Introduction

In late 2024, we asked the public in Australia, Brazil, South Africa and the United States for their thoughts on news, journalism and journalists. Our public survey included open-end responses which were analyzed to understand how people view journalists. These four countries were chosen to represent a diversity of both media environments and geographies.

Our analysis of their responses to open-ended questions reveals that:

• Strong majorities of the public in all four countries use favorable rather than unfavorable terms to describe traits of journalists.¹
• In multiple countries, the people who have negative views of journalists tend to also possess negative perceptions of the wider news ecosystem and/or conservative political leanings.

Across All Four Countries, Most People Name Positive Traits When Asked About Journalists — but Consistent Minorities Express Concern About Journalists’ Ethics

Around the world, the public has ambivalent views of journalism. CNTI wanted to know what they think about the people who create it. We asked respondents in Australia, Brazil, South Africa and the U.S. to share the top traits that came to mind when they thought about people who produce journalism. 

Across all four countries, strong majorities used positive words and phrases when asked to name top traits that come to mind when thinking about people who produce journalism. Many in Australia, Brazil, and the U.S. described journalists as having clear ethical standards and being committed to verifiable facts. At the same time, about one-in-ten people in these same countries indicated that journalists do not have ethical principles.

In three of the four countries studied, most people who answered the question say that journalists are ethical, rely on verifiable facts or both

In Australia (45%), Brazil (38%) and the U.S. (44%), respondents were mostly likely to list traits that indicated that journalists have clear ethical standards. Traits indicating a reliance on verifiable facts were the second most common — 23% of Australians, 22% of Brazilians and 31% of Americans mentioned it. Responses from these three countries are similar to what we heard from journalists, although journalists emphasized verifiable facts slightly more often than ethics.

The positive ethical traits most frequently mentioned by Australians, based on simple counts of individual words and word stems included “honesty,” “integrity” and the absence of “bias” (or, occasionally, “awareness” and “transparency” regarding biases). Americans used the same words — “honesty” and “integrity” — frequently to describe ethics. In Brazil, on the other hand, “impartiality” stood out as a common word. Brazilians also frequently attributed “seriousness” to journalists, although it rarely appeared in responses from any other country. (In Brazilian Portuguese, describing a person as “sério” connotes integrity and decency more than somberness or lack of humor.)

Among Brazilians and Australians, the word “truth” was a frequent indicator for relying on verifiable facts, while in the U.S. “fact” was about equally common. The language of “credibility,” “accuracy” and “reliability” came up across countries as well.

On the other hand, no single trait was mentioned by a clear plurality of South Africans. Roughly comparable numbers of people mentioned that journalists rely on verifiable facts (13%), have clear ethical standards (18%), have grit and work hard (17%), have mental acumen (21%) and communicate complicated topics clearly (16%).

Consistent minorities see journalists as lacking ethical principles

Among those who offered less positive descriptions when asked what tops their list when thinking about journalists, the most common responses had to do with a lack of ethics. About one-in-ten Australian (12%), Brazilian (12%) and U.S. (14%) respondents described journalists as unethical. In all three countries, the absence of objectivity was the most common complaint among those who said that journalists are unethical in one way or another.

In Australia, those who found journalists to be unethical frequently described them as “biased” and “opinionated,” “activists” and “liars” who have an “overarching agenda or world view that their published works are viewed through.” Brazilians who viewed journalists as unethical primarily described them as “biased” or “political,” but some also mentioned other ethical failures, such as “hypocrisy,” “lying” and “financial interests.”

Information that’s very partial; especially in this political moment; the mess the country is in; no one understands; things are too one-sided, without a filter; we’re suspicious of everything; it’s very complex; we might go crazy from here on.” (Brazil)

They should be neutral, but often sneak their slant in.” (U.S.)

I would like to think of it being ‘honesty’, but lately I believe they are more ‘dishonest’ and do not report the truth,” (US)

While infrequent, money and profit reflected another striking thread among those who were concerned about journalists’ ethics.

They make the story say what is needed for money.” (Australia)

They sell a lot of media, selling what the media wants. Not everything is apologised for and they only sell what’s interesting to them.” (Brazil)

Bigger the story. The bigger the pay.”  (U.S.)

In a similar vein, in all four countries about 5% of people said that journalists do not rely on verifiable facts. Many of these responses were also coded as “unethical.”

Journalists also name facts and ethics as their top traits — and do not have concerns about a lack of ethics

The public is largely in sync with journalists on key journalistic traits. When CNTI asked a similar question in our 2024 survey of journalists, the same two traits came to the forefront. In that survey, journalists mentioned reliance on facts (49% of surveyed journalists) and ethics (41% of surveyed journalists) with roughly equal frequency.

Journalists differed from the public in not raising concerns about a lack of ethics. The negative perceptions we heard from journalists were few and far between, and largely focused on the danger of practicing journalism today or on poor financial compensation.

Negativity About the News Ecosystem Is Linked to Negative Perceptions of Journalists. So Is Political Ideology.

A notable minority in all four countries, between 10% (South Africa) and 20% (Brazil), associated journalists with at least one negative trait. To understand what drives these negative perceptions, we analyzed their responses in connection with other survey questions. This comparison revealed a connection between those with negative perceptions of journalists and those with negative views of the broader news ecosystem and/or conservative political ideologies. 

In all four countries, respondents who indicated that mainstream news organizations² do not play a critical role in an informed society were more likely to list negative traits about journalists, compared with people who do see them playing a role. 

In three countries (Brazil, South Africa and the U.S.), people who said it is not important for them to get news from mainstream news organizations were more likely to give a negative response when asked about the traits of journalists. In Australia, responses were consistent, no matter how people answered this question.

In Australia, Brazil and the U.S., members of the public who consider themselves to be very conservative or conservative were more likely to include negative traits compared with those who consider themselves to be very liberal or liberal. These partisan or ideological differences may be linked to the global phenomenon of political attacks on journalism: In both Brazil and the U.S., conservative leaders have repeatedly made highly visible comments disparaging journalists and mainstream media in recent years. In South Africa, meanwhile, ideology did not seem to make a difference. (Nothing comparable has happened on the same scale in either Australia or South Africa.)

Majorities view journalists positively — even across ideology

When asked what traits of journalists come to mind, publics across the four countries are largely positive. Even among those who are more negative about various aspects of the information environment, clear majorities view the people who produce journalism positively. While we do find evidence of political ideology being associated with views of journalists — those who self-report having a conservative ideology are more negative than those who report being liberal — majorities of both ideological groups still provide positive traits when asked to think about journalists. Overall, people in each of the four countries view journalists positively, which provides an opportunity for the journalism industry to continue to build trust and explain the relevance of the journalistic process to the public.

For Those Who See a Difference Between Journalism and News, Journalism Builds on News

CNTI’s 2024 public survey also explored if and how people in the four countries distinguish between journalism and news. About two-thirds of Australians and Americans said they are different, as did about half of Brazilians and 40% of South Africans.

Of the people who say there is a difference between news and journalism, strong majorities in Australia (76%), Brazil (70%) and the U.S. (82%) describe journalism as going beyond news in some way. Of the people in South Africa who say there is a difference, four-in-ten (40%) also expressed this view. But there was a lot of variation about precisely what journalism adds to news. Respondents’ answers suggest that journalism is news with opinion, rigor, context, facts, storytelling and/or breadth. 

