)
The study concludes that while AI might be useful for quickly producing structured content, it needs to improve its ability to replicate the depth of human storytelling. However, it also points out that AI can be a powerful tool when paired with human creativity. For instance, AI can generate story ideas, help with content organization, or even create drafts that human writers can refine and deepen.
These three studies provide a nuanced understanding of AI storytelling. The first study finds that AI has the structural capability to create stories but lacks the depth of human experiences. The second study shows that AI-generated stories can influence beliefs and behaviors but are less impactful than human stories for emotionally complex topics. The third study compares AI storytelling to human storytelling, showing that while AI is effective in structured storytelling, it struggles with emotional depth and complexity. Together, these studies suggest that AI storytelling is still most effective when complemented by human creativity and emotional insight.
As large language models (LLMs) evolve from experimental tools to valuable assets, transparency in their data sourcing is rapidly declining. Initially, datasets were openly shared, allowing the public to examine the content used for training. However, LLM companies tightly guard their data sources today, leading to new intellectual property (IP) conflicts. Many media companies are pursuing litigation to protect their content from unauthorized use in AI training. At the same time, courts, regulators, and policymakers are engaged in debates over content ownership and the responsibilities of large language model (LLM) developers.
A new report by George Wukoson, Ziff Davis’ lead AI attorney, and Joey Fortuna, the company’s chief technology officer, sheds light on the nature of data sources used by major LLMs. Their researchreveals that AI developers often favor high-quality content when selecting training data, especially content owned by premium media companies. Their findings support discussions around publishers’ IP rights, content licensing, and the ethical dimensions of AI development.
Dataset analysis and key findings
Wukoson and Fortuna’s research uses Domain Authority (DA), a metric developed by Moz for search engine optimization, to measure the prominence of domains in several LLM training datasets. They examine Common Crawl, C4, OpenWebText, and OpenWebText2, and analyze how curation levels affect the inclusion of content from high-DA, premium sources.
Their findings showed that as datasets become more curated, the share of content from high-quality publishers rises significantly. Key findings from the research:
1. Increasing inclusion of premium content
In less curated datasets like Common Crawl, content from major media companies only makes up about 0.44%. However, in OpenWebText2, a highly curated dataset, content from these companies jumps to 12.04%. This shift indicates that LLM developers selectively incorporate reputable sources to improve the quality and accuracy of the model’s output.
2. Higher DA correlates with higher curation levels
Common Crawl, an uncurated dataset, has over 50% of domains with DA scores below 10, indicating that it includes a significant amount of low-authority content. In contrast, OpenWebText2 comprises 39.4% of domains with DA scores between 90 and 100, reflecting a preference for high-authority, reliable sources as datasets undergo curation.
3. Prominence of premium content
Leading publishers like The New York Times and News Corp consistently appear in the top DA range (90–100), reflecting their high authority in the dataset rankings. Their dominance in these datasets suggests that LLMs are more frequently training on established news and media sources. This gives these outlets a stronger influence in shaping model behavior and responses.
These trends show a pattern where the curation of training datasets systematically filters out lower-quality sources, favoring reputable, high-DA domains. As a result, LLMs benefit from exposure to high-quality, well-sourced content, which may enhance their performance but raise concerns about IP use and representation.
Ethical and legal implications
Prioritizing high-quality, high-DA content in LLM datasets escalates legal disputes between media companies and AI firms. For example, the New York Times has filed a copyright infringement suit against major AI developers. They argue that these AI companies profit from high-quality content without appropriate compensation to the original publishers.
As LLMs continue transforming industries, the value of high-quality, curated content becomes increasingly apparent. The authors’ analysis shows that curation prioritizes content from high-DA, reputable media content companies, amplifying their role in shaping model outcomes. This trend will likely intensify as LLM companies refine their training methodologies, sparking further debate over intellectual property and AI firms’ financial obligations to content creators. The findings here call for a broader dialogue around data licensing and compensation frameworks that reflect the mutual value between content creators and AI innovators.
Today’s vast television ecosystem combines streaming services, traditional pay-TV, and free ad-supported platforms, reflecting a sea change in how viewers find and consume video content. The scales are tipping in favor of online sources their first stop when seeking out video content. Over two-thirds (67%) of respondents report they turn to an online source first when they want to watch TV. Only 26% default to a traditional MVPD (Multichannel Video Programming Distributor) set-top box. Hub Entertainment Research’s new report, Decoding the Default, highlights an increasingly fragmented ecosystem where viewers lean more toward online platforms than ever.
From traditional TV to streaming
As cord-cutting and “cord-never” populations continue to grow, the number of viewers who rely solely on traditional pay-TV services is dwindling. According to Hub’s findings, more than twice as many viewers use both traditional pay-TV and streaming platforms rather than just one type. Audiences find that streaming platforms offer more options and flexibility than traditional TV. Deloitte’s Digital Media Trends report echoes this, noting that many consumers find streaming services more aligned with their viewing needs. They prioritize content that matches their schedules rather than set broadcast times.
Viewers’ SVOD stack
Viewers’ video-on-demand (SVOD) “stacks” are getting larger, with many people subscribing to at least three different services. The report shows that the percentage of consumers using three or more SVODs more than doubled since 2020, illustrating the growth of multi-platform use. This expansion is partially due to the massive libraries each SVOD offers; for instance, Netflix, Hulu, and Disney+ have extensive catalogs covering different genres and audience segments.
