Up close with the future of media, as the public wants it
What does the annual epic Reuters Institute Digital News Report say about how audiences perceive trust in news media, and is it wrong?
Information is a curious creature, as I'm sure our particular publishing audience is more than aware. Lately, a single Facebook post on a local group reminded me that, for all your journalistic training, high standards, and experience, if someone knows a thing, and you don't, it doesn't matter how that gets transmitted to you.
The post in question concerned a spate of motorcycle thefts in the local area. One particular post, written with a level of literacy I am confident of having surpassed by age nine, contained valuable information about the methods the thieves were using, a good idea of where they had been striking, and at what time. The poster was a stranger to grammar, punctuation and regarded capital letters as for use as EMPHASIS only, and even then to a logic I could not discern.
But none of that mattered: it was still trustworthy. A few context-checks revealed that this person was a big motorcycle fan, who had a family which all owned motorbikes too. They were properly clued-in on recent events, and being able to command such detailed information is surely a sign that our poster was not at all unintelligent. Life has long taught me that a lack of flourishing literacy does not necessarily equate to a lack of intelligence, and so it was the case here.
This recent example of useful information in a poor package served as a reminder that, for me, information > production, which also came to mind while reading the Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2025, published this week.
The overview and key findings of the report are here.
Much is being written on the back of the report's publication, yet it contains little that is surprising. It's worth pointing out that the authorial institute suffers its own biases, demonstrated in the way it approaches social shouting space X for example, writing "It is striking to see that X has not lost reach for news on aggregate across our 12 countries despite a widespread X-odus by liberals and journalists."
I fear that comes across as echo chamber stuff of an internal dominant narrative. I don't think it's striking information, and feel that anything otherwise is wishful thinking. Whether you agree or not with the direction X has taken, it still has a lot of followers and being blind to that isn't helpful in this kind of report, I'd suggest.
Also, as Andrey Boborykin points out here, there is almost no mention of Google Discover as a separate traffic source. The news publishing industry might be putting too much hope in this particular Google product, but at the moment, it's the only shaft of light we have in among the more regular shafting Google often gives us.
There is enormous worth in the report though, even if it sometimes reads like a counsel of despair when I'd prefer to read a publishing plan of attack. The section on trust in news is interesting, and the bullet points rendered up by the report's research respondents are worthy of thought.
1. Impartiality: The most frequently mentioned audience complaint relates to the perception that news media push their own agenda rather than presenting evidence in a balanced way. Many respondents say that journalists need to leave their personal feelings at the door. Avoiding loaded or sensationalist language was a repeated theme.
Impartiality, or claims to it, are a trap of their own, as organisations such as the BBC learn all too frequently. Knowing your audience is the antidote to this, as being all things to all people is a recipe for trouble. I've seen personally what happens when a news organisation loses focus on who its audience are and tries to please a wider one. It wasn't pretty.
All news is subjective, as to have value to an audience it must mean something to them. As for sensationalist language, well, adjectives have their place. The traditional split in UK journalism can be explained through the word "vile". A tabloid newspaper would describe a particularly violent criminal as a "vile thug", a broadsheet would not. A thug cannot be anything other than vile surely? But for some, the modifier seems to hit home.
2. Accuracy and truth telling: Audiences would like journalists to focus on the facts, avoid speculation and hearsay, and to verify and fact-check stories before publishing. Fact-checking the false claims of others was another suggestion to improve the trust of a particular brand.
If your news stories aren't factual, then your audience will leave you, eventually. People can be fooled a few times when it comes to media, but they mostly aren't stupid. It's the "mostly not stupid" that adherents to the new regime of "fact checking" don't get.
As the old Soviet joke goes about Pravda and Izvestya, the two main official newspapers: "In Pravda (Truth) there is no news (Izvestya). In Izvestya (News) there is no truth (Pravda)." Folk aren't fooled forever, and click-baiting only works up to a point, eroding core trust as it does so.
3. Transparency: Respondents would like to see more evidence for claims, including fuller disclosure of sources, and better transparency over funding and conflicts of interest. More prominent corrections when publications get things wrong would be appreciated, along with clearer and more distinct labelling around news and opinion.
