Login
close
Login is restricted to DCN Publisher Members. If you are a DCN Member and don't have an account, register here.
Search

Digital Content Next logo

Menu

Tags containing: "news"

Journalism support organizations
Industry-Research | Research

It may be time to reform journalism support organizations

Journalism support organizations face scrutiny regarding efficiency, strategic direction, and overall impact. Critics argue that these organizations function as bureaucratic intermediaries, consuming philanthropic resources without adequately addressing the needs of local news outlets. At the same time, many journalists and news organizations find these support structures essential to their survival, particularly as they navigate an increasingly complex media landscape. This tension raises an important question: How can support organizations evolve to better serve the local news ecosystem?

A recent report, “The Critical Role Support Organizations Can Play in Maturing the Local News Field,” commissioned by the Democracy Fund explores this issue in depth. The report concludes that a broader “field-level agenda” is necessary to help define common goals, establish accountability metrics, and align efforts across the journalism ecosystem.

Field-level agenda for journalism support organizations

One of the report’s findings is the lack of a shared framework to measure success in the local news sector. Many support organizations operate with distinct, sometimes overlapping missions, making it difficult to assess their collective impact. The report proposes a “field-level agenda” as a solution—an overarching strategy that brings together diverse players to set priorities, establish success metrics, and enhance collaboration.

Support for this concept is widespread. Many industry leaders echoed the idea that a structured, collaborative framework is needed to ensure that support organizations advance the field. David Grant of Blue Engine Collaborative notes that the industry struggles to effectively define its audience and measure impact. Similarly, Mary Walter-Brown of News Revenue Hub emphasized that support organizations should be held accountable for how well they help news organizations grow.

Roles and responsibilities of the news support ecosystem

There is broad agreement on the need for better organization within the field. However, stakeholders are still grappling with who should lead this transformation. Many argue that philanthropic organizations should establish more explicit expectations for accountability and collaboration.

Damon Kiesow, Knight Chair in Journalism Innovation at the University of Missouri, suggests that funders could accelerate progress by requiring grantees to adhere to standardized impact metrics. Tristan Loper of the Lenfest Institute points to recent grantmaking initiatives emphasizing partnerships rather than competition as a potential model for fostering greater alignment within the sector.

Others question the long-term sustainability of specific support organizations. Instead, they propose that funders adopt a more strategic approach to determining which initiatives should last decades and which should be time-limited interventions. This perspective underscores the importance of developing a clear vision for the role of support organizations within the broader journalism landscape.

A collaborative approach to news media support

The report highlights that while no single experience defines all support organizations, there is a shared desire for greater collaboration. The report was given to participates for review and some leaders noted that the report’s initial tone seemed overly defensive. They felt it reinforced criticisms rather than highlighting these organizations’ indispensable work. However, this feedback reinforces the issue’s complexity. Support organizations must navigate a fine line between responding to critiques and advocating for their essential role in the ecosystem.

Stefanie Murray of the Center for Cooperative Media challenged the notion that support organizations lack accountability. She pointed out that many already adhere to rigorous funding requirements. This debate underscores the need for a nuanced discussion about defining and measuring success in ways that reflect the realities of different organizations.

Next steps for journalism support organizations

While this report provides valuable insights, it raises questions that merit further exploration. For instance, how can the support field evolve, and what lessons can we learn from other industries? What balance should exist between funding direct journalism (news organizations) and intermediary organizations providing infrastructure and support?

Several leaders who participated in the report have proposed expanding the taxonomy of support organizations to include groups that act as bridges between journalists and community organizations. Others call for a similar taxonomy for newsmakers and funders, which could help clarify how different entities fit within the broader ecosystem.

The challenges facing journalism support organizations are complex. However, the Democracy Fund’s research states the need for reform is clear. Establishing a field-level agenda could bring greater coherence, accountability, and impact to the sector. However, achieving this vision will require sustained collaboration among all stakeholders, support organizations, funders, and local news leaders.

As the industry evolves, support organizations must adapt to ensure they remain valuable partners to local newsrooms. By embracing a more strategic, data-driven approach to measuring success and fostering collaboration, the field can move toward a more sustainable and effective future for local journalism.