Yet, while viewers may stack multiple services, only a few platforms become their “default.” Netflix leads this default category, with 26% of respondents choosing it first. This trend toward Netflix as the initial go-to aligns with its status as a pioneering platform with an established reputation for both quantity and quality of content. Hulu and Amazon Prime Video follow while Disney+ and Max (formerly HBO Max) fall slightly behind.
Online streaming is the new “home base”
Hub’s findings underscore that, for most viewers, the default experience of “turning on the TV” starts with online streaming. About one-third of viewers say they now go directly to a built-in smart TV app, showing a 50% increase in usage since 2021.
The appeal of smart TV apps lies in their convenience. They provide immediate access to various streaming platforms without additional hardware. The transition to smart TV apps represents a natural evolution of how viewers experience TV.
Research from the Leichtman Research aligns with this trend, finding that 87% of U.S. households own a device connecting their TV to the internet, from smart TVs to streaming media players. This widespread connectivity facilitates using apps like Netflix, Hulu, and Prime Video, solidifying them as the primary sources of TV content.
SVOD loyalty driven by “favorite shows”
Hub’s report highlights a crucial driver of platform loyalty—exclusive content. When viewers have a specific favorite show exclusive to a particular SVOD, they’re more likely to remain loyal to that platform. This “stickiness” effect is essential in a crowded market where content variety can make or break viewer retention.
On the other hand, traditional MVPDs still hold an edge on live TV, particularly for sports and news. These content categories remain strongholds for pay-TV providers, appealing to a demographic that values real-time events. However, this loyalty is eroding. The report notes that nearly a quarter of MVPD users would consider canceling their service if forced to choose between platforms.
The growth of FAST
FAST services are also becoming a mainstay for many viewers, especially those who prioritize content variety over exclusivity. FAST platforms appeal to cost-conscious consumers who prefer a broad selection of programming without additional monthly costs. Their rise complements subscription streaming by offering a fallback for when paid services are unavailable or too costly.
FAST providers such as Pluto TV and Tubi are gaining traction as they offer a unique blend of on-demand and live content with a more traditional TV-like feel. According to a survey from eMarketer, over half of U.S. adults now use FAST services. For these viewers, the trade-off of ads in exchange for free content is more appealing than paying for an additional SVOD, further underscoring the complexity of the modern TV ecosystem.
Will MVPDs adapt?
The rapid decline of MVPD set-top boxes poses an existential challenge to pay-TV providers, who now face pressure to innovate or risk further market loss. Some MVPDs are pivoting to streaming bundles or hybrid solutions to capture traditional and digital audiences. However, Hub’s report suggests these changes may be too late. As smart TV apps and streaming services become the “default” choice for viewing, MVPDs could be relegated to a niche role unless they compete with streaming platforms on convenience, affordability, and exclusive content.
As more people rely on streaming services and smart TVs, the influence of traditional MVPDs is waning. Netflix’s leading SVOD “default” position reflects its early mover advantage and vast content library. Meanwhile, traditional TV’s staples—live news and sports—feel less essential as viewers increasingly favor on-demand content.
Even when unintentional, media bias can do measurable economic harm to entire nations, new research indicates. The economies of African countries are negatively impacted by media bias to the tune of 4.2 billion U.S. dollars in inflated interest payments annually, according to The Cost of Media Stereotypes to Africa. The study by Africa No Filter and Africa Practice reveals that by reinforcing negative stereotypes, ignoring positive stories, and misrepresenting African issues through ethnocentrism, media bias could be costing Africa billions per year in high borrowing costs.
In the financial world, negative media coverage heightens perceived risk, which impacts investor sentiment and sovereign bond yields. The research findings indicate that news coverage of African elections focuses disproportionately on negative issues such as violence and election fraud when compared to non-African countries with similar risk profiles. For example, the term “violence” was found to be highly associated with Africa in media headlines – especially in election coverage – even when the content of the article didn’t warrant it. Western media also tends to perpetuate misunderstandings and oversimplifications, such as referring to Africa as a monolith, neglecting to convey the complexities of individual African countries and events.
Global Africa media bias revealed
The study included a comparison of news coverage from seven global media giants: Al Jazeera, the BBC, CNN, Bloomberg, Financial Time, Reuters, and The Economist, all of which are commonly used by foreign investors to keep abreast of international economic and political news. The material covering African countries was compared to that of non-African countries with similar risk profiles.
Negative sentiment in global media reports was found to be more prevalent in articles about African countries during elections when contrasted with comparable Asian countries during elections, even among countries with similar political risk scores.
An astonishing 88% of content about Kenya and 69% about Nigeria demonstrated negative bias, compared with 48% of content on Malasia, which has a similar medium risk profile.
Egypt’s coverage was more than twice as likely to be negative (66%) than Thailand’s (32%), even though both countries are classified as high-risk.
Overall negative bias was still present but reduced when a greater variety of media outlets were added to the equation, highlighting the importance of a diverse media landscape.
Election headlines and buzz words
Media headlines pertaining to African elections were often found to contain negative words, even when the text of the article didn’t align with the negativity of the headline, clearly demonstrating an Africa bias. The word “violence” or “violent” appeared much more often in headlines about Kenyan elections (5.8%), and Nigerian elections (4.4%) than in coverage of elections in Malaysia (.1%), Thailand (0%) and Denmark (0%).