Some respondents saw journalism and news as inseparable and perceived news as the content and journalism as the professional activity. Others saw journalism and news as complementary, both meeting information needs, but through different topics or different mediums.

Their definitions of both news and journalism align closely with findings from our earlier focus groups where participants described journalism as a robust process of research and storytelling informed by ethical values and news as recent, accurate and socially relevant. The definition of news also aligns with research from the Pew Research Center, which shows that Americans view news as factual, current and “important to society.”

The public did not draw the same direct connections between journalism and civics and democracy as journalists did in CNTI’s 2024 journalist survey, but the traits they mentioned most frequently are traits that enable the civic function of journalism.

Why We Did This Study

This report is part of CNTI’s broader “Defining News Initiative” which examines questions surrounding this theme in policy, technological developments and the views of journalists, in addition to public perceptions. The data in this report explore the public’s perceptions of news, journalism and technology in four countries: Australia, Brazil, South Africa and the United States. These data were collected in parallel with a global survey of journalists.

CNTI was motivated by several overarching questions:

1. How does the public navigate new ways of being informed?
2. Where do they see journalism fitting in?
3. How can journalism do a better job of communicating its unique value?

Answers to these questions are central to better understanding the evolving information ecosystem. As CNTI learned in a series of focus groups last year in the same four countries, people are putting a lot of work into getting themselves up to speed on news. At the same time, many are actively tuning news out, expressing a sense that it is overwhelming. This research continues a series of CNTI reports that examines these ideas with a specific focus on the open-ended questions in the survey. CNTI’s first report, “What the Public Wants from Journalism in the Age of AI: A Four Country Survey,” was published earlier this year.

As with all CNTI research, this report was prepared by the research and professional staff of CNTI. This project was financially supported by CNTI’s funders. 

How We Did This Study

CNTI’s survey questionnaire was developed internally by our research team and advisors in consultation with Langer Research Associates. Focus groups were initially run in each of the four counties which informed the development of the questionnaire. In addition to references made throughout this report, themes from these focus groups may be found in a series of essays available on CNTI’s website.

In partnership with Langer Research Associates, the data were collected through different vendors in each country:

• Australian data are from an Infield International RDD CATI/cell phone sample conducted from September 4 to October 1, 2024. The total sample size was 1,000 respondents. The design effect was 1.39 with a margin of error of 3.7 points. The survey was only available in English. All interviews were conducted by telephone, and the median interview length was 18 minutes and five seconds. There were 41 interviewers used by Infield International all of whom were trained. The sample collection age categories were: 18-24, 25-34, 45-54, 55-64 and 65+.
• Brazilian data are from an Inteligência em Pesquisa e Consultoria (IPEC) RDD CATI/cell phone sample conducted from September 13 to October 3, 2024. The total sample size was 1,000 respondents. The design effect was 1.67 with a margin of error of 4.0 points. The survey was only available in Brazilian Portuguese. All interviews were conducted by telephone, and the median interview length was 16 minutes and 49 seconds. There were 76 interviewers all of whom were trained. The sample collection age categories were: 18-29, 30-44, 45-59 and 60+.
• South African data are from an Infinite Insight RDD CATI/cell phone sample conducted from September 23 to October 16, 2024. The total sample size was 1,012 respondents. The design effect was 1.48 with a margin of error of 3.7 points. The survey was available in English (n = 811), Zulu (n = 138), Sesotho (n = 24), Sepedi (n = 17), Setswana (n = 12) and Xhosa (n = 10). All interviews were conducted by telephone, and the median interview length was 19 minutes and 17 seconds. There were 47 interviewers all of whom were trained. The sample collection age categories were: 18-24, 25-34, 35-49, 50-64 and 65+.
• United States data are from Ipsos’s probability-based online KnowledgePanel® and was conducted from September 12-21, 2024. A total of 1,670 panelists were initially selected and 1,053 completed the survey. A total of 28 respondents were removed during the quality control process, yielding a final sample size of 1,025 respondents. The design effect was 1.13 with a margin of error of 3.3 points. The survey was available in English (n = 983) and Spanish (n = 42). All surveys were self-administered online, and the median interview length was 10 minutes and 23 seconds. The sample collection age categories were: 18-29, 30-44, 45-59 and 60+.

Technical reports from the survey vendors are available upon request from info@cnti.org.

How We Coded Open-Ended Questions

All respondents were asked about the traits of journalism producers: “Now thinking about people who produce journalism, what is the top trait or traits that come to mind?” We received 816 codable answers from Australia, 726 from Brazil, 606 from South Africa and 742 from the U.S.

Respondents were also asked,“Thinking about news and journalism, do you see journalism as something that is different from news?” If they responded “yes,” they were asked, “In just a few words, what is it that makes journalism different from news?” We received 603 codable answers from Australia, 467 from Brazil, 300 from South Africa and 536 from the U.S. Answers were variable in length, detail and the kind of relationship they described. 

Both open-ended questions were coded by a team of four researchers. Responses for each country were coded by a unique pair of researchers and no two researchers coded the same two countries within a given open-ended question. The two researchers who had coded related items in CNTI’s survey of journalists and developed the initial coding scheme never co-coded for this report. 

The research team followed an iterative process in which an initial subset of responses were coded to assess the codebooks (presented below) and discuss options for other categories. 

Researchers independently completed their coding although they discussed questions that arose during their analysis via online messaging. The country pairs of researchers met to discuss any coding disagreements after each researcher finished their own coding. Coders used informed judgement when assessing responses that lacked clarity. All discrepancies were resolved by discussion between the two participating coders and, where necessary, the larger group of four coders.

All results shown in the main report use the survey weights (described below). The toplines present both the weighted and unweighted frequencies. The results also only show the share of responses in a given category as part of the codable responses. In effect, the total number of responses we include in analyses are only those the research team could code.

Researcher Positionality

The four researchers who participated in the coding process are all from the U.S. While three of the four have lived outside the U.S. for extended periods of time, those experiences do not include Brazil, South Africa or Australia.

Coding the traits of journalism producers

The initial trait categories were developed in our analysis of data from journalists, then we identified additional keywords from the larger data set of the public survey responses. For the public survey responses, we also considered valence (i.e., emotional direction) since a number of responses focused on the absence of identified traits rather than their presence.

Coders analyzed each country’s responses separately before coming together to discuss any disagreements. Both researchers needed to agree on a category to finalize the coding. Coders used informed judgement when assessing responses that lacked clarity. 

The final codebook consists of nine (9) categories that capture the range of responses participants provided when contemplating the traits of journalism producers. 

Here is a list of words and attributes that fit into each category:

The results for this open-ended question are shown in the table below.

Coding the differences between journalism and news

The final codebook reflects that when drawing comparisons between news and journalism, many discussed the idea that journalism adds a quality to news. Therefore, each country was reviewed again with the inclusion of “news +” categories that reflect this idea. Updating the codebook provided for a more comprehensive understanding of the differences between journalism and news.