Industry-Research | Research

AI assistants error prone when it comes to news

Artificial intelligence is rapidly transforming the way people access and consume news. With AI assistants increasingly serving as intermediaries between audiences and trusted news sources, it is essential to understand how accurately and reliably they present information. Unfortunately, according to recent research from the BBC, AI does not accurately deliver news.

In new research, the BBC is evaluating how well leading AI assistants—ChatGPT, Microsoft’s Copilot, Google’s Gemini, and Perplexity—deliver news-related answers. By granting these AI models access to its website, the BBC sought to assess its ability to effectively reference and represent its journalism.

This study examined the quality of AI-generated responses using 100 news-related questions, with BBC journalists evaluating them based on seven key criteria, including accuracy, attribution, and impartiality. The reviewers then determined whether the responses contain minor, significant, or no issues across these areas.

Significant errors in AI news

The results show that over half (51%) of AI-generated responses contain significant issues, while 91% exhibited some inaccuracy, bias, or misrepresentation. Specific issues include factual errors, misattribution of sources, and missing or misleading context. When evaluating how these AI assistants represented BBC content, the study finds that Gemini (34%), Copilot (27%), Perplexity (17%), and ChatGPT (15%) produce responses with errors in their use of BBC sources.

Accuracy and misinformation

AI-generated responses frequently report factual inaccuracies, even when citing BBC sources:

  • Gemini incorrectly states that the NHS discourages vaping as a smoking cessation method, despite BBC coverage explicitly confirming that the NHS supports vaping for smokers that want to quit.
  • Copilot misrepresents the case of rape survivor Gisèle Pelicot, falsely claiming that blackouts and memory loss led her to uncover the crimes against her.
  • Multiple assistants incorrectly report figures, such as significantly underestimating the number of UK prisoners released and misattributing Chrome’s market share statistics.
  • ChatGPT erroneously reports that Ismail Haniyeh, assassinated in July, is still an active Hamas leader.

Attribution and sourcing errors

AI assistants frequently misattribute or incorrectly source information. Some rely on older articles, leading to misleading conclusions. In several instances, assistants claim to summarize BBC reporting but include details that did not exist in the BBC articles.

Impartiality and editorialization

In addition to prevalent factual errors, AI assistants struggle with maintaining any semblance of journalistic impartiality. The study flags multiple instances where opinions are presented as facts, sometimes falsely attributing to the BBC as the source. For example, Perplexity characterized Iran’s actions in the Middle East conflict as “restrained” and described Israel’s response as “aggressive,” despite no such characterization appearing in the BBC article.

AI errors in news is a risk to public trust

These findings highlight serious risks in AI-generated news summaries. Misinformation can erode public trust in news media, whether due to factual errors, misleading context, or editorialized conclusions. Distortion of BBC’s content can have significant consequences. If these risks continue, audiences may question the credibility of BBC’s reporting.

AI assistants are set to play an increasing role in how people access news and because they do not generate meaningful traffic to media websites, it appears that the majority of people using them are not exploring further to determine the accuracy of the purported news AI delivers. This, it is critical that AI agents or chatbots endeavor to uphold the information ecosystem’s rigorous and trusted editorial standards.

Ultimately, AI developers are responsible for ensuring their products align with fundamental journalistic principles, including accuracy, impartiality, and reliable sourcing. The BBC warns that if these challenges go unaddressed, AI risks undermining the news organizations it depends on for credible information. As AI continues to evolve, the BBC emphasizes the need for the media industry to champion responsible AI integration to safeguard audiences and preserve journalism’s integrity.

Industry-Research

Influencers take on the news

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.

Perspectives

The grey zone: Where the media fits into fake news

Change is an inevitable part of journalism. No one would deny the radical – and ongoing – technological shifts impacting the craft over the past three decades. And few (if any) would deny that some things have stayed the same. These include both a steadfast belief in the importance of journalistic ethics and the existence of fake news.

Where there are journalists creating news, there are codes of ethics to guide them. And where there is information widely disseminated to the public, there are those who would use it to communicate falsehoods. Without doubt, the two have intersected time and again throughout history. And today is no different. In fact, the incentives of modern media distribution may well lend themselves to the spread of anything incendiary (if not entirely accurate).