The report found a significant increase in negative bias when covering elections in African countries, compared to elections in non-African countries with similar political risk profiles. For example:
Use of the word “rigged”, or “rigging” appeared in 16% of the articles about Kenyan elections, but in 2% of those about Malaysia and 0% of those about Denmark.
The word “corruption” or “corrupt” was found in 43% of the articles about South African elections and 28% of the articles covering Nigerian elections, compared with only 2% of those about Denmark’s elections and 20% about Thailand’s elections.
News around election periods was analyzed because that content is most likely to be covered by global media outlets.
The financial cost of media bias
Media representation impacts investor sentiment and perceptions of risk, influencing investment decisions and borrower interest rates. Comparing differences in bond yields and media representation between countries with similar political risk profiles reveals the disadvantage that negative media slant confers upon African countries. For example, while both Egypt and Thailand are considered high-risk, Egypt’s bond yields tend to be around 15% compared with Thailand’s 2.5%. The difference translates into significantly higher repayment costs.
Bond yields were disproportionately high even for low-risk African countries compared to their non-African counterparts. For example, South Africa and Denmark both rank as low in political risk, yet South Africa’s average quarterly bond yields range between 8.3% and 8.5% while Denmark’s range from 0.5% to negative 0.2%. Report authors calculate that if the difference in negative media sentiment was adjusted, South African bond yields would decrease by 0.05 %, resulting in big savings on interest repayments for the country.
The media can improve it’s Africa coverage
The New Global Media Index for Africa, produced by Africa No Filter, The Africa Center, and University of Cape Town, investigated a thousand news articles from twenty leading global media outlets. The researchers found that many of shortcomings noted in the report can be mitigated by acting on the following goals:
Broader Representation: Interview more diverse sources, including ordinary African citizens, women, and people from marginalized groups. Current coverage focuses on powerful men and elites.
Geographic Scope: Encompass a wider range of African countries. Many organizations treat the African continent as a monolith, hindering understanding of individual countries and narratives.
Topic Diversity: Provide greater balance by covering the arts, culture, innovation, technology, and positive development.
Depth of coverage: Delve deeper into narratives to better inform audiences about Africa’s complexities.
Critical Self-Examination: Regularly assess news practices and content to foster more accurate and nuanced coverage of African countries.
How to improve election coverage
Due to heightened news bias around elections, Africa No Filter released How to Write About an African Election: A Guide. The guide encourages media organizations to engage in more complex and nuanced coverage around elections by exploring unique angles, including stories of human interest and grassroots mobilization. Key take-aways:
Move away from the old “war room” approach to election coverage, which relies too heavily on official announcements and pre-scheduled events. Instead, notice stories of civic activity, peaceful government transitions, and democratic advancements.
Practice solutions journalism by highlighting positive initiatives, innovations, and successes.
Engage with the youth. Africa has the youngest population in the world. 78% of new voter registrations in South Africa are people aged 16 to 29, according to the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC), debunking the idea that young people are disengaged from politics. The guide suggests amplifying the voices of young citizens, as well as engaging them with platforms and formats they prefer.
The takeaway
The good news is that coverage of African countries has improved over the past 20 years, according to The Cost of Media Stereotypes to Africa, trending towards more positive tone and content. However, global media still tend to emphasize articles about poverty, problematic leadership, disease, corruption, and conflicts when reporting on events in African countries.
Considering the new data, it’s critical for media leaders to raise awareness of the tendency toward negative bias when it comes to coverage of African countries. In addition to the impact on bond yields, it is likely that negative press also has an impact on African tourism, development funding, foreign direct investment, and other potential revenue.
Government control of media outlets around the world is on the rise, according to the State Media Monitor 2024 report. The portion of editorially independent media among all state-controlled and public media around the globe dropped from 20% in 2021 to 16% in 2024. According to the data, only 96 of the state and public media outlets included in the study can be defined as editorially autonomous – decreasing from 93 the previous year. The decline is especially significant considering the 2024 analysis included 13 countries added since the prior year’s analysis: Cape Verde, Mali, Sierra Leone, Fiji, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Bahamas, Barbados, Dominica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Andorra, Kyrgyzstan, and Maldives.
Over 84% of the 601 state-administered media entities in 107 countries studied by State Media Monitor showed a lack of editorial independence. This represents a 1% increase from the previous year, highlighting the persistence of state control over media.
State Media Monitor defines state-controlled media as media outlets “that are wholly owned and operated by the government, which has a big say in their editorial agenda.” On the opposite end of the scale, Independent public media are defined as public service media whose funding and governing mechanisms are designed to insulate them from government interference. In between those extremes are media outlets operating under various levels of government influence, ranging from independent state funded or managed media to captured public or private media outlets.
The analysis indicates many countries are competing for control of the global news ecosystem. The US, the UK, France, China, Russia, and Turkey, are expanding media empires beyond their own borders, vying for international news dominance. Some countries such as China are funding or otherwise supporting news media outlets beyond their borders, making their overall influence difficult to trace and measure.
Key findings of the State Media Monitor report
State-controlled media grows
About 65% of monitored outlets fall under the state-controlled model, where the government directly influences editorial agendas.
In 2024, 31 outlets in Europe operate under complete state control, an increase from 24 in the prior year.