The final codebook has 14 categories. The first category denotes whether the response was uninformative (i.e., the concepts are the same or there is a difference but it is unspecified). The next five (5) categories assess differences between journalism and news in which the two concepts are viewed as separate/distinct. The next seven (7) categories assess the common response that journalism adds a quality to news (news +). The final category (Other) serves as a catch-all for responses that did not fit cleanly into the previous 13. 

The final codebook is presented here:

The results for this open-ended response are shown in the table below.

Coding the differences between journalism and news

After the open-ended questions were coded, we re-merged these data with the full quantitative survey data by each respondent’s unique identification number. Thus, we had a full data set of their survey responses and their open-ended responses categories. 

Each country’s data were weighted using demographic variables (i.e., age, sex, education and macroregion). While each individual country used a different age breakdown for sample collection, we opted to recode the age breakdown into the following categories: 18-29, 30-44, 45-54 and 55+. These categories were used to ensure there were at least 100 weighted respondents in each group — South Africa has a younger population, especially compared with the United States’ older population. 

We also applied the survey weights to analysis that include open-ended response categories. We include both the weighted and unweighted frequencies for the open-ended responses in the toplines. For specific questions about the sample frames, weighting procedures and/or additional survey details, please send an email to the research team at info@cnti.org.

How we tested for statistical significance

We analyzed the results using Chi-squared proportion tests to assess differences in responses between two countries. We used a standard threshold of p < 0.05 for assessing statistical significance. Differences mentioned in the report text are statistically significant.

How we addressed data quality in open-ended questions

Data quality in the open-ended responses received attention during the analysis phase of the project. CNTI worked with Langer Research Associates and country vendors to review what interviewers recorded from respondents’ open ends. Several anomalies and mistakes were found. Interviewer recordings of the open-ended responses were reviewed by the vendor and CNTI received updated data for both open-ended questions. 

Researchers left individual responses as is and coded responses using informed judgement. Some non-standard orthography and typographical errors were easily interpretable. However, others were difficult to assess and were discussed by the research team. Any responses that could not be clearly understood were treated as uncodable and removed from the data set. Responses quoted in the report have been lightly edited to conform with standard orthography and punctuation.

We also examine results by country rather than as one total, because there may be a mode effect present in the survey results. The U.S. data were collected online, whereas the other three countries’ surveys were conducted through telephone, which may yield higher levels of social desirability responses in these locales. Research shows there is known variability in survey responses across countries and cultures regarding social desirability and acquiescence which may, in part, also be shaped by survey mode.

How we protected our data

Data collection was done by the country-specific vendors listed above. The survey included individual-level information such as age, gender, race, political ideology and macro-region. Survey data supplied to CNTI from the vendors did not include names or specific locations of respondents. Each respondent received an unique identifier.

It would be very difficult, if possible at all, to identify survey respondents because CNTI did not collect personal contact information or contact respondents directly. The survey data for this project are securely stored in an encrypted folder that is only authorized to the core research team at CNTI.

Footnotes

1. Throughout this report we use the term “journalist” for clarity, although we asked about “people who produce journalism” because we were trying to better understand how people understand the meaning of this term. See our focus group report for additional details. ︎
2. Because we were trying to tease out differences between journalism and news, we avoided using those words whenever possible. In our survey questionnaire, we used the phrase “news organizations that employ reporters” as a proxy for traditional media companies to distinguish them from other kinds of content producers. ︎

The post Most People in Four Countries Describe Journalists Positively appeared first on Center for News, Technology & Innovation.

Attacks against journalists are on the rise worldwide. In 2024, at least 124 journalists were killed, making it the deadliest year for the press on record. Globally, press freedom is under attack from legal, judicial and violent tactics. Journalists are facing surveillance, restrictive laws and strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs), along with internet shutdowns and repressive laws and — sometimes — death. Journalists, especially women and minority groups, also endure increasing online harassment and cybersecurity threats. These include sexual harassment, doxxing, malware and deepfakes, with digital harm often leading to physical harm.

CNTI’s own research shows that risk doesn’t just impact the newsroom: 64% of journalists facing high risks ¹say their sources do, too, while 11% of journalists facing low risks say their sources face high risks.

Journalists facing higher levels of risks do not report receiving higher levels of support to deal with these threats. Rather, all journalists perceive their news organizations to be paying similar amounts of attention to risks and that their newsrooms are similarly prepared to address online abuse. Journalists facing high risks say they feel less comfortable discussing these issues with their colleagues.

News organizations have an opportunity to increase engagement on these issues. By actively addressing these challenges and supporting the adoption of robust safety and security measures, they can help journalists work more safely and effectively. This support enables journalists to focus on their reporting rather than on the risks they face.

Risks carry through to sources

Journalists facing high levels of risk are far more likely to say their sources also face high levels of risk, with 64% expressing this concern compared to 11% among journalists facing lower risks. This finding highlights that risks associated with exposing and sharing information are not limited to journalists themselves.

When the public fears speaking with journalists due to potential repercussions, it can severely undermine the integrity and openness of the information environment.

Journalists are facing harassment from the public and the government, often through the use of technology

The risks journalists face are well documented and continue to grow. Our findings confirm that the journalists who report feeling unsafe are facing significantly higher levels of job-related harassment.

Those experiencing high levels of risk are more likely than those experiencing low levels of risk to have experienced harassment. This is true for every type of harassment covered in the survey, including threats of legal action (39 vs. 15%), physical harm to themselves (30 vs. 7%), exposure of private information (26 vs. 7%), sexual or gender based-harassment (24 vs. 6%), threats of financial harm (22 vs. 6%), racial or ethnic harassment (20 vs. 3%) and threats of physical harm to their family (18 vs. 1%)².

Journalists experiencing high levels of risk are also more likely to have experienced government overreach than their colleagues. This is true for every form of overreach covered in the survey: receiving direct complaints about their content (48 vs. 25%), being denied access to a government hearing or other official event (39 vs. 24%), censorship (35 vs. 14%) and being arrested, detained, or imprisoned by the government or an affiliated group (9 vs. 2%).

Journalists facing high risks do not feel more supported by their news organization than their peers

Despite facing different levels of risk, our data shows that journalists perceive their news organizations to be paying similar amounts of attention to relationships with the government and online abuse, surveillance and cyber threats. While two-in-three journalists say their organization is paying attention to government relations, about half say the same about online abuse, surveillance and online threats.

About six in 10 journalists are confident that their organizations are prepared to deal with external online abuse directed toward their employees. That’s true whether those journalists are facing high or low risks. Although a majority of both groups perceive their organizations as being prepared, four in 10 respondents lack this confidence.

Journalists facing high risks feel less comfortable than journalists facing low risks in talking to colleagues about topics related to their safety. That said, strong majorities of all journalists surveyed do still feel comfortable discussing all four topics with colleagues generally.

When it comes to handling online abuse, surveillance and cyber threats, the journalists surveyed indicate there is room for newsrooms to increase both the amount of attention paid and improve their ability to address online abuse.

For the most part, all respondents take similar security precautions, but when it comes to being informed, journalists facing high levels of risk are more likely to feel very informed about journalists facing online harassment around the world than their peers who face lower risks (25 vs. 14%).