The familiar story about the impact of Orson Welles’ radio play The War of the Worlds is typically cast as a warning about the influence of the media on the public. Legend has it that listeners to the fake news alert truly believed that aliens were invading the country.  But that appears to have been only part of the story. 

Some scholars speculate that newspapers, acting on their fear that radio would siphon off their audience, planted the story to discredit their upstart competitor. According to Pooley and Saclow, the real fear was rooted in the media business model. Dependent on advertising, newspapers had to prove that they still had what it takes to attract readers. In order to do so, why not use their medium to report on spurious accounts, thus undermining radio and entering the grey area of fake-ish news.

Social media and purveyors of truth

Fast forward a hundred years. The contemporary focus on fake news has been expressed as starkly black and white. There are champions of truth and there are the peddlers of lies – at any point on the political spectrum. However, there is actually a good deal of unexplored grey space in the fake news discussion. And the media is due for a bit of soul searching in where it fits into this space.

Certainly, the premise that social media is solely responsible for the proliferation of mis- and disinformation is one that appeals to media-watchers, scholars and journalists of all stripes. They (social platforms) took audience attention and advertising revenue with their addictive design, algorithmic acumen, and surveillance advertising models. Given the sheer reach of these platforms, it is only natural to assume that they are responsible for the spread of fake news.

Yes, but… While social media platforms can track the number of views, likes and shares, they certainly can’t tell us why a post was shared and how someone reacted to it. Fake news may travel far and fast, but—while a key consideration—spread is only part of the problem.

Reach is something all media platforms and players crave. And as the fight for audience attention intensifies, the pressure is on to compete—which may mean everybody finds themselves playing by the platforms’ rules.

However, as social platforms “distance themselves from the news,” decrease its visibility, or outright block news altogether, the media business is presented with an uncomfortable moment on many levels. The traffic firehose has been kinked. Newsmakers need to rethink how to find, attract and build audiences. And if that’s less from social platforms and a return to direct relationships, it’s a great time to examine the way the message has been skewed to the social medium.

Journalists make good news

During the course of research I’m working on with an international workgroup (funded by the Center for Advanced Internet Studies in Bochum, Germany and which includes DCN’s editorial director, Michelle Manafy), we had the opportunity to speak to 20 U.S.-based news professionals. We asked them what they believed the role of the media is in society, and what they perceive as standing in the way of achieving that objective.

Every single one of them expressed the idea that their responsibility was to inform the public. And nearly all of them said that this was getting harder to do because of journalism’s broken business model, which they pointed out is driven by increased competition for attention, particularly with or on social platforms. Unfortunately, this attention imperative—on a digital playing field where comments and shares have taken on outsized import—incentivizes attention over information. 

It feels a bit like “any publicity is good publicity.” Except that, as they adhere to standards of quality that beget trust, journalists should be picky about what kind of publicity they seek to attract.

Today’s distribution channels—social media “public square” —may not afford us the ability to carefully curate the presentation of news as we might like. But just as we might look back and shudder at Yellow Journalism or propaganda-laden news reels, we need to own our place in the history that is unfolding.

Precision is key

If a headline or a soundbite may be the only aspect of the news our audiences are exposed to we must view it as such. Even when we know that a single scintillating fact is likely to get passed around on social, responsible journalistic practices mean we must provide the kind of context that avoids the likelihood of misinterpretation. Journalistic ethics should encourage us to resist the temptation of drifting into the grey zone with misleading hooks. 

If research suggests something—and remember, one report rarely “proves” anything—we must avoid blanket statements and absolutes, even if they are going to be much more “engaging” on social. If engaging means fueling the rage cycle with pithy half truths and headlines that highlight the most flame-fanning aspect of a story, the news media becomes complicit in the fake news lifecycle on social. Undoubtedly this approach is frequently rewarded with fierce debate. It might spread like wildfire on the socials. And to some, that will feel like success; who doesn’t want their 15 minutes of fame? Of course, this begs the question as to mission of news media.

But as social media dials down the news, it only gets harder to break through. And by extension, the incentives to find that sick factoid most likely to go viral grows.

Rebuild trust and the value proposition

Informing the public. Holding the powerful accountable. Representing the voices that go unheard. Serving the essential role in American Democracy as the Fourth Estate. These are the things that the news journalists we spoke to see as the role of the media in society.