Independent media declines
The percentage of privately owned media outlets captured by the government increased in 2024 for Europe (19%) and Middle East and North Africa (14%). Public broadcasting in Slovakia, Thailand, South Korea, and several regions in Spain have lost editorial independence.
Political influence
Right-wing political groups in Europe, including those in Austria and the UK, pose ongoing threats to independent media. Meanwhile, media outlets in countries such as Thailand and South Korea operate under significant government censorship.
State-run media in authoritarian regimes such as those in China and Russia are extending operations internationally, significantly influencing global narratives.
Political power and media in 2024
Elections were held in more than 50 nations in 2024, heating up competition for control of the political narrative. State Media Monitor reports that less than a quarter of countries which held elections in 2024 have independent state and public media with editorial freedom, substantially risking the integrity of election processes. Several global conflicts and wars intensified government involvement in media and fueled vying propaganda narratives. Private businesses and political actors also compete for media sway.
Troublingly, public service media is declining around the global. Europe, which typically boasts a plethora of independent outlets, is facing growing pressure from political parties aiming to undermine public service media. European state-controlled media outlets are on the rise, with private media outlets in Hungary, Serbia, and Turkey falling under significant government control. Meanwhile, no purely independent public media outlets were identified in Eurasia, sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), or Oceania.
State and public media under state control in 2024
The percentage of media outlets under absolute government control compared to the total number of state and public media outlets overall in the region were reported as follows.
Europe – 26%, an increase from 21% in 2023
Eurasia – 83%, an increase from 80% in 2023
Sub-Sahara Africa – 86%, a decrease from 87% in 2023
Middle East and North Africa – 62%, an increase from 60% in 2023
Asia – 74% – a decrease from 75% in 2023
Latin America and the Caribbean – 77%, the same as 2023
North American held steady at 0%, the same as 2023.
Consequences of state-owned media dominance
There is no getting around the dire consequences posed by government domination of media. The increase in government control indicated in the State Media Monitor report jeopardizes journalistic integrity, the objectivity of news reporting, and diversity in the media landscape. An increase in state-controlled media elevates dangerous propaganda throughout the world.
However, there are a few bright spots. The newly elected government in Poland released publisher Polska Press from state control. The Dominican Republic’s Corporación State de Radio y Televisión (CERTV) has also demonstrated significant improvement in independent editorial coverage over the past year. The Labour Party victory in the UK bodes well for the BBC. These changes suggest that shifts in political leadership can positively impact media independence.
It remains critical that independent media outlets help raise awareness of the need to protect news and information from government control. Media organizations can help advocate for reforms and protections for independent journalism. Safeguarding a diverse information landscape that fosters robust democratic discourse should be a priority for news organizations and a concerned public.
TikTok is becoming an increasingly important platform for content creators, brands and media companies of all kinds. That’s especially true for those seeking to connect with younger audiences. Today, young people take a distinctly different news journey than older generations in which social media and visually-led content plays a leading role. Specifically, about 40% of those under age 30 in the USA regularly get news from TikTok. That’s up from around 10% in 2020, highlighting how quickly this demographic is adopting the platform as part of their news diet/habits.
TikTok – once viewed as a passive entertainment platform – is evolving into an algorithmically driven engagement powerhouse for content of all kinds. Estimates of its audience size vary, spanning from a massive 1.5 billion to close to two billion users worldwide. Regardless of this variance, there’s no denying that the network has a huge reach, and that it has grown astronomically since launching globally in 2018. It’s now the sixth-largest social network in the world, and its users worldwide spend 34 hours a month on it. That’s way ahead of its rivals in terms of time spent.
“Roughly 170 million Americans use TikTok,” The New York Times noted earlier this year. “That’s half the population of the United States.” Charting 19 ways the platform has influenced American life, the Gray Lady observes that “Even if you’ve never opened the app, you’ve lived in a culture that exists downstream of what happens there.”
With that in mind, here are four things media companies need to know about TikTok, and how to harness it to reach new audiences effectively and build brand awareness, while at the same time making their content more accessible and relatable to younger consumers.
1. TikTok is a highly participatory social network
There’s a widely held misconception that TikTok is a “lean-back,” passive platform. However, new research from Weber Shandwick, a global communications and consulting firm, shows that TikTok consumption is more engaged and intentional than you might realize.
“Comments are king,” the report states, observing how “the comments section is where people go to learn more, fact-check claims, make jokes and attempt to make sense of what they have seen.”
Talking to Digital Content Next, Dr. Claire Wardle, a Cornell Professor who worked on this research, shared in more detail how users actively engage with TikTok content through the comments. This includes visiting the comments to determine if they agree, or not, with certain stories, the entertainment value they offer, as well as using insights from their peers to determine the veracity of a video. Many consumers see these behaviors as an intrinsic part of their experience on the platform.
For media companies, this may mean that engagement on TikTok should go beyond just creating content. It might require active involvement in the comment sections, given that this is where audiences spend a great deal of time and energy.
Determining the best way to do that, however, isn’t easy. “If I’m a publisher, what am I doing in the comments? What’s my role?” Wardle asks.
One potential solution stems from an idea proposed by Sophia Smith Galer. The freelance journalist and former BBC and Vice staffer has argued that newsrooms should encourage and support “individual journalist creators” on TikTok. It may be easier for people in that guise, to respond to comments on the platform, instead of through an anonymous brand account.