Without addressing a particular example, and all such examples are intricate and particular, this seems to be the broadest of trust issues. Yet, caveat emptor, if you consume media, then you must yourself have some idea as to biases. It then becomes a matter of whether you can live with them or not.
The great press barons of the 20th century frequently whipped up their newspapers to lobby for matters directly beneficial to their owners. In our age of content cornucopia, ownership is both less concentrated and often more global in nature. I'd argue it's a better one than that of the old-style Press Baron dominance.
4. Better reporting: Respondents wanted journalists to spend their time investigating powerful people and providing depth rather than chasing algorithms for clicks. Employing more beat reporters who were true specialists in their field was another suggestion for improving trust.
Digital publishing's original sin was giving away content for free. In the age of GenAI, we're now giving it away for free without even the direct traffic. Until the advertising market becomes equitable again - and it will in some form - and we're not indentured labour for the likes of Sam Altman, then such lofty in-depth reporting by well paid and motivated reporters will remain a challenge for all but a few organisations.
It's notable that the audience that asks for such things often does not want to pay for them.
A generational shift will likely happen, but we're still paying for that original sin.
Calling all media and publishing content leaders, product leads, data strategists and tech innovators - we want to hear from you!
We’ve teamed up with State of Digital Publishing to launch a benchmark study assessing first-party personalisation, CDP adoption, and audience engagement in digital media and publishing.
This report will:
Benchmark CDP adoption and performance
Reveal emerging personalisation trends
Identify challenges and ‘Aha’ moments from across the industry
Deliver actionable best practices
Give us 5 minutes to complete the survey and we’ll give you early access to the findings to see how you compare.
Reading the future
Grab a seat and a tea/coffee and settle into the report here. The Digital News Report 2025 has amongst its vast trove of insight facts like the rise of social and video apps in the USA as the top media source, offering publishers options to get where they perhaps could not before. Nieman Lab discusses the industries tough choice: adapt or be left behind.
Read
OpenAI vs Microsoft: trillion dollar trouble
OpenAI and Microsoft, once AI's dream duo, are now in somewhat of a messy standoff. OpenAI needs Microsoft's nod to become a public-benefit company and unlock $20B from SoftBank - but there are some hurdles to overcome. Behind the curtain, OpenAI is toying with antitrust accusations, peeved over IP squabbles (someone mentioned Windsurf?) and future AI control. Officially, it's fine. Unofficially, the trust battery is running rather low.
Read
Reddit ignites AI data battle with Anthropic
Reddit has taken a swing at Anthropic for sneaking off with its data without making a sound, while OpenAI and Google have been politely writing cheques for it. This isn't the usual copyright battle, it's more about contracts, unfair play, and lining pockets on the sly. Anthropic's chief has openly admitted to using Reddit's content, leaning on fair use as their "get out of jail" card. But Reddit's not having it, pointing out that there is a perfectly good market for licensing and that Anthropic's skipping the queue. Reddit calling out Anthropic will shine a light on two things: first, is Anthropic as ethical as they like to claim, and second, how do AI firms gather their precious training data.
Read
UK Tech Chief: embrace AI or risk being left in the dust
UK's tech supremo Peter Kyle is urging workers to jump on the AI bandwagon, or risk watching the future pass them by. The plan? To train 7.5 million Brits by 2030. Of course, there is that pesky narrative around AI eating up jobs in law and finance, but Kyle insists it'll cook up new roles instead. Meanwhile, he's promising a "reset" on the AI copyright mess, because apparently, balancing creators' rights with Big Tech's ever growing appetite for content is trickier than expected. The question remains: will this rosy vision pan out, or is it just a bit of an optimistic spin on a rather grim situation?
Read
LLMs: quick to learn, even quicker to repeat fake news
Even the smartest AI can be fooled. SEO master Lily Ray conducted a cheeky experiment which fed made-up SEO rankings to several major large language models, and within a day, many regurgitated these nonsense claims back as fact. This quick test underscores a growing problem: as AI scrambles to stay current, it risks becoming a megaphone for nonsense unless it learns to fact-check better, and fast. It can't be an afterthought, or trust will slip away.
