CNTI’s Assessment

Journalists are increasingly facing online abuse, a serious threat that can lead to the mental and physical harm of journalists and undermine the integrity of the information ecosystem and democratic values. While it is unlikely we can eliminate this problem, a multi-faceted approach can significantly mitigate the issue and better protect the press. 

Policy deliberation: Creating effective policies requires a balance. While the goal of new legislation is to protect individuals from online harassment, it must also respect fundamental rights like freedom of speech. Journalists should be consulted on cyberbullying and online content moderation policies. Developing and implementing these frameworks is a critical step in providing journalists with stronger laws to defend themselves against abuse. 

Professional support: News organizations can play a vital role in preparing journalists to recognize, prevent and respond to online through several means, including psychological support.

Governance: Moderating abusive content carries many complexities due to the high number of actors committing online abuse and the existing protections for freedom of expression in many countries. It will be important for platforms to moderate content without deleting lawful content. Additionally, content reporting mechanisms must be user-friendly, and abusive content must be addressed in a timely manner.

The post Journalists & Online Abuse appeared first on Center for News, Technology & Innovation.

Newsgeist is an unconference: the agenda is not pre-planned. On the first night, the participants shared session ideas — ranging from journalistic neutrality in wartime to what journalism can learn from K-Pop to investigative journalism with TikTok DNA — which were then organized into an always adaptable mix of choices. Newsgeist operated under the Chatham House Rule. There were no “speakers,” only session moderators to help manage the flow of conversations.

The takeaways below don’t represent the full range of everything discussed at Newsgeist, nor do they suggest a consensus among participants; instead, we’ve identified broad themes that arose across the weekend.

Innovation in Journalism

Over the weekend, a recurring theme was the need to push the industry’s thinking around new approaches and products for public relevance and business success. Many participants also shared in the acknowledgement that journalism has not historically taken well to adaptation and technological ideation. It will take real effort for the industry to become more innovative — and it may require traditional newsrooms to adopt some characteristics that are more natural to newer, creator-type journalists.

Several participants remarked that the news industry can learn from the technology industry when it comes to rapid experimentation, shared learning, mentorship and data testing — skills that “traditional” journalism is not known for but that can help foster new voices and approaches that better serve today’s consumers.

The news industry can also better adopt and internalize new technology to enhance and empower the work of journalists in ways not before possible. This may be even more pertinent in the age of AI: “In the age of advertisements, the metric of value exchange was the impression. In the era of traffic, the metric of value exchange was the click. In the era of generative AI, the metric of value exchange is the fact,” one participant said. Participants did not agree on the extent to which the news industry should use AI, noting that the industry needs to better understand both the value and limitations of AI and other emerging technologies in order to be more strategic, and less reactive, to innovation. There was agreement, however, that journalism must act and figure out how to be part of the change.

Other innovative ideas focused on things that bring communities together, such as ways to crowd-source local needs, needs-based audience surveys and more. And some wondered whether we need to rethink the structure of journalism itself, asking “How do we support journalists who operate outside any kind of institution?”

Journalistic Independence and Safety

Journalists are facing increased threats around the world — and newly so in the United States — including deportation, violence, government-imposed restrictions and harassment from people in power, bringing journalistic freedom and safety top of mind for many participants. Several participants emphasized that these threats are not a future issue; they are happening now, and journalists need to be prepared to respond.

The group shared many ideas for ways to respond, such as maintaining decentralized networks to protect journalists, sources and content; creating more solidarity and public awareness around journalism’s work; building relationships throughout a community in order to reach all members when reporting on threats to health and safety, such as pandemics; emphasizing journalism’s role as giving a voice to the voiceless; and consistently covering attacks on free expression and press freedom. Several people also made the point that journalists in the United States have much to learn from journalists in other countries who have or are currently experiencing threats against press freedom.

We were also reminded that media independence goes beyond independence from government interference and control. Participants shared instances where ownership structures and funding reliance hampered journalistic independence — highlighting the need for journalism producers to build strategies for self-sustainability.

Trust, Truth and Activating the Audience

Newsgeist featured powerful discussions around truth and facts, what they each mean and how they fit together with trust. Information is always filtered through personal experience; what feels true to one person may not feel true for someone else. As one participant said, “We need to ask ourselves who we’re willing to hear the truth from, and who our audience is willing to hear it from, and why.”

Questions about trust and truth came up across our sessions:

• Can a slate of more diverse viewpoints lead to greater trust in news organizations? What does doing that authentically require?
• Did Jimmy Kimmel’s experience show that the public will activate when corporations or the government attempt to censor or ban content?
• How do journalists demonstrate that they can respect their audiences who might be skeptical or negative towards them? How best to hear and engage with those communities?
• Is it possible for corporate owners and publishers to support their newsrooms in disputes over editorial control?
• How can news organizations do a better job of supporting one another when one among them is treated unfairly?

Participants broadly agreed that reporting the truth is the answer to regaining public trust — but as one person noted, “Truth by itself is not a culture. If we want to create kinder communities, how would we report differently?” This openness to rethinking how the audience receives information will be key to rebuilding trust, but it will require a rethinking of how journalism is practiced.

Articulating Journalism’s Value

Does journalism need a marketing campaign? A theme across several sessions was the need to do a better job of articulating journalism’s value, but to be able to do that, journalists need to first articulate for themselves what that value is and how it is changing. This is not a new problem, as CNTI’s research has shown, but it has become even more urgent today.

While the general consensus was that journalism should still mean verifiable, fact-based reporting, participants acknowledged that such journalism is now happening across a variety of platforms and from a larger number of players than ever before. As one participant put it, “Journalism with a capital J isn’t intrinsically important anymore,” explaining that a small number of traditional outlets that were seen as authoritative sources are no longer the only way people get news. Instead, many people are turning to non-traditional outlets and news producers with a specialized focus or who target local and underserved audiences. In this changing environment, journalism’s value must go beyond just updating audiences, several participants said; news practitioners must be able to demonstrate how journalism is helping news consumers live their daily lives.

Some participants also argued that rather than try to prevent people from going to social media, individual brands or AI to get informed, journalists could instead explore what makes these tools attractive, valued choices: What role do these tools serve, and what can journalism producers learn from that? The public will continue to turn to a mix of tools and sources for their information, and, in many cases, they will prioritize sources that give them some kind of shared experience instead of a top-down rendering of the day’s news.

CNTI gives our thanks to the financial sponsors of this Newsgeist, Google and The Knight Foundation, and to everyone who came and created such a rich 40 hours. We hope the conversations continue, both in and outside of Newsgeist.

The post CNTI Newsgeist 2025: Trust, Truth and Innovation in a Shifting Industry 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.

The post Considering State Tech Policy Priorities on News and Information Issues for 2025 appeared first on Center for News, Technology & Innovation.

— Amy Mitchell, Executive Director, CNTI

Read full story

The post How will Mexico (and the world) sustain journalism in the face of digital and physical security threats to journalists? appeared first on Center for News, Technology & Innovation.

Read Full Story

The post What we know about online abuse targeting journalists appeared first on Center for News, Technology & Innovation.

Read full story

The post Safeguarding the Press as Online Harassment and Abuse Increase appeared first on Center for News, Technology & Innovation.