Nevertheless, despite the importance of TikTok’s comments section, Weber-Shandwick’s report cautions that this arena can be a home to trolls and other bad actors. Subsequently, “a detailed protocol for engagement in the comments of your own TikTok videos or videos posted by others is a must,” they advise.
2. Authenticity is key to audience-media connections on TikTok
Authentic was Merriam-Webster’s Word of the Year in 2023. “Authentic (their italics) is what brands, social media influencers, and celebrities aspire to be,” the company said.
On TikTok, as with many other visually led social networks, perceptions of authenticity are fundamental to audience engagement. I say “perceptions” because, as Social Sprout points out, seemingly lo-fi content is often actually highly produced.
Nevertheless, at its heart, this is content that intentionally looks a little less polished. In turn, this rawness can also make it more relatable and accessible. Furthermore, this style of content may be seen as more trustworthy and authentic with younger audiences than traditional media, the latest Digital News Report found.
However, the style of content that often does well on TikTok may fly in the face of traditional media production values, and that can sometimes be difficult to reconcile.
That’s amplified by an anti-establishment feel that the platform has, a notion “that came through very strongly in the research,” Wardle says.
As a result, TikTok “is not an obvious place for The Wall Street Journal or CNN to turn up,” Wardle reflects. That’s partly based on the style of content on the network, user preferences – which lean towards independent creators – and a concern that media outlets just look like they’re trying too hard to fit in.
Nevertheless, it’s no surprise that the most successful brands on TikTok lean into authenticity. Morning Brew’s account, in my opinion, is a great example to learn from. It’s funny, irreverent and looks like the creators shot it in their home (perhaps they did). As a result, it fits seamlessly with the style and tone of other content in my feed, while also managing to make some valid points (on occasion).
For publishers, key ways to curate an authentic aesthetic include using more casual delivery styles, behind-the-scenes content, and collaborating with creators who understand TikTok’s culture. Adapting, or partnering, in this way matters if you want to be relevant on the platform.
3. Navigating algorithms when familiarity breeds contentment
Reflecting on how Americans use TikTok, the Pew Research Center recently highlighted the value of its recommendation technology, and in particular its “For You” page. For users, this is a highly curatable space, one that enables you to teach TikTok what you want to watch. As Buffer explains, that is part of the app’s secret sauce. “The blend of familiar and new content is tailored meticulously to user preferences, making the social network addictive and fresh,” they explain.
As a result, it’s perhaps not surprising that “users generally like the content the algorithm serves them,” Pew’s research found. Their data revealed that “40% of users say this content is either extremely or very interesting to them.” In contrast, just 14% of their survey respondents said this wasn’t relevant or interesting to them.
For brands and content creators, this makes it all the more important that users know you’re on the platform. If they’re not following you, it can be hard to find and discover you on TikTok.
The success of this algorithm is a key factor behind users devoting so much time on the app. eMarketer anticipates that Gen Z, adults aged 18-24, spend an average of 77 minutes per day on the platform.
There are long-standing concerns, however, that algorithms can create echo chambers. This could reduce the perspectives that audiences are exposed to and lay the foundations for misinformation.
TikTok users, it seems, actively embrace – and are highly cognizant of – these concerns. Users acknowledged that “I know I’m not seeing anything from the other side, but I really love that,” Wardle said. “I love that I never come across people who are different to me.”
Users are aware that they are in echo chambers, but rather than trying to break out of them, they revel in the familiarity of their feeds. And they also feel confident that if they need to step outside of their comfort zone, then they know how to do so.
Responding to this is challenging, especially for news outlets. But, rather than trying to fight the echo chamber, publishers may just want to lean into it. This may mean producing more non-news content, as well as niche or specialized content that resonates with specific audiences, alongside evergreen content, and material beyond the daily news cycle.
4. News media and social issues on TikTok
That said, despite these cultural and algorithmic challenges, news does still have a place on the platform. Despite its reputation for entertainment, TikTok has become an important arena for consuming news and discussing social issues.
In fact, many users report encountering social and political content regularly, even though TikTok is not traditionally seen as a news platform. The latest Digital News Report found that nearly a quarter (23%) of 18–24s in the markets they surveyed, use the platform for news, as did 13% of all digital news consumers.
“These averages hide rapid growth in Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia,” the authors note, with “more than a third now use the network for news every week in Thailand (39%) and Kenya (36%).” Figures are lower in countries like the United States (9%) and the UK (4%).
Perhaps more importantly, according to Weber Shandwick, although users don’t necessarily seek out news on the platform, they do stumble upon it through trending content.
Users often perceive that they see these stories first on TikTok, Wardle told us, with the mainstream media playing catch up. “Our survey results validated this,” Weber Shandwick’s research says, “77% of users said TikTok is where they first learn about news on political or social subjects at least some of the time.”
However, much of this news discovery does not come from traditional news brands. Instead, individual creators and commentators drive many of these conversations.
This once again reinforces the need for news organizations to partner with influencers and creators who have already mastered the platform’s style and audience. Encouraging individual journalists to build their own presence on TikTok may also help bridge the gap between traditional reporting and this new media landscape. Collectively, collaboration and empowering journalists to engage with the platform directly could be pivotal for ensuring many publisher’s stories reach and resonate with younger, highly engaged audiences.
So, is TikTok right for your media brand?
The size of TikTok’s audience suggests that the platform is too big to ignore. However, the style of content and community culture that flourishes on it can be difficult to tap into. As a result, publishers need to carefully consider if it is a good fit for them.