And as the news seeks to find its way back to the American public; as it seeks to rebuild its crumbling business models, these are the foundational pillars.

Ask yourself what a misleading headline does to trust and your audience relationship because that relationship takes on a whole new meaning when the goal is more than a click, comment, like or follow.  As we focus on the post-social distribution model, random clicks fade in importance. Fleeting engagement will be reshaped as loyalty. And loyalty is built on trust; trust that you are making news so valuable it’s worth paying for.

Industry-Research | Policy

Government control of media on the rise globally

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.

Industry-Research

It’s time to connect journalism research with media professionals

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.

Industry-Research

As the election nears, news concerns intensify

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.

Advertising | Industry-Research | Supporter Spotlight

Audiences value news. Here’s why advertisers should too

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.
Advertising | Supporter Spotlight

Aligning news publishers and advertisers in election years

News publishers are an invaluable part of our society, providing essential information and fostering public discourse. But as we’ve seen so far in 2024, contentious election cycles can increase challenges for digital advertising in the news sector.

Despite the audience engagement that comes with news content, brands sometimes choose to avoid advertising next to volatile topics altogether. Advertisers still benefit greatly from the audiences of established news outlets – even during election years, when volatile content is more commonplace. This is why it is in both sides’ best interests to revise their approach to brand suitability in 2024 and beyond.

Election season dynamics: Impact on buyers, sellers and audiences

Divisive rhetoric and misinformation surge during election years and make online audiences more sensitive to the content they consume. Despite this, publishers still need to juggle the unique requirements of each buyer with a fast-paced and unpredictable 24-hour news cycle. This often requires continuous adjustments to keep up with demand and maintain brand suitability alignment.

Advertisers face their own election-year challenges. Our research emphasized this with a survey revealing that two out of three consumers would likely stop using a brand or product if it appeared next to false, objectionable or inflammatory content. Some brands respond to this increased wariness by tightening their avoidance measures, which can inadvertently reduce campaign reach and negatively impact news publishers.

Instead of both sides continuing to miss out on vital opportunities to generate revenue and reach engaged audiences, there is an opportunity to improve the way we communicate and transact with each other. A few small adjustments can make a big difference with the right tools and tactics.

Best practices to consider during election seasons

These best practices are a great starting point for brands and publishers to manage brand suitability requirements and reduce brand suitability violations. They can also make longer-term partnerships more sustainable once a contentious election cycle is over.

1. Advocate for context-based suitability measures over keyword-based ones

More nuanced brand suitability settings offer smarter and more sophisticated protection than simple keyword-based tools. They enable buyers to make decisions based on the actual content and its sentiment. Some solutions allow advertisers to go deeper than a “yes or no” approach to the screening process by letting buyers choose their own levels of risk tolerance toward certain types of content, such as whether it is user-generated or more authoritative.

2. Promote use of inclusion lists as a trusted publisher

Some brands and advertisers are mindful of the value that trusted news sources provide in any climate, both to their own goals and to society at large. These buyers might be more open to tools like inclusion lists, which can preserve their access to compatible news publisher inventory no matter what their brand suitability settings might be. The only hurdle is that they might not be aware of their existence. Publishers can take this as an opportunity to educate their partners and ensure their placement on any inclusion lists that they eventually develop.

3. Facilitate open and frequent communication with partners

Advertisers and publishers should work together and troubleshoot potential delivery issues as quickly as possible. Even small problems can significantly impact campaign performance if they are left unchecked for long enough. For example, is your team asking partners to update their keyword lists regularly? Do they understand the partner’s sensitivities enough to align their ads on the appropriate pages? Questions like these, alongside a consistent reporting schedule are a helpful way to ensure that partners are on the same page and budgets are spent effectively on the right audiences.

Brand suitability: Advancing the conversation

News is one of the most engaging forms of media. And during an election cycle, audiences seek out information to inform their decision making. Despite its potentially polarizing nature or volatility, news can provide a highly engaging context for brand placements. However, to ensure that the context is ultimately suitable, it is important to engage in nuanced decision making and to keep the conversation going.