Why this matters

Journalists around the world consistently report that they feel unsafe as they confront serious threats, ranging from harassment and surveillance to government overreach and censorship. Journalists who are facing high risks believe their sources are, too. When the public is unable or is afraid to share information due to potential consequences, there can be severe negative impacts on the information environment.

Our findings suggest that journalists perceive that their news organizations could be doing more to support them. Specifically, about half of all journalists say that their organization is paying at least a fair amount of attention to online abuse, surveillance and cyber threats. About two-thirds say the same for government relations. Journalists facing the highest levels of risk are not only more exposed to threats, but they are no more likely to adopt protective security practices than those who do not face these risks.

Additionally, journalists who are facing high levels of risk are less likely to feel comfortable discussing safety concerns or experiences with their colleagues. This can lead to isolation and inhibit them from sharing experiences and strategies to improve protection.

Varying levels of comfort in discussing risks, along with insufficient institutional support, leave journalists exposed and less empowered to respond effectively to the threats they face.

TThis research underscores the urgent need to strengthen safety and security practices across the journalism profession. Not only is this vital for journalists, but also for continuing and improving free and independent media globally. Better supporting journalists who face high risks ensures that they are able to inform the public, hold power to account and contribute to the defense of democracy.

About This Study

This project is part of CNTI’s broader Defining News Initiative, which seeks to understand how journalism is perceived by audiences and journalists today. Access to information is not just important for its own sake; it makes democracy possible.

The journalist data in this article are a subset from a larger global survey, What It Means to Do Journalism in the Age of AI: Journalist Views on Safety, Technology and Government.

How we recruited participants

Surveys are a snapshot of what people think at a particular moment in time. CNTI partnered with journalism organizations on multiple continents. The questionnaire was crafted with input from partner organizations who knew the current situations and challenges of their members across various country contexts. These partner organizations also shared the survey with their members and can be found here.

CNTI collected responses between October 14 and December 1, 2024. This data highlights the perspective of journalists around the world during that time frame. The data reflects the responses of 433 journalists across 63 countries, with 256 respondents (59%) coming from three countries: Mexico, Nigeria and the U.S. Because no global census of journalists exists, no survey can be “fully representative” of all journalists.

How we addressed attrition

The survey was lengthy (with an estimated completion time of 20 minutes) and consisted of five distinct sections on different topics. The survey was broken into sections, and we treated each as a drop-off point: that is, if a respondent answered at least one question within a section, non-responses were treated as true non-responses. Respondents who answered no questions within a section were not included within the section’s N.

For transparency, topline tables include both percentages of the full survey N (Percent) as well as percentages of the section N (Valid Percent).

How we protected our data

CNTI did not collect any identifiable information that risked the privacy and confidentiality of participants. Data collection was supervised by CNTI staff only. The survey included individual-level information such as gender and the country where one worked and resided. It would be very difficult to identify study participants because CNTI did not collect their personal contact information or contact participants directly and the participants’ personal information was not shared by the partner organizations.

The data is securely stored in an encrypted folder, which is only authorized to the core research team at CNTI. More information about how each survey was administered may be found here.

Footnotes

1. In our 2024 survey of 433 journalists around the world, about one-third (37%) of respondents confirmed that they are facing high levels of risk. ︎
2. We only asked these questions of people who said they had experienced job-related harassment. ︎

The post Journalists Who Face High Risks Require Better Security Practices to Provide News appeared first on Center for News, Technology & Innovation.

View the report in English

En las últimas décadas, la adopción y el uso generalizados de las nuevas tecnologías de la comunicación han transformado rápidamente los ecosistemas mundiales de la información.

Para los periodistas y las organizaciones de noticias, estos cambios han potenciado su trabajo y, a su vez, han planteado nuevos desafíos. Para el público, estos cambios tecnológicos y sociales han aportado muchas más opciones, alterando la forma en que los medios de comunicación han interactuado desde siempre con la gente.

Al mismo tiempo, los Gobiernos de todo el mundo están vulnerando cada vez más la libertad de prensa y convirtiendo la ley en un arma contra los periodistas, mientras que los asuntos sobre los modelos de ingresos y la valoración del contenido digital siguen sin resolverse.

Las plataformas de redes sociales, en concreto, han ofrecido nuevas oportunidades para encontrar al público justo donde está, pero también han convertido a los periodistas en blanco de constantes amenazas legales y acoso. 

Últimamente, la conveniencia y la idoneidad de las herramientas de IA¹ pueden ayudar a personas y equipos a producir más contenido, pero estas herramientas requieren muchos recursos, han mostrado potencial de inexactitud y la opacidad de sus algoritmos deja a los periodistas con la incertidumbre acerca de qué nuevos propósitos se le está dando a su trabajo. 

Las encuestas son una instantánea de lo que la gente piensa en un momento concreto. Entre el 14 de octubre de 2024 y el 24 de noviembre de 2024, encuestamos a más de 430 periodistas en más de 60 países sobre el Gobierno, la tecnología, el ciberacoso y lo que implica ser periodista en estos días.

Al igual que todas las investigaciones del CNTI, este informe fue elaborado por nuestro equipo de investigadores y profesionales. Aquí se presentan algunos aspectos destacados de lo que descubrimos:

Los periodistas ven mucho valor en su sector, pero no están seguros de que el valor se esté comunicando bien, lo que genera confusión pública: los periodistas estadounidenses no creen que el público pueda diferenciar qué es y qué no es periodismo. Aproximadamente uno de cada cuatro periodistas estadounidenses (24 %) cree que el público puede distinguir el periodismo de otros tipos de noticias e información. Por su parte, cerca de la mitad de los periodistas mexicanos (48 %) creen que el público puede hacer esa distinción, al igual que el 70 % de los periodistas nigerianos. Y, si bien la formación profesional y las instituciones son importantes para la autopercepción de los periodistas, la mayoría de ellos está de acuerdo en que quienes no son periodistas pueden hacer periodismo. 

La mitad de los periodistas encuestados (50 %) han sufrido una extralimitación directa del Gobierno en el último año. Esta puede ser la razón por la cual la gran mayoría (más de tres cuartas partes) manifiesta que no corresponde que el Gobierno defina el periodismo o a los periodistas, y casi la mitad afirma que el Gobierno ejerce demasiado control sobre el periodismo.

Los periodistas creen que la tecnología mejora su trabajo, pero dudan de la IA: dos tercios afirman que la tecnología en general, y las redes sociales en particular, están teniendo un efecto positivo en su trabajo, aunque solo un tercio manifiesta lo mismo sobre el efecto de la IA en el panorama de la información. Los periodistas en el Sur Global son más positivos en general.

Hay riesgos graves que están muy extendidos: uno de cada tres los enfrenta con relativa frecuencia o más. De todos modos, los niveles de precaución varían: los periodistas cambian contraseñas y actualizan hardware y software en los dispositivos con frecuencia, pero no siempre se comunican con las fuentes a través de las plataformas más seguras. Alrededor del 40 % afirmó que hace ambas cosas una vez cada pocos meses en promedio, y el 30 % o menos dijo hacerlo una vez cada pocos años o cuando el dispositivo deja de funcionar. Además, los periodistas en el Norte Global hacen ambas cosas con más frecuencia que sus colegas de otros lugares. Mientras tanto, el 15 % de los periodistas afirman que utilizan la mensajería cifrada entre pares como su principal medio de comunicación con las fuentes. La gran mayoría no tiene problema en hablar sobre seguridad con colegas y gerentes, por ejemplo, sobre la censura por parte del Gobierno y experiencias personales de abuso.