Media companies that can adapt to this environment will find opportunities for deeper connections with audiences. Meanwhile, those who simply see TikTok as just another outlet for distributing their content, often doing so in the same format as elsewhere, may struggle to make an impact.
Worse still, efforts to blend in risk being seen as trying too hard. “How do you show up in a way that doesn’t look like a dad dancing at the wedding?” Wardle asks.
Part 2! Better Explainer on Kamalas plan to expand #medicare to include #homehealth options vs Trump plan to privatize medicare and create a tax shelter? Out of it? Idk.. #kamalaharrispolicies
Audiences, Wardle says, are “kind of resisting” traditional players, preferring instead to get their content from native providers like Under The Desk News. A consistent favorite with my students, Kelsey Russell is a Media Literacy Influencer and Co-Host of First Stop News. Russell, the self-professed ‘Print Princess’ reads different newspapers and magazines to her audience, and has garnered nearly 100,000 TikTok followers in the process.
The key takeaway for publishers wanting to flourish on TikTok is to balance being relatable and informal, with being useful and entertaining. They need to do so in a way that doesn’t force humor or tap into trends in a way that feels inauthentic and “cringe.”
That’s potentially a tall order, and these efforts may not drive traffic to your site or other platforms in the way that most publishers have historically used social media.
Nevertheless, if media companies can foster authentic connections with audiences, this can help to build brand loyalty and awareness, potentially unlocking long-term benefits that go beyond simple click-through metrics.
As Enrique Anarte, a journalist at Context previously told IJNet, “You’re not on TikTok to go viral; you’re really on TikTok to reach the audience you wanted to reach.” “It’s better to get a video with lower views, but high positive engagement from the people you want to reach,” they added.
For many younger audiences, TikTok may be the first time they encounter your brand, creating a connection that may well pay even further dividends down the line. It won’t be for everyone, but if you’re prepared to play the long game, mix up your video style to fit in, and find the right people to collaborate with, then TikTok might well become a key plank in your social media strategy in 2024 and beyond.
A great deal of research on journalism and the news and media industry is being undertaken by academics. However, most journalists have limited exposure to this work and few academics undertake their research directly with journalists. This has created a gap between the study of journalism and the practice of journalism. In the challenging economic climate for the media, the industry could certainly benefit from increased knowledge on how journalism should be practiced and produced today.
Bridging the divide between journalism research and practice requires understanding both fields’ unique challenges. Journalism research uncovers critical insights into news coverage. For example: how it can reinforce racial stereotypes, misrepresent facts on climate change, or build public trust through transparency. Research alone cannot solve these issues. However, it offers evidence-based support to news organizations, providing a better foundation than relying on tradition or instinct. The American Press Institute and Journalism Bridging Project’s new white paper, The Research-Practice Gap in Journalism, explores this issue in the U.S. and suggests strategies on how to bridge it.
Identifying barriers between researchers and media professionals
Academic findings rarely reach journalists in ways that encourage actionable change. This is largely because the priorities of academia and the news industry differ. This disconnect leads to tensions as journalists see researchers detached from newsroom realities. Academic journals do not typically prioritize practical applications. Findings are also often locked behind expensive paywalls, making them inaccessible to journalists.
The slow pace of academic publishing further complicates things, with research often needing to be updated by the time it becomes available. Despite these challenges, efforts are underway to bridge the gap. Some researchers are collaborating with newsrooms to help journalists adopt audience engagement strategies, and institutions like the Center for Media Engagement are working to make research publicly accessible.
Understanding the divide between journalism research and practice is key to addressing it. Both fields are committed to supporting democracy through a strong, independent press, but their incentive structures differ greatly. Newsrooms need research that addresses immediate challenges, such as rebuilding public trust or sustaining business models. Academia, meanwhile, values long-term exploration of theoretical issues, which can lead to research that feels disconnected from journalism’s day-to-day needs.
Bridging the gap between journalism research and journalists
Connecting journalism research with practice is a complex challenge, but conversations with journalists and academics reveal several strategies to address this divide. Some initiatives can be implemented more easily at the smaller end of the spectrum. For instance, better engagement between newsrooms and researchers could begin with simple outreach efforts. Journalists can inform scholars about their ongoing projects, and researchers can take the initiative to translate their findings into accessible, practical language for journalists.
The report suggests that conferences also provide a platform for bridging this gap. While journalists and researchers attend conferences, they often participate in different ones. Encouraging both groups to attend interdisciplinary events like South by Southwest or practitioner-focused gatherings like the Online News Association could foster meaningful connections. Panels that mix scholars and practitioners, as well as workshops and networking opportunities, offer fertile ground for collaboration.
Another key idea is producing different research outputs for different audiences. For example, the Center for Innovation and Sustainability in Local Media produces traditional research and more journalistic pieces highlighting real-world stories. This dual-output approach can help researchers make an impact more quickly, ensuring their findings are accessible to journalists before the news cycle moves on.
The academic connection to real world journalism
Solution-oriented research, such as case studies highlighting successful strategies used by news organizations, can also provide models for others to follow and inspire confidence in the practical application of academic work. The academic structure itself should encourage practical, real-world research. Tenure and promotion policies should reflect the value of public scholarship and engagement with newsrooms, focus more on practical implications, and make research sections, such as recommendations, open access to ensure they reach a wider audience.