Industry-Research

Trust in news varies by source and demographics

New studies confirm that Americans’ trust in news media continues to stagnate, in some cases declining to troubling levels. However, trust is not level across demographics. Differences such as age and political affiliation significantly affect trust in the news media. As the industry grapples with this problem, it is helpful to understand which news media sources more Americans trust – and why. 

A new Gallup poll finds Americans’ trust in newspapers and television news remaining near record lows, while average confidence in U.S. institutions overall lingers around 28%. This marks the third consecutive year that confidence in U.S. institutions – which includes news sources as well as Congress, the criminal justice system, banks, and big business – has fallen below 30%. The police were the only organization to gain confidence, rising to a 51% approval rate.

  • Almost half (48%) of U.S. adults report “very little” or no confidence in newspapers. About the same percentage (49%) have at least some confidence in newspapers, with 18% reporting “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence.
  • The majority of U.S. adults (56%) report “very little” or no confidence in television news. 44% have at least some confidence in television news. Only 12% reported “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence.

Partisan divide erodes trust

Americans are divided along party lines when it comes to trust in many U.S. institutions, including news organizations. Democrats reported more confidence than Republicans in 10 institutions, according to the Gallup data. These include newspapers and television news, higher education, organized labor, public schools, the criminal justice system, big technology companies, banks, the medical system, and the presidency. Republicans reported more confidence than Democrats in only three institutions: police, organized religion, and the Supreme Court. 

  • 35% of Democrats report “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in newspaper reporting, compared with only 7% of Republicans.
  • 22% of Democrats report “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in television news, compared to only 6% of Republicans.
  • Independents came in between, with 16% having “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of trust in newspapers, and 11% reporting that level of trust in televised news.

The greatest gaps between Democrats and Republicans showed in approval of the presidency, higher education, and organized labor. Newspapers were a close fourth, with a 28% partisan divide in approval levels.

Which sources gain more trust?

American audiences trust local television news and newspapers significantly more than major national news outlets. 62% of Americans surveyed say they trust local televised news and 58% trust their local newspaper. In contrast, fewer than half of Americans report trusting major news outlets such as CNN, Fox News, NPR and The Washington Post.

Only a third of Americans say they trust news in general. This is according to new analysis and graphics created by Harrison & Hunter Agency Partners, derived from data published in the 2024 Digital News Report by Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. 

Second to local news on the trust scale, slightly over half of Americans surveyed (52%) reported trust in CBS, NBC, and BBC. Newspaper and radio news sources fared slightly worse. The New York Times was the only newspaper to hit the 50% mark in trust, with The Wall Street Journal falling just short at 49%, and The Washington Post at 46%. NPR was trusted by 47% of those surveyed, tied with USA Today. 

Bringing up the bottom of the trust list were Yahoo News (40%) and HuffPost (39%). However, it’s notable that these two media outlets also had the highest neutral ratings. Almost one third of survey respondents answered that they “neither trust nor distrust” these sources, which could indicate that consumers are simply less familiar with them. 

Meanwhile, Fox News and CNN garnered the highest amount of distrust, with 43% reporting they don’t trust Fox News, and 37% reporting they don’t trust CNN. Only 15% of survey respondents were neutral on those highly recognized media outlets. According to the original data in the 2024 Digital News Report, U.S. Democrats are more likely to view and trust a wide range of news sources, whereas Republicans are more likely to rely primarily on Fox News and NewsMax. 

Americans agree more on local news

Three out of four Americans believe news media “is making political polarization worse” according to a recent episode of PBS News Hour’s America at a Crossroads. The episode features Martha Minow of Harvard Law School, author of Saving the News. She explained that midcentury, there were only three major news networks, which benefited from pursuing wide appeal. Now, cable networks can afford to entice a narrower range of viewers with opinion-based news content. Despite stated preferences for objectivity, viewers are drawn to attention-getting material that reinforces their existing beliefs. Thus, the increased association between news and political polarization. “The lack of a shared reality is a crisis in America right now,” Minow remarks.

However, the Pew Research report Americans’ Changing Relationship With Local News finds the partisan divide much less pronounced when it comes to local news. 78% of Democrats trust their local news media to report accurately – and 66% of Republicans agree. Overall, 85% of U.S. adults agreed local news outlets are at least somewhat important to the welfare of their community.