Por último, para conectar las diferentes áreas temáticas, planteamos una pregunta general sobre siete problemas que enfrentan muchas organizaciones de noticias en la actualidad. Los resultados aportan información valiosa sobre la percepción del sector de los periodistas, y las prioridades de la sala de redacción, que pueden no coincidir con la perspectiva de los jefes de redacción. Según los encuestados, desde hace tiempo el compromiso del público continúa recibiendo la mayor atención dentro de las organizaciones de noticias, seguido por los flujos de ingresos y la información errónea. El tema al que se le presta menos atención es el abuso en línea.

En este informe se aborda el entorno informativo con énfasis en cuatro de las áreas temáticas más apremiantes de la actualidad, cada una de las cuales merece que se investigue y converse más al respecto: definiciones de noticia y periodismo, las relaciones entre las organizaciones de noticias y el Gobierno, la tecnología y la IA, y la seguridad y la protección. Si bien el informe desglosa estas áreas, hay una gran cantidad de información interconectada que se aborda en las distintas secciones.

Footnotes

1. Dada la falta de consenso sobre lo que abarca la “inteligencia artificial”, usamos el término en sentido amplio para referirnos a “ciencias, teorías y técnicas cuyo propósito es reproducir mediante una máquina las facultades cognitivas de un ser humano”. Si bien no hay una definición técnica comúnmente aceptada, es útil considerar ejemplos como los modelos de lenguaje de gran escala (LLM), que se “entrenan” con datos para reconocer tendencias estadísticas con las que generar texto plausible. Este tipo de modelos suelen tener demasiados parámetros para ser totalmente transparentes o para que sean explicados, incluso por sus creadores. ︎

The post Qué significa hacer periodismo en la era de la IA: Opiniones de los periodistas sobre la seguridad, la tecnología y el Gobierno appeared first on Center for News, Technology & Innovation.

Resumen

Hoy la cantidad de medios, canales y voces a través de los cuales el público accede a las noticias no deja de crecer, lo que hace que tengan más formas de enterarse de los asuntos y los sucesos que les importan como nunca antes. Como pudo comprobar el CNTI en una serie de grupos focales que se reunieron antes de esta encuesta, las personas dedican un gran esfuerzo a ponerse al día con esas noticias. Al mismo tiempo, muchas están eligiendo desconectarse de las noticias y manifiestan sentir una sensación de agobio a causa de ellas. El advenimiento de la inteligencia artificial (IA) solo ha venido a sumarse a la gran cantidad de maneras en las que se comparte y consume información.

¿Cómo navega el público por estas nuevas formas de informarse? ¿Qué relevancia le asigna al periodismo? ¿Y cómo puede el periodismo comunicar mejor su valor único? El CNTI profundizó en estas preguntas (y en algunas otras) en esta encuesta.

El CNTI encuestó a 4037 personas de cuatro países (Australia, Brasil, Sudáfrica y Estados Unidos) entre el 4 de septiembre y el 16 de octubre de 2024 para comprender sus perspectivas sobre quién puede producir periodismo, cómo acceden a las fuentes de información en las que confían y sus actitudes sobre los usos periodísticos de tecnologías como la IA. Al igual que en todas las investigaciones del CNTI, este informe fue elaborado por el personal investigador y profesional del CNTI. 

Principals Hallazgos

En lo que respecta a satisfacer las necesidades de información del público, las organizaciones de noticias desempeñan un papel clave, junto con otros proveedores valiosos, incluida la gente común. A pesar de que la mayoría de las personas dicen que las organizaciones de noticias desempeñan un papel importante en la sociedad y aún acuden con mayor frecuencia a ellas para informarse, una minoría considerable (20-30 %) considera a las personas como su principal fuente de noticias. Además, aproximadamente la mitad o más de las personas encuestadas en cada país dicen que creen que los periodistas no son los únicos individuos capaces de hacer periodismo y, de hecho, que la gente común puede hacerlo. (Lea esta sección del informe.)

La mayoría de las personas se sienten generalmente positivas sobre su capacidad para mantenerse informadas y consideran que las tecnologías digitales desempeñan un papel importante, pero la confianza es el mayor desafío: en tres de los cuatro países, la gran mayoría de las personas opinan que las tecnologías digitales son muy importantes para mantenerse informadas (67-85 %). Además, la mayoría de las personas tienen una actitud positiva sobre su capacidad para mantenerse informadas (59-67 %). Estados Unidos fue el caso atípico en ambas preguntas: una pequeña mayoría de los encuestados (57 %) dice que las tecnologías digitales son muy importantes para mantenerse informados y, aunque ninguna opinión recogió la mayoría de las respuestas sobre su capacidad para mantenerse informados, la mayoría simple tiene una opinión neutral (aunque mucho más positiva que negativa). A pesar de esta positividad, al menos el 70 % de las personas en cada país dicen que “saber en quién o en qué confiar” es al menos en cierta medida un desafío. (Lea esta sección del informe.)

En general, a las personas no les incomoda que los periodistas utilicen la tecnología con fines profesionales, pero las opiniones sobre la edición de imágenes y la IA son más variadas en Estados Unidos y Australia: una amplia mayoría (71-93 %) en los cuatro países considera que es gran medida aceptable usar la tecnología para verificar si algo es cierto, traducir contenido y resumir la información de múltiples documentos. Sin embargo, surgen diferencias en lo que respecta a la edición de imágenes. Los brasileños y los sudafricanos se sienten cómodos casi en igual medida con que los periodistas utilicen la tecnología de edición de imágenes (71-75 %), mientras que los estadounidenses y los australianos lo están mucho menos (35-49 %). Del mismo modo, los brasileños y los sudafricanos tienen una actitud más positiva que negativa sobre el impacto de la IA en el periodismo: el 46 % o más dice que tendrá un efecto mayormente positivo en la capacidad de los periodistas para informar sobre asuntos y sucesos. Por otro lado, los australianos y los estadounidenses son más negativos que positivos: entre el 28 % y el 41 % de los encuestados dicen que tendrá un efecto mayormente negativo, mientras que entre el 15 % y el 18 % dicen que el efecto será positivo. (Lea esta sección del informe.)

Más del 60 % en cada país confía en general en que Internet seguirá siendo un lugar para obtener y compartir noticias. Fuera de Estados Unidos, el 58 % o más de las personas en cada país también son optimistas sobre el impacto que los desarrollos en tecnología digital tendrá en su capacidad para mantenerse informadas. (Estados Unidos no se queda atrás, con el 46 %). La mayorías simples en Brasil y Sudáfrica también son positivas sobre el impacto de la IA en su capacidad para mantenerse informadas, mientras que en Estados Unidos y Australia son neutrales. En cada país, un número considerablemente mayor de personas tienen una actitud positiva con respecto a la tecnología en general en comparación con la IA en particular. (Lea esta sección del informe.)