Read
New AI tools to squeeze more juice from user chatter
Reddit's latest AI advertising toys have arrived and they promise more bang for your buck. Their "Reddit Insights powered by Community Intelligence" offers marketers a live wire into trending topics and a playground. Agencies like Publicis Groupe are already on board, with a broader rollout imminent. All of this is coming as the ad world tightens its belt and eyes AI like it's the next shiny saviour in a rather bruised and beaten market. This space is where AI meets marketing hustle - for better or worse.
Read
EU advisor backs landmark Google android fine
The EU's long-running grudge match with Google gets a boost, as a court adviser sides with the €4.125 billion fine over Android strong-arming. Things such as preloading apps, locking down modified versions - all the classics of the market bully playbook. Google trumpets choice and innovation, but Brussels isn't buying it. If the court follows suit, this could be a blueprint for clipping Silicon Valley's wings. Is a fine a tariff by a different name?
Read
Ask INMA: AI-powered answer engine for news pros
INMA has just rolled out "Ask INMA", an AI answer engine that's a proper step up from the usual generic chatbots. It digs deeper into their exclusive archive to bring media-savvy insights, not just bland summaries, and smarter, more useful answers - perfect for newsrooms wanting to cut through the clutter.
Read
Readers haven't vanished, they just moved on
It seems that readers haven't vanished, but they just packed up and moved to Reddit and Facebook. The digital front door might've changed, but people are still knocking, they just don't use search the same way they used to. But, that doesn't mean we should pretend that platforms are doing us a huge favour, journalism still fuels their engagement and yet still gets offered peanuts in return. It's less "partnership" and more "please may we have a crumb of visibility, sir?" The industry's message is simple: value the content, pay for the work, and don't bury the links under a pile of algorithmic fluff. Sustainable journalism doesn't need polite applause, it needs proper support.
Read
“AI therapists" slammed
The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has been nudged into action by a chorus of mental health and digital rights groups, who claim chatbots posing as therapists are playing doctors without licence. Meta and Character.AI are in the crosshairs for allegedly letting bots dole out therapy, complete with fake credentials and soothing platitudes, to millions. Critics are arguing it's not just misleading, but it is outright dangerous, especially when vulnerable users take bots at their word. With privacy holes and questionable ethics baked in, the line between innovation and irresponsibility is looking awfully blurry. It would seem that therapy is the latest industry AI forgot to ask permission to join.
Read
Meta's free speech gamble backfires?
Is social media moderation a must? According to a report written by Jenna Sherman at UltraViolet, Ana Clara-Toledo at All Out, and Leanna Garfield at GLAAD, Meta has taken a sharp U-turn, loosening hate speech rules under the guise of "free expression". The report claims that users feel less protected and more targeted by harmful content since January, while Meta's leadership seem to be distracted by grand AI ambitions. Meanwhile, the report says, their platform risks turning into a toxic Wild West, accompanied by misinformation and spam.
Read
AI arms race: cash, chaos, and corporate clashes
Meta's handing out $100 million pay checks like they're party favours, seemingly hoping to lure AI brains away from OpenAI and Google. While Zuckerberg's team tries to buy innovation, OpenAI's and Microsoft's lot are politely declining those offers and cosying up to investors and playing the hype game. In the meantime, both camps are gearing up to shove more AI down our throats via "smart" social feeds, because what the world needs right now is more algorithmic meddling in our lives. In the end, it's a kerfuffle between two sets of corporate power players, each just as eager to dominate - whether through shiny pay packets or slick marketing.
Read
Writing smart for AI
Ever wondered if writing for AI means just chopping up text into neat little chunks? Turns out, it's a bit more nuanced. Recent tests show that clear Q&A formats and well-structured content beat dense, rambling prose every time when it comes to getting picked up by AI search. So, while chunking matters, how you organise your content might matter even more. Chris Green sheds more light on the evolving AI content game.
Read