That trust in media is declining throughout the world is almost an unquestioned truth today. But researchers have found it hard to clearly demonstrate how we went from an era of high trust in 20th-century media to one of low trust in the digital age.
The ways people engage with media and where they go for trusted information are changing. From 2011 to 2024, my colleagues and I at the Glasgow University Media Group have charted these trends through a series of focus group studies.
Our findings, summarised in my book The Construction of Public Opinion in a Digital Age, suggest that many people feel journalism today represents the interests of the powerful and does not speak for them.
For audiences of 20th-century broadcasting and press, trust largely rested on what we might call a leap of faith. With only a small number of news outlets – and where organisations like the BBC were given exclusive access to politicians and experts – there were few alternatives for audiences to turn to for information. Most people didn’t have access to other sources or direct experience of what was reported in the news – though when they did, they trusted news reports less.
Traditional media outlets now rely on digital platforms to deliver their content, where it competes with an expanded range of alternative information sources. Mainstream news continues to be led by the perspectives of government, business and economic experts. But digital platforms also allow the voices of social media influencers, independent journalists, activists and everyday users to be heard. This gives audiences easy access to perspectives which directly and regularly challenge the narratives presented in the news.
In this environment, journalists working for mainstream news outlets are expected to prove they best represent the interests of their audiences – it is no longer taken as gospel by readers, listeners and viewers.
Focus group participants told me and my colleagues over many hours of discussions that they see mainstream journalism as being bound up with a political system that is failing. For example, journalists may positively report percentage points of economic growth and demand sensible spending plans, but many people simply don’t believe things will get better.
In our most recent study, which analysed media content and audience reception in relation to the cost of living crisis (and will be published as a book in 2026), we found that journalists, in line with politicians, reported the crisis as a short-term shock, temporarily raising food and energy prices.
But our participants understood the crisis as one of long-term decline in their communities and standard of living. In other words, there is a disconnect between the priorities and beliefs of journalists and their audiences.
This disconnect was evident across all demographic groups studied – yet not all are affected to the same degree. Our findings point to a correlation between those most disaffected with the political system – particularly those really struggling – and the likelihood of investing trust in alternative “news” sources.
Where do you get your news?
With more choices than ever for where to get information, people now move between different platforms and devices depending on their needs and circumstances. During the pandemic, millions tuned in to the BBC for the latest health guidance. At other times, people follow algorithm-driven social media feeds for entertainment and news.
Our research indicates, however, that most people have a dominant mode of engagement they rely on to deliver trusted information. These fell largely into three categories in terms of preferences:
1. Mainstream sources
Older and highly educated participants tended to rely on mainstream news. They invested trust in official forms of evidence and authoritative voices such as politicians and experts.
2. Non-mainstream sources
Lower-income participants were more likely to engage with sources which were seen as free of the mainstream “agenda”. Trust was often invested in partisan podcasters, independent outlets and bloggers – as well as social media posts more generally – who shared their scepticism of public institutions and establishment figures.
3. Mix of sources
Younger participants were more likely to filter news through aggregation apps like Google News, friend endorsements, or simply be led by platform algorithms. They decided who to trust by comparing multiple sources, often giving more credibility to social media influencers who were more relatable and seen to better represent their interests.
It is important to note that these are generalised categories – it is not the case that all those on low incomes go to social media for their news, nor that young people don’t access mainstream outlets.
New information sources are emerging in the context of algorithm-driven platforms which push provocative content to users, as well as political groups which amplify and distort people’s frustrations.
The danger is that as greater numbers move away from traditional news towards information sources without any formal verification processes or proper scrutiny of political parties, uncertainty about who or what to trust may only deepen.
Interestingly, there was one source across our studies which held a unique position of being widely trusted across a broad range of groups. That was the website MoneySavingExpert and its founder, Martin Lewis. As a financial journalist who then set up his consumer website, Lewis brings his expertise to often personalised, everyday financial concerns.
At a time when mainstream journalists are seen to parrot political rhetoric, Lewis positions himself on the side of the public – most notably during the cost of living crisis, making an emotional appeal to politicians to “help people” live on TV.
If journalists want to re-engage with communities lost to online alternatives, the remedy may lie in lessons that can be learned from figures such as Lewis, and his innovative model of trust, which seems to work so well for the digital generation.
- is a Professor of Media Sociology, Director, Glasgow University Media Group, University of Glasgow
- This article first appeared in The Conversation