Esta perspectiva, junto con la actitud abierta del público con respecto a que los periodistas utilicen diversas formas de tecnología, genera una oportunidad para quienes hacen periodismo: aprovechar las tecnologías disponibles de manera tal que conecten con el público y satisfagan sus necesidades de información, al tiempo que les garantiza su aceptación del producto final. Esto, a su vez, puede aumentar las propias capacidades de los periodistas en materia de cobertura de información, seguridad y, en última instancia, sostenibilidad.

Lea el informe complementario aquí.

The post Qué quiere el público del periodismo en la era de la IA: una encuesta en cuatro países appeared first on Center for News, Technology & Innovation.

Introduction

May 3, 2025 marks the 32nd anniversary of World Press Freedom Day (WPFD) which, as described by the United Nations, serves as a “reminder to governments of the need to respect their commitment to press freedom… [as well as] a day of reflection among media professionals about issues of press freedom and professional ethics.”

In 2024, the Center for News, Technology & Innovation (CNTI) highlighted global trends revealing that while global press freedoms grew from the 1990s to early 2000s, by the early 2020s, they deteriorated back to 1993 levels. These findings supported other research showcasing the erosion of press freedoms. These downward trends continued over the past year — data which is further detailed in our aggregated database.

For WPFD 2025, we build on last year’s research by examining data from CNTI’s recent international survey of journalists which included questions about how they perceive their government’s relationship to journalism as well as personal experiences with government overreach. We consider these responses in aggregate, by type of government and by experiences with government harms and interference.

Among the main findings:

• About half of journalists surveyed (54%) report their government seeks too much control over the journalism they produce. 
• Surveyed journalists in autocracies and electoral democracies report more government control than those in liberal democracies.
• Journalists who report (1) having personal experience with government overreach and (2) facing high levels of risk are more likely to say their government seeks too much control.
• Strong majorities of respondents do not think it is OK for their government to define journalism or journalists. This position does not depend on their perspective on government control; about half of respondents say there is too much control and about half say their government is neutral or supportive.

These issues have been discussed at CNTI convenings as well as in CNTI’s issue primers and are particularly relevant as journalists face online security threats and surveillance from governments (or actors affiliated with the government). CNTI is committed to following these trends in future research projects to understand journalists’ attitudes about their industry and their experiences, especially given recent legislative initiatives around the world aimed at funding news and journalism. 

The post World Press Freedom Day 2025: About Half of Surveyed Journalists Report Their Government Seeks Too Much Control Over Their Journalism appeared first on Center for News, Technology & Innovation.

When you think about the people who produce news and journalism, what comes to mind? Perhaps a reporter with a mic and camera crew, the byline on a story from your favorite news organization, an anchor on a TV set. Turns out, this image is just one among an increasing number of possibilities. 

According to a recent Center for News, Technology & Innovation (CNTI) survey of 1,025 U.S. adults conducted September 12-21, 2024,¹ close to a quarter (22%) of U.S. adults get news and information online from individual creators or influencers regularly and about half (52%) do so at least occasionally. This report focuses primarily on the 22% who do so regularly and the ways they stand apart from — and in line with — other Americans. As with all CNTI research, this report was prepared by the research and professional staff of CNTI.

U.S. adults who regularly get news and information from influencers or content creators are as, if not more, dedicated to staying informed as other Americans. In fact, they turn to organizations more than to individuals and recognize journalism as something distinct from news. Indeed, Americans who regularly get news and information online from influencers and content creators are highly engaged news consumers who — like the rest of Americans — turn to a wide range of places and people for news. Unlike other Americans, they do not prioritize getting news from professional journalists above getting informed quickly.

They tend to be more technologically active than other Americans and have a more optimistic outlook on the future of the internet. They are also more optimistic about the potential impacts of AI on both their own ability to keep informed and journalists’ ability to report. 

Other than age, there are no significant demographic differences between those who regularly consume news and information from individual content creators or influencers and other Americans. Younger people are somewhat more likely to regularly or occasionally get information from influencers or content creators, but the age differences are small. Educational backgrounds and politics are largely the same among all groups.

U.S. adults who regularly get news and information from content creators or influencers…

…are actively engaged in issues and events, and more positive than other Americans about their ability to keep up

Those who regularly get news and information from content creators or influencers are more positive than others about their own ability to keep informed. About half (54%) feel positive about this ability, outpacing the 33-39% of other groups.

…like other Americans, value the role of journalism in society, while also believing non-journalists can create it

Strong majorities of all Americans see “news organizations that employ reporters” as critical for an informed society, ranging from 73% to 85%.

While the plurality of all four groups keep informed about issues and events somewhat closely, 32% of those who regularly get news and information from content creators or influencers say they keep up very closely. That is comparable to those who never get news or information this way (27%) and more than those who occasionally or rarely do (20-21%).

Among those who regularly consume information and news from influencers or content creators, about three-quarters say that “people who are not journalists” as well as “everyday people” can produce journalism. Majorities of all Americans share these views, although they are slimmer majorities among those who never consume news and information this way. About two-thirds of those who regularly consume news and information this way view “journalism” and “news” as different, as do comparable numbers of all groups.

People who regularly or occasionally get news and information from influencers or content creators are more likely to say they look for information from individuals compared with those who rarely or never do, but at least two-thirds of all groups turn first to organizations.

…prioritize speed in getting informed comparably to hearing from professional journalists; all others say hearing from professional journalists is more important

Among six factors important to choosing how to get informed, more than one-third of those who regularly get news and information from content creators or influencers select “getting the news quickly” (48%), “being able to go more or less in-depth on a story” (42%), “getting the news from professional journalists” (41%) and “seeing news from many different sources” (39%). 

They consider timeliness (“getting the news quickly”) and the source (“getting the news from professional journalists”) as comparably important; everyone else prioritizes the source (39-52% say it’s “very important”) over speed (25-30%). The full list of items asked about is available here.

…have more technology-driven media habits than other Americans, but do not rely solely on social media

The more often people get news and information from content creators or influencers, the more likely they are to rate digital technology “very important” to their ability to get informed.²

When asked which of seven different pathways people use most often for news, those who regularly get news and information from content creators or influencers are split between social media (39%) and a specific news organization (38%). The rest of Americans turn to specific organizations more often than social media.

…are more optimistic than others about developments in technology

A majority of those who regularly get news and information from content creators or influencers think digital technology will have a positive impact on their ability to keep informed; about half or less of all other groups agree.

When compared with other groups, they are equally or more positive about AI’s long-term impact on both their ability to keep informed about issues and events and journalists’ reporting ability. 

Those who regularly get news and information from content creators or influencers are confident that the internet will remain an open place to share news, with 30% very confident, and an additional 43% somewhat confident. They are about twice as likely as others to be very confident. 

Conclusion

Those who regularly get news and information online from content creators or influencers are similar to other Americans in that they value news and journalism but they do not see journalism as the exclusive province of journalists.

They are also unique in other ways. They are the only group who does not prioritize getting the news from professional journalists over getting the news quickly. They see digital technology as very important to getting informed, more than how the rest of Americans see it. They are also more positive about developments in technology, including the future of the internet and the role of AI. That might be why they are more positive about their personal ability to keep informed.