Journalism education also plays a critical role. Journalism schools can better integrate research skills with practical training, helping students understand how to apply evidence-based insights to real-world reporting.
Funding is also essential to support initiatives like these. Independent funding allows researchers to prioritize mutual goals in their partnerships with newsrooms, while newsrooms receive compensation for the time they invest in collaborating with researchers.
Closing this divide requires better communication, stronger relationships, and more accessible research. Journalism support organizations, funders, universities, and newsrooms must work together to bridge the gap, improving the quality of journalism and supporting informed decision-making. With greater collaboration and shared commitment, journalism research and practice can overcome their divide, benefiting the news industry and the public it serves.
As the US presidential election nears, the latest research continues to raise alarms about the state of the news landscape, both in the US and globally. Among recent findings: Meta may be less effective at curtailing misinformation than previously reported; adults increasingly rely on social media platforms for news; and international experts warn that politicians and social media platform owners are among the greatest amplifiers of misinformation. However, the same studies indicate proactive steps to promote a healthier news environment.
Debunking social media’s mitigation of misinformation
New academic research rebuts previous data suggesting that Meta’s algorithms were effective in limiting misinformation around the last US presidential election. In Social media algorithms can curb misinformation, but do they? scholars from University of Massachusetts Amherst, Indiana University, and University College Dublin reveal that prior research published in Science was conducted during a brief period when Meta had emergency measures in place to quell a dangerous surge of political misinformation. The new research indicates that much of the decrease in untrustworthy news content reported in the prior study was due to temporary “break glass” measures. These were short-lived and have since been lifted.
Authors of the report cite lack of transparency around social media algorithms as a key problem. Companies can potentially change their algorithms during the time they are being studied to improve appearances, and later remove those changes. This appears to have been the case during the previous study. New data shows that the bump in user exposure to news from trustworthy sources only lasted from November 3, 2020, to March 8, 2021- the dates covered by the prior study.
A silver lining: data shows adjustments to news feed algorithms are capable of curbing misinformation – if social media platform owners are incentivized to employ them and keep them in place. “There is a need for independent research of social media platforms and consistent, transparent disclosures about major changes to their algorithm,” the authors report.
More people get news from social media
The recent academic findings are especially concerning because other new surveys show the public relying increasingly on social media for news content. According to Morning Consult’s study, which is based on interviews with 2,2000 US adults:
Almost 2 out of 5 adults consume news from social media multiple times a day.
Gen Z cites social media as their most trusted news source.
Social media news influencers are now among the top three news source for young people- although their credibility is scant compared to traditional news outlets.
The percentage of TikTok users who rely on the app for news jumped from less than a third in July 2022 to over half in July 2024.
Over half of the users of X and Facebook, and almost half of YouTube users reported using those apps for news when surveyed in July 2024.
The report finds that people’s increasing reliance on social media for news coincides with an unwillingness of the public to pay for more traditional news sources. This change is evolving quickly. Only 16% of Americans currently pay for news content, and 39% of those say they plan to cancel their subscriptions within the upcoming quarter.
However, the same study finds most American adults believe that misinformation is on the rise and are concerned about it. While that may not seem reassuring, admitting the problem is a vital first step. This awareness gives news leaders a chance to appeal to consumers who are searching for more reliable content.
A global crisis of misinformation
The US is far from alone in combating misinformation, political or otherwise. International experts recognize it as a global crisis. In fact, 412 researchers from 66 countries cited social media platform owners as the largest threats to the information environment, followed by governments and politicians, according to the International Panel on the Information Environment (IPIE)’s survey.
Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, WhatsApp, Telegram, Reddit, 4chan, and X- were platforms that raised concern among experts, along with generative AI and internet search engines. Journalists and news organizations ranked of least concern as spreaders of misinformation.
What can be done to promote a healthier news ecosystem? Three factors were most cited by experts around the world:
Availability of accurate information (65%)
Diversity of voices (42%)
Diversity of media ownership (33%)
Two thirds (63%) of the experts surveyed in 2024 expect the information environment to worsen in the future, an increase from just over half (54%) in the previous year’s survey. International researchers agree that access to accurate information, including support of free and independent media, is critical for a healthy global news environment.
Burnout threatens journalists, and the news
The fraught news ecosystem is taking a toll on journalists, causing them to rethink their career paths. Over half of journalists considered resigning due to stress and burnout over the past year, according to a recent survey by Muck Rack. 40% of journalists have left a previous job due to stress or burnout, indicating that these feelings often do translate to action.
Retention of experienced staff is important to the stability and credibility of news media. High turnover jeopardizes the ability of news organizations to provide uninterrupted quality content to the public, which is especially crucial around a contentious presidential election.
A heightening sense of urgency around 24-7 cable news coverage combined with doomscrolling on social media, impacts the mental health of many Americans. This in turn poses further danger to journalists. While journalism has always involved an element of risk, increasing attacks are causing some schools of journalism to include how to remain safe in the midst of conflict as part of their lesson plans.
Proactive steps media organizations can take
The state of news in a rapidly changing technology landscape doesn’t lend itself to easy solutions. However, a few paths in the right direction are indicated by the above research.