Participants in the Pew Research study expressed these preferences:

  • More variety: Americans enjoy local news on a multitude of topics. About two out of three follow weather, crime, government affairs, traffic and transportation matters. Half say they tune into local news about arts and culture, economic issues, schools, and sports. 
  • More neutrality: A strong majority of adults surveyed (69%) said local journalists should remain neutral on the issues. This held true among all age groups. However, survey respondents aged 18-29 were more likely to approve of advocacy from local journalists (39%). 

While trust in news is a complex issue made more fraught by political polarization, it is worth noting what Americans like about local news. A variety of topics and “news you can use” may help balance partisan material and possibly curtail news avoidance. Whether or not consumer habits align with stated preferences, Americans are largely united in calling for more objectivity in news reporting.

Featured Post | Industry-Research | Perspectives

Engaging young audiences: top trends and tactics

In today’s media landscape, engaging younger audiences is both a challenge and an opportunity for newsrooms. Understanding the media habits and preferences of Gen Z is crucial for the sustainability and long-term relevance of players across the media industry. 

Two recent papers, the latest Digital News Report and FT Strategies Next Gen News Study, offer valuable insights into younger audiences and strategies for effectively reaching and engaging them.

Here are the key trends media executives need to be aware of, followed by suggestions about how to act on them to improve engagement among young audiences. 

Trend 1: A preference for digital 

Not surprisingly, we need to start with (or truly accept) the shift away from traditional media habits. Having grown up with media on-demand and the ability to consume on mobile devices, younger audiences tend to access content very differently from their parents.

In terms of news media, as Nic Newman – the lead author of the Digital News Report – notes, younger audiences are “much less likely to use traditional sources such as TV and radio news and much more likely to access via social media, aggregators, and search.”

Instead, preference is usually given to both short-form and long-form video content on platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube. “The youngest group (Gen Z) are most likely to say that social media is their main source of news,” Newman adds. 

Trend 2: Authenticity over traditional credentials

Another critical shift can be seen in concepts of credibility. Traditional benchmarks such as awards and brand recognition, hold less sway with younger consumers, observes FT Strategies’ Liat Fainman-Adelman. 

Instead, perceptions of authenticity are key to this group’s definition of trustworthiness.

“Someone who identifies with a certain community / group or has lived through that event is seen as more credible in covering a related news event,” Fainman-Adelman explains. “Someone documenting their daily life in Ukraine on TikTok may be more popular and trusted than a trained journalist sent to cover the war.”

This trend helps explain the gravitation towards individuals over institutions seen in both reports. 

“Young people want to feel connected to those who are delivering them news and information,” Fainman-Adelman contends. “It’s important for them to see who they really are and understand their underlying motivations.”

Trend 3: A level of news skepticism

Gen Z audiences want to understand the motivations and identities of the people behind the news. However, the formats used by many traditional media outlets often fail to speak to this need. In turn, this has led to a heightened skepticism towards the traditional news media. 

“Individual contributors are seen as more personable and relatable than a faceless byline,” Fainman-Adelman says. 

Subsequently, Newman explains, “because they are exposed to so many different sources, and see so many different perspectives, young people tend to [be] highly skeptical of most information and often question the ‘agenda’ of all news sources including mainstream news providers.”

This tendency is also heightened by the more “lean back” approach seen among many younger users, whereby they consume media in a more passive – and less intentional – manner. Their media experiences are often mediated through algorithms, rather than by going direct to specific sources. 

That means this group is “much less likely to have a connection with traditional news brands preferring the news to come to them,” Newman says, observing how relationships are “driven more by relevance of the content itself rather than where it comes from.” 

Trend 4: Broader definitions of “the news”

Younger audiences also have a looser, more fluid, interpretation of what is news and the trusted sources that are sharing it (e.g. alternative/independent sources, personalities and influencers). 

As Newman outlined in an email interview, “young people make a distinction between ‘the news’ as the narrow, traditional agenda of politics and current affairs and ‘news’ as a much wider umbrella encompassing topics like sports, entertainment, celebrity gossip, culture, and science.