Overall, this research points to the role that individual news creators play in many people’s information habits. For the public, more traditional providers of journalism and individual providers have already begun to come together to provide a full news experience. The way information providers may or may not collaborate and complete one another on the production side remains to be seen.

As the range of relied-upon sources for news and information continues to expand, there is a great deal more to learn about the public, news producers and the broader network of digital content (including its creation, access and sharing). CNTI looks forward to continuing to study these topics and collaborate with other researchers to better understand these areas of development in society.

About This Study

News organizations are showing signs of recognizing influencers and content creators as their colleagues. In the U.S. specifically, they were invited in to cover the Democratic National Convention this past summer and the new Trump administration has actively encouraged “podcasters and social media influencers” to apply for press credentials to cover the White House. Moreover, coverage of current conflicts — including those in Gaza and Ukraine — includes on-scene videos and updates shared by eye-witness content creators. Influencers are improving gaps in access to information in places where professional journalists are being targeted in the conflict or facing legal restrictions on reporting from war zones. CNTI is pleased to add to the expanding research in this area, including recent work from the Reuters Institute and Pew Research Center.

As with all CNTI research, this report was prepared by the research and professional staff of CNTI. This project was financially supported by CNTI’s funders. 

This report is part of CNTI’s broader “Defining News Initiative” which examines questions surrounding this theme in policy, technological developments and the views of journalists, in addition to public perceptions. The survey data in this report measure the public’s perceptions of news, journalism and technology in the United States. (Read our four-country survey report here.) These data were collected in parallel with a global survey of journalists. 

CNTI was motivated by several overarching questions:

1. How does the public navigate new ways of being informed?
2. Where do they see journalism fitting in?
3. How can journalism do a better job of communicating its unique value?

Answers to these questions are central for better understanding the evolving information ecosystem. As CNTI learned in a series of focus groups last year in Australia, Brazil, South Africa and the United States, people are putting a lot of work into getting themselves up to speed on news. At the same time, many are actively tuning news out, expressing a sense that it is overwhelming.

How We Did This

CNTI’s survey questionnaire was developed internally by our research team and advisors in consultation with Langer Research Associates. Focus groups were initially run in Australia, Brazil, South Africa and the United States which informed the development of the questionnaire. Additional details on themes from the focus groups may be found in a series of essays available on CNTI’s website.

In partnership with Langer Research Associates, the United States survey data were collected through Ipsos:

• United States data are from Ipsos’s probability-based online KnowledgePanel® and was conducted from September 12-21, 2024. A total of 1,670 panelists were initially selected and 1,053 completed the survey. A total of 28 respondents were removed during the quality control process, yielding a final sample size of 1,025 respondents. The design effect was 1.13 and a margin of error of 3.3 points. The survey was available in English (n = 983) and Spanish (n = 42). All surveys were self-administered online, and the median interview length was 10 minutes and 23 seconds. The sample collection age categories were: 18-29, 30-44, 45-59 and 60+. 

The question, “How often, if at all, do you get news and information online from individual content creators or influencers?” was only asked of the U.S. sample.

Technical reports from the survey vendors are available upon request from info@innovating.news.

How We Weighted Survey Data

The data were weighted using demographic variables (i.e., age, sex, education and macroregion). While each individual country used a different age breakdown for sample collection, we opted to recode the age breakdown into the following categories: 18-29, 30-44, 45-54 and 55+. These categories were used to ensure there were at least 100 weighted respondents in each group.

For specific questions about the sample frames, weighting procedures and/or additional survey details, please send an email to the research team at info@innovating.news. 

How We Analyzed The Data

Data were analyzed using the R statistical computing language. In addition to base R functions, several packages (libraries) were used to clean and analyze the data. These included: googledrive, pewmethods, pollster, survey and tidyverse. We recoded missing, refused and don’t know responses into a catch-all category to keep the sample sizes for each country consistent across each question that did not explicitly have survey logic (i.e., questions that were asked to every respondent).

Data were analyzed using the demographic sample weights supplied by Ipsos and Langer Research Associates. These weights were applied to every analysis and crosstabs in this report. Non-statistical analyses consisted of toplines and crosstabs. Statistical analyses found in this report consisted of Chi-square proportion tests (see the “How we tested for statistical significance” section below). 

Exploratory analyses were run to learn about the data and responses. These methods consisted of both linear (ordinary least squares) and non-linear regression (logistic regression, ordered logistic regression). 

How we addressed data quality

Data quality in the open-ended responses received attention during the analysis phase of the project. CNTI worked with Langer Research Associates and country vendors to review what interviewers recorded from respondents’ open ends. Several anomalies and mistakes were found and addressed where possible.

How we tested for statistical significance

We analyzed the results using Chi-squared proportion tests to assess differences in responses between groups. We used a standard threshold of p < 0.05 for assessing statistical significance. Differences mentioned in the report text are statistically significant.

Additional Notes on Methods

Responses to the question PSAIHELP1 and PSJHELP2 in the online U.S. survey were updated after recontacting individuals who responded “Don’t know.” Responses for recontacted individuals were added back into the survey as a new question and added to the answers from those who did not reply “Don’t know.”

The crosstab data for PSAIHELP1 and PSJHELP2 reflect all “Don’t know” responses being grouped into the “DK/Refused/Missing” catch-all category.

Footnotes

1. The question, “How often, if at all, do you get news and information online from individual content creators or influencers?” was only asked if the respondent was based in the U.S. ︎
2. Those who occasionally or rarely consume news and information this way are not significantly different but all other pairwise comparisons are different.  ︎

The post Americans Who Rely on Content Creators or Influencers for News Are Active Consumers Who Value the Role of Journalism in Society appeared first on Center for News, Technology & Innovation.

The public is encountering news in an ever expanding array of forms, channels and voices, providing them with more ways to find out about issues and events that matter to them than ever before. As CNTI heard in a series of focus groupsconducted prior to this survey, people are putting a lot of work into getting themselves up to speed on that news. At the same time, many are actively tuning news out, expressing a sense that it is overwhelming. The advent of artificial intelligence (AI)¹ has only added to the myriad of ways information is shared and consumed.

How does the public navigate these new ways of being informed? Where do they see journalism fitting in? And how can journalism do a better job of communicating its unique value? CNTI delved into these questions (and more) in this survey.

CNTI surveyed 4,037 people from four countries — Australia, Brazil, South Africa and the United States — between September 4 and October 16, 2024 to understand their perspectives on who can produce journalism, how they access the information sources they rely on and their attitudes about journalistic uses of technologies such as AI.² As with all CNTI research, this report was prepared by the research and professional staff of CNTI.

Key Findings

News organizations play a key role in meeting the information needs of the public alongside other valued providers, including everyday people. Even as most people say news organizations play an important role in society and still look more to organizations to get informed, a sizable minority (20-30%) look to individuals as their primary source. Furthermore, roughly half or more of the people surveyed in each country say that they believe journalists are not the only individuals capable of providing journalism and, indeed, that everyday people can do so. (Read this section of the report.)