Requiring greater transparency from social media giants is a key step in enabling accurate research into the algorithmic changes that can increase exposure to more reliable news and curtail disinformation. “Laws such as the Digital Services Act in the European Union and the proposed Platform Accountability and Transparency Act in the U.S… could empower researchers to conduct independent audits of social media platforms and better understand the potentially serious effects of ever-changing social media algorithms on the public,” academic researchers assert. While some companies might eschew the push for more transparency, research produced by academia can also provide insights that platforms may utilize for their benefit.
News media leadership can help support a healthier environment by making employees aware of available of mental health resources, expressing support for those who need help, and by putting policies in place to minimize interruptions during staff vacation and off hours.
Digital access is a critical issue worldwide, especially in developing countries, but many digital platforms facilitate the spread of misinformation. Global experts agree it’s important that news remain free from government or political control, because politicians can be among the greatest amplifiers of disinformation. The public’s growing concern about the spread misinformation presents opportunity for reputable news organizations to promote the accuracy and quality of their content – and to encourage support for the free press.
For publishers and media outlets, the stakes have never been higher. You carry the torch, delivering trusted journalism, which safeguards democracy. But there’s a challenge we all face: How do we ensure that advertisers and agencies recognize the critical role your media platforms play, not just for society but for their brands?
The truth is, news outlets are more than just another space to place ads. They offer something everyone is looking for in today’s fragmented digital landscape: trust, attention, and real brand outcomes. And it’s up to us, as media executives, to make sure the advertising community understands that value.
A new study from Teads and Lumen Research underscores what many of us already know—advertising alongside quality journalism isn’t just the right thing to do, it’s also the smart thing to do. Yes, supporting the health of the media is important. But the news and information created by trusted media brands provides an excellent environment for advertisers.
Why news platforms outperform social media
When advertisers invest in news platforms, they’re getting more than just impressions. They’re tapping into the power of focused attention and outcomes. Our study found that ads placed within trusted news environments drive a 77% increase in brand recall. That’s compared to other channels where distractions are plenty and attention is fragmented.
Consumers who come to news platforms are there to engage deeply. And that translates directly to the brands that advertise alongside this content. The study showed that news platforms have a higher attention coefficient. Publisher inventory running through Teads’ premium supply, for example, outperformed social media with a focused attention rate of 16.9%, compared to the social average of 15.8%.
This means that ads placed within trusted journalism aren’t just seen—they’re remembered. And in a time when attention is the most valuable currency, that’s a huge differentiator for brands.
Building trust and driving brand safety
Here’s the thing: brands seek to build trust and credibility. And where better to find that than in the trusted, carefully curated content that news outlets provide? Consumers have shown they trust brands that advertise alongside credible journalism. In fact, the study found that 94% of U.S. consumers have a neutral or positive perception of brands that advertise in quality news content.
For advertisers, that’s reassurance. It means their brand isn’t just safe—it’s enhanced by association with journalism that audiences trust. And the fear that placing ads next to serious news will hurt their brand? The study debunked that myth too. 69% of consumers report that advertising alongside serious or even “disconcerting” news doesn’t negatively impact their perception of the brand.
This is critical as we talk to advertisers. News outlets offer an unparalleled level of trust and brand safety, providing the very context that advertisers need to not only protect their reputation but to strengthen it.
Helping advertisers understand the value
Let’s be clear: this isn’t about asking advertisers to just do the right thing by supporting journalism. This is about showing the real, measurable value that news platforms provide. Quality journalism delivers. It offers attention, trust, and results that many other channels simply can’t.
But we’re also facing a growing challenge—news outlets are under immense pressure. Since 2005, more than 43,000 journalist jobs have been lost, and the U.S. is seeing an alarming rise in “news deserts” as more than 1,700 communities are left without local news sources. These closures don’t just hurt journalism, they hurt society. And as misinformation spreads and trust in media declines, it becomes harder for quality journalism to survive without the support of advertisers.
We, as media executives, are in a unique position to bridge that gap. By helping advertisers understand the tangible benefits of supporting news outlets we can drive the investment that quality journalism needs to thrive. And the value for these advertisers is clear: higher brand recall, stronger consumer trust, and a brand-safe environment.
A call to action for media leaders
This is about more than just placing ads. It’s about the future of public discourse. Quality journalism is a pillar of democracy, and without it, we risk losing an informed and engaged society. But the future of journalism is at risk if advertisers continue to look elsewhere.
Our role is to ensure they see the value in supporting trusted journalism. The Teads and Lumen Research study proves that investing in news platforms isn’t just good for society—it’s good for business. But it’s up to us to ensure that message gets through.
Now more than ever, media executives have the power to lead the charge. It’s our responsibility to communicate to advertisers and agencies that their dollars aren’t just buying ad space—they’re investing in the future of a free press, trusted information, and an informed democracy.
We must continue to show the value of these partnerships, both for the brands that advertise and the journalism that drives societal progress. After all, it’s not just about what’s good for business. It’s about what’s good for the world.
Study Methodology: commissioned by Teads, Lumen Research conducted an online survey with 900 respondents from the U.S., age 18+. The study measured against prompted brand recall, brand choice and brand perceptions to further explore the impact of ad exposure on brand outcomes. One group saw traditional news and one group read soft news content to understand how the news content affected attention to the ads. Lumen’s patented eye-tracking platform was enabled as respondents scrolled from the front-facing smartphone camera to measure the visual attention data of how each consumer read the news and paid attention to the ads. A control group of 250 people matched on demographics took part in the survey component of the study. Fieldwork was undertaken between May 2 and May 24, 2024.