“Often they see narrow(ly-defined) news as a chore to spend as little time with as possible. But are prepared to spend more time with passions and diversions.” 

Trend 5: Navigating information overload 

Participants in FT Strategies’ study were born after the year 2000. “That’s had a pretty significant impact on how they interact with media and technology,” Fainman-Adelman told me via email.

Growing up in the digital age, young audiences are adept at filtering the large volume of content we are exposed to every day to find the material that interests them. That’s one reason why short-form media is particularly appealing to them. 

And despite concerns about shorter attention spans, FT Strategies found that younger audiences do engage in long-form content (e.g. podcasts, online videos etc.) if it is of interest to them.

Five strategic recommendations for media companies to engage younger audiences

Given these insights, media players need to adopt a multifaceted approach to engage younger audiences. Of course, this demographic is not an homogeneous group. Nevertheless, we can identify a number of broad characteristics that publishers should be looking to adopt.

Here are five key approaches media executives need to implement (if you have not already):

Tactic 1: Embrace visually-oriented social networks 

Prioritize platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube, where younger people spend much of their time. As Newman notes, the last few Digital News reports have shown that younger audiences are increasingly turning to these networks for news and other content. 

Although media outlets tend to prioritize connections that they can monetize, Fainman-Adelman suggests “developing socially native content to build brand awareness on platforms (and eventually transitioning to more direct relationships).” 

“Engaging the next generation will be crucial for legacy media’s sustainability and reducing the gap now will undoubtedly pay off in the long run,” Fainman-Adelman believes.

Tactic 2: Understand platform dynamics 

YouTube, Instagram and TikTok have some shared qualities, but audiences use them differently. Creators need to tailor content based on the features and audience expectations of each network. 

Fainman-Adelman advises, “Ensuring that news media is highly accessible (e.g., in terms of language, tone, humor) and engaging (e.g., multimedia, interactive, participatory). This “will be critical for building and retaining loyal audiences in the long run.”

Tactic 3: Emphasize authenticity

Shifts in tone are also key to providing a sense of intimacy and authenticity younger audiences crave. The Next Gen News report identifies “how social media personalities’ lived experiences boosted their authenticity and relatability when it came to certain topics.” 

This can be hard for mainstream outlets to replicate. But, the Digital News Report highlights younger players – such as Dylan Page (aka News Daddy) in the UK, Vitus Spehar (best known for Under the Desk News on TikTok) in the USA and Hugo Travers (Hugo Décrypte) in France – which others can learn from. 

Stressing transparency in reporting processes and clearly distinguishing between news, analysis, and opinion can also help build credibility among skeptical younger viewers.

Tactic 4: Embrace diversity

This can take many forms, including using formats such as short videos, podcasts, and interactive articles that are engaging and accessible. Broadening the range of topics covered and adopting a more conversational tone can also make news more appealing to Gen Z audiences.

Meanwhile, FT Strategies make the case for “partnering with creators, empowering editorial talent to share their [personal] stories, and … [hiring] younger and more diverse journalists who are permitted to express themselves in an authentic way, particularly on social media.” 

Sophia Smith Galer (ex-BBC and Vice News) and Taylor Lorenz (The Washington Post) were identified by the report’s Advisory Board as exemplars with large social media followings who enable “their authentic personalities to shine through their work.”

Tactic 5: Change the narrative

“One of the most profound shifts we’ve seen among younger audiences is who and what they see as trustworthy” Fainman-Adelman says.

Media players need to learn from this and avoid doing things the way that they always have done. Afterall, for many younger audiences, these tried and trusted techniques don’t resonate with them. 

Changing the paradigm means being clearer about editorial processes, funding sources, and potential biases. A genuine openness to feedback and audience engagement also matters. 

Incorporating solutions journalism and more positive narratives may also help. Offering content that provides hope and inspires action can resonate with younger demographics (and others), moving away from the “doom and gloom” narrative many consumers associate with the media. 

Bringing it all together

Engaging more effectively with younger audiences requires a deep understanding of their media habits and preferences. There are also potential long-term benefits to this too. As Fainman-Adelman reminds us, “several studies show that young people are often accurate predictors for broader shifts in society.”