Most people feel generally positive about their ability to keep informed, with digital technologies playing a major role — but trust is the biggest challenge: Across three of the four countries, strong majorities say digital technologies are very important for keeping informed (67-85%) and majorities feel positive about their ability to stay informed (59-67%). The United States was the outlier on both questions: A slim majority (57%) say digital technologies are very important for keeping informed, and while no feeling captured the majority of responses about their ability to stay informed, the plurality feel neutral (though they still express far more positivity than negativity). Despite this positivity, at least 70% of people in each country say “knowing who or what to trust” is at least somewhat of a challenge. (Read this section of the report.)

People are generally comfortable with journalists using technology for professional purposes, but views are more mixed about image editing and AI in the U.S. and Australia: Checking the accuracy of information, translating content and summarizing information from multiple sources are all deemed largely acceptable by a strong majority (71-93%) across the four countries. Differences emerge, however, when it comes to image editing. Brazilians and South Africans are nearly as comfortable with journalists using image editing technology (71-75%), while Americans and Australians are much less so (35-49%). Similarly, Brazilians and South Africans are more positive than negative about AI’s impact on journalism: 46% or more say it will largely have a positive effect on journalists’ ability to report on issues and events. On the other hand, Australians and Americans are more negative than positive: 28-41% say it will largely have a negative effect, while 15-18% say the effect will be positive. (Read this section of the report.)

More than 60% in each country are generally confident that the internet will remain a place to get and share news. Outside the U.S., 58% or more in each country are also optimistic about the impact developments in digital technology will have on their ability to stay informed. (The U.S. is not far behind, at 46%.) Pluralities in Brazil and South Africa are also positive about AI’s impact on their ability to stay informed, while pluralities in the U.S. and Australia are neutral. In each country, considerably more people are positive about technology in general than they are about AI in particular. (Read this section of the report.)

This outlook, combined with the publics’ openness to journalists using various forms of technology, presents an opportunity to producers of journalism: To make use of available technologies in ways that resonate with the public and serve their information needs, while ensuring them that the ultimate product is one they stand by. This can, in turn, increase journalists’ own capabilities in reporting, safety and, ultimately, sustainability.

Read CNTI’s companion report based on surveys with journalists around the world.

Footnotes

1. Given the lack of consensus about what “Artificial Intelligence” encompasses, we use the term broadly to refer to “sciences, theories and techniques whose purpose is to reproduce by a machine the cognitive abilities of a human being.” While there is no agreed-upon technical definition, it is helpful to consider examples like Large Language Models (LLM), which are “trained” on data to recognize statistical patterns and use those patterns to generate plausible text. These kinds of models typically have too many parameters to be fully transparent or explainable, even for their creators. ︎
2. Because surveys were conducted via telephone interviewers in Australia, Brazil and South Africa, compared with self-administered via internet in the U.S. (i.e., different modes), and because of known variability in survey responses across countries regarding social desirability and acquiescence, we primarily base comparisons on combined “somewhat” and “very” (important, challenging, etc.) responses. We also examine results by country rather than as one total. ︎

The post What the Public Wants from Journalism in the Age of AI: A Four Country Survey appeared first on Center for News, Technology & Innovation.

Over the last few decades, the widespread adoption and use of new communications technology have rapidly reshaped global information ecosystems. For journalists and news organizations, these changes have both empowered their work and presented new challenges. For the public, these technological and social changes have provided many more options, disrupting how news outlets have historically interacted with them. Concurrently, governments around the world are increasingly impinging on press freedom, weaponizing the law against journalists, while questions about revenue models and digital content valuation remain unsettled.

Social media platforms specifically have offered new opportunities to meet the public where they are, but have also put journalists on the receiving end of continuous legal threats and harassment. 

Most recently, the convenience and expediency of AI tools¹ can help individuals and teams produce more content — but these tools are resource-intensive, have shown potential for inaccuracy, and the opacity of their algorithms can leave journalists unsure about how their own work is being repurposed. 

Surveys are a snapshot of what people think at a particular moment in time. We surveyed more than 430 journalists from more than 60 countries about government, technology, online harassment and what it means to be a journalist these days between October 14, 2024 and December 1, 2024. As with all CNTI research, this report was prepared by the research and professional staff of CNTI. Here are some highlights of what we learned:

Journalists see a lot of value in their field, but they are unsure that value is being communicated well, leading to public confusion: U.S. journalists don’t think the public can identify what journalism is — or what it isn’t. About one-in-four U.S. journalists (24%) think the public can distinguish journalism from other kinds of news and information. Meanwhile, about half of Mexican journalists (48%) think the public can make a distinction, as do 70% of Nigerian journalists. And while professional training and institutions matter to journalists’ self-conception, most of them agree that people who are not journalists can produce journalism. (Read this section of the report.)

Half of the journalists surveyed (50%) have experienced direct government overreach in the last year. This may be why strong majorities (more than three-quarters) say it is inappropriate for the government to define journalism or journalists, and about half say their government exerts too much control over journalism. (Read this section of the report.)

Journalists believe technology is improving their work, but they are hesitant about AI: Two-thirds say that technology in general — and social media in particular — are having a positive effect on their work, although only one-third say the same about AI’s effect on the information landscape. Journalists in the Global South are more positive overall. (Read this section of the report.)

Serious risks are wide-spread: one-in-three face them somewhat often or more. All the same, preparation varies: Changing passwords and updating hardware and software on devices is done frequently — but journalists don’t necessarily communicate with sources through the most secure platforms. About 40% said they do both once every few months on average, and 30% or less say they did so once every few years or when the device stops working. And journalists in the Global North do both of these more often than their colleagues elsewhere. Meanwhile, 15% of journalists say that they use encrypted peer-to-peer messaging as their primary means of communication with sources. Strong majorities do feel comfortable discussing safety with colleagues and managers, including government censorship and personal experiences of abuse. (Read this section of the report.)

Finally, as a way to connect the dots across the different issue areas asked about, we asked an overarching question about seven current issues facing many news organizations today. The results provide valuable insight into journalists’ sense of field — and newsroom-wide priorities — which may not match newsroom leaders’ perspective. According to respondents, the long-standing issue of audience engagement continues to get the most attention inside news organizations with revenue streams and misinformation coming next. At the bottom: Online abuse.

This report addresses the information environment with a focus on four of the most pressing issue areas today, each of which deserves more research and conversation: definitions of news and journalism, relationships between news organizations and the government, technology and AI, and security and safety. While the report parses out these areas, there is a great deal of overlap, addressed across sections. 

Read CNTI’s companion report based on surveys with representative publics in four countries.

Footnotes

1. Given the lack of consensus about what "Artificial Intelligence" encompasses, we use the term broadly to refer to "sciences, theories and techniques whose purpose is to reproduce by a machine the cognitive abilities of a human being."While there is no agreed-upon technical definition, it's helpful to consider examples like Large Language Models (LLM), which are "trained" on data to recognize statistical patterns and use those patterns to generate plausible text. These kinds of models typically have too many parameters to be fully transparent or explainable, even for their creators. ︎

The post What It Means to Do Journalism in the Age of AI: Journalist Views on Safety, Technology and Government appeared first on Center for News, Technology & Innovation.