Press and media
View from briefing·center
in brief
Looking for the bright spots amid a decline in trust
The signs of information instability are everywhere. Trust in media and other public institutions is down. The news landscape has been in a state of constant transformation into … something else … for three decades.
And while there are people taking great pains to measure and understand what it means, others hope to exploit it — or contribute to it.
The Reuters Institute’s 2026 Digital News Report documents a worldwide decline in trust of news media:
Within the news ecosystem, an apparent paradox emerges between behavior and attitudes. There is continued change in news consumption in favor of social media, video networks and, more recently, AI. At the same time, concerns about trust in news, about misinformation, and about the wider impact of these platforms are all increasing.
The decline in trust has been joined by a decline in interest:
Since 2021, the proportion of people saying they are ‘extremely’ or ‘very’ interested in the news has fallen by an average of 13 [percentage points] across the markets we survey. A quarter (25%) of respondents are now casual or passive news users who typically only consume news once a week and say they have little to no interest in it, up from 16% in 2021.
As the Nieman Lab succinctly put it, “News sites are rapidly becoming the newspapers of the digital age. And you know what happened to newspapers.”
Yet the paradox: As trust in news declines, people appear to be consuming more of their news on platforms they trust less than established news sources.
To further add to the confusion, journalist Richard J. Tofel points out it’s not entirely clear what news consumption looks like:
When we think about sources of news, we tend to imagine people making choices: Do they subscribe to particular newspapers, magazines, newsletters or podcasts? Do they listen to particular radio shows or stations, or watch television news or YouTube? Do they get news from social media, or, more recently, perhaps from AI agents? These are our competitors for their attention, we often think, and it’s quite a noisy jumble.
But what if that’s not how it works anymore? I was moved to return to this question by a survey, passed along by a Montana publisher, that was commissioned last winter by the Greater Montana Foundation and released late last month. It found that about two thirds of Montanans were consuming news that was just delivered to them, rather than actively sought by them.
Before you reject that as a thin reed on which to base a big claim, here’s a larger national study of 12,000 people last year that found that 40% of registered voters said that “news comes to me,” as opposed to “I actively seek out news.”
As goes trust in news, so goes democracy. According to Pew:
Around seven-in-ten U.S. adults (69%) say they are dissatisfied with the way democracy is working in their country. This share is higher than in most other high-income countries surveyed by Pew Research Center this spring.
A large majority of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (86%) are dissatisfied with how American democracy is working. Around half of Republicans and GOP leaners (51%) say the same.
While many factors contribute to the decline in trust, Donald Trump is inarguably an active agent. A recent survey of almost 300 scientists found “dramatic, mostly negative, effects of federal policy changes on researchers, the research system and American competitiveness.”
Meanwhile, the New York Times reports on Trump’s complaints about the results of the Los Angeles mayoral primary — a Republican held second place for a period of time while the votes were being counted — in which two Democrats advanced in that overwhelmingly Democratic city:
Such fleeting Republican leads are common enough to have a name — the “red mirage” — yet Mr. Trump, as he did in his own 2020 loss, cast the slow count as proof of theft. By baselessly framing Ms. Raman’s rise as a Democratic scam, Mr. Trump extended his long-running project to erode public faith in elections — and gave an unusually clear preview of how he could greet any disappointing results for his party in November, when control of Congress is at stake.
There’s no obvious or easy fix to the loss of faith in the news media or in democracy itself. While the Times called out bad faith arguments in this case, it too often gives Trump an undeserved platform. I mean, how many peace “deals” have we had to read about?
Amid all this uncertainty and tumult, Margaret Sullivan wants to emphasize the good news — or at least good goals:
Let’s talk about an American comeback. I’m shocked almost every day at how distressing things are right now as Donald Trump’s unrestrained second term acts as a wrecking ball on our democracy, our global reputation, and our values.
But let’s say America can come back. Let’s say America does what Hungary has done, what the Knicks have done, and in literature, what Odysseus and Gandalf did. What happens after falling into the abyss? What can happen?
If America is to come back, reassert its democratic goals, and overcome this awful time, we must “do something about it.”
Sullivan sees rebuilding local journalism as her “something.” And she invites her readers to offer theirs.
I think she’s on to something.
If the Knicks can do it, surely the country can.
(Credit where credit is due: a free childcare program for “New York’s Cutest” and an NBA championship in his first year? Mayor Zohran Mamdani really knows how to deliver the goods.)