Existing trends like widespread multimedia consumption, passively accessing content via social and other indirect ways (instead of doing direct), as well as a desire for shifts in the tone and breadth of content being provided, are here to stay. And they are only going to become more mainstream.

As a result, media players must be willing to experiment with new formats and approaches. These should prioritize authenticity, relevance, diverse content and more diverse voices. Through this, news organizations and publishers will be better placed to build trust and loyalty among younger audiences.

In doing this, Newman reminds us that “mainstream news brands cannot please all young people all the time due to the fragmented ways in which they consume media.” But, he says, “they can give themselves a better chance of being chosen more often.”

As the media landscape continues to evolve, those who adapt will not only survive but thrive. In an increasingly fragmented environment, adopting these strategies to connect with younger audiences can transform media organizations into trusted and preferred content sources for both the next generation and everyone else.

Industry-Research

Financial motivation impacts the public’s perception of news

The news media face significant challenges in today’s market, particularly in engaging large, diverse audiences and ensuring that their content is trusted and valued. While much of the discussion around consumer disengagement in news focuses on issues like bias and clickbait, a new culprit has emerged: the public’s perception of profit-driven news.

Some people believe that news companies are increasingly compromising their integrity by prioritizing profit and financial gain, even as the industry struggles to improve its public standing and economic sustainability. Journalism scholars Jacob L Nelson, Seth C Lewis, and Brent Cowley explore factors influencing the perceptions of news trustworthiness. Their research, Money is the root of all evil.’ How the business of journalism shapes trust in news examines how perceptions about news funding influence trust and engagement with news content.

Trust, bias, and skepticism of the news

The authors interviewed 34 news consumers, using the folk theory—a generative approach to uncovering the narratives people construct on any given topic. The root causes of trust understandably vary among individuals. Some respondents attribute their distrust of the news industry to the rise of populism, others to the influence of digital technology, and some to the lack of diversity in traditional newsrooms.

However, despite these varied perspectives, many perceive news reporting as biased. While discussions on bias typically focus on political leanings, economic bias can play an equally significant role. Economic pressures influence public trust; many today believe news organizations prioritize profitability over accurate reporting.

Skepticism toward journalism also stands as a barrier to trust. Respondents highlighting their skepticism and concerns often feel compelled to fact-check and corroborate news stories. They view the news as ideologically biased rather than objective, leading them to consume it critically and avoid accepting journalistic perspectives as entirely truthful.

Is the news profit-driven with an economic bias?

The research participants assume news organizations primarily make money through advertising, leading to a focus on attracting large audiences. They believe this economic pressure results in sensational and often ideological biases in news coverage. The perception of journalism as profit-driven contributes to consumer distrust of news, as they view the news media as prioritizing profit over accurate reporting.

Further, respondents frequently point to journalism’s pursuit of profits as a reason for their deep skepticism. They observe news organizations striving to secure advertising deals and attract large audiences, thinking this will influence the journalists’ reports. Those who see ideological bias in the news perceive it as economically motivated rather than ideologically driven.

Perception controls reality

Audience distrust stems not necessarily from the news media’s actions but from the perception that news organizations prioritize profits above all else. While skepticism towards commercial influence is justified, this study indicates that audiences overwhelmingly view economic interests as dominating journalistic integrity. The respondents’ perception suggests that audiences believe profit-driven priorities significantly compromise journalistic quality.

News without profit-motivations: Non-profit or publicly-funded

The authors believe journalists will not restore public trust solely by maintaining objectivity and avoiding political bias. They recognize the need for news organizations to have revenue goals. However, they recommend addressing the economic model of journalism and demonstrating a clear separation between financial motives and journalistic integrity.

They also see options in non-profit or publicly funded models, which can reduce perceptions of profit-driven motives in the news. While trust in publicly funded outlets like the BBC dropped, a structural shift across the could improve trust. Public funding could especially benefit local newsrooms, which are perceived positively but are financially vulnerable.

It is essential to understand public perceptions of newsroom economic motivations and their impact on trust. Further examination of the assumptions that journalism’s commercial interests shape people’s trust in news is key to understanding the nuances of the industry’s credibility challenges. Meanwhile, increasing transparency can help address audience concerns about revenue and profits influencing journalistic work.

©2025 Digital Content Next. All Rights Reserved.