Social media overtakes TV as main source of news in US, analysis finds
Social media has overtaken television as a source of news in the US for the first time, according to a comprehensive analysis of media consumption confirming the rapid rise of 'news influencers'.
In a watershed moment for the US media, 54% of Americans said they received news from social media, according to the research carried out after President Trump's second inauguration. Half said they sourced news from the once all-powerful TV networks.
The accelerating global shift towards social media and video platforms is laid bare in a major study by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, which surveyed almost 100,000 news consumers worldwide.
It reveals a further diminishing of the influence of traditional news organisations, with more people heading to podcasters, YouTubers and TikTokers. The authors warned it is allowing populist politicians such as Trump and Argentina's Javier Milei to bypass the scrutiny of the transitional media in favour of new, online networks.
The role of news influencers, who use their personal brand to win an online following, is growing, led by the extraordinary impact of the podcaster Joe Rogan during last year's US presidential election.
One-fifth (22%) of those contacted in the US said they came across news or commentary from Rogan in the week after the presidential inauguration, including a disproportionate number of young men, a group traditional media struggles to reach.
News influencers on YouTube, Instagram and TikTok are also finding large audiences in India, Brazil, Indonesia and Thailand, which have younger populations that are heavy social media users.
Meanwhile, Elon Musk's X has seen a major shift to the right among its users, according to the analysis. Musk's takeover of the site has been followed by a 50% increase among right-leaning users, from 10% of the group in 2021 to 15% this year. There has been a corresponding fall in left-leaning users, from 17% to 14% over the same period, as liberals have abandoned the platform.
The findings confirm the huge changes taking place in news consumption worldwide. 'The rise of social video and personality-driven news represents another significant challenge for traditional publishers that are struggling to adapt their content and tone to these very different environments,' said Nic Newman, a founding member of the BBC News website and the study's lead author.
'Online video may be a good way to engage younger audiences, but there is very little commercial upside for publishers, with most news consumption taking place via platforms rather than owned and operated news websites. Publishers also face a loss of influence, with populist politicians increasingly looking to bypass scrutiny by working with sympathetic influencers instead.'
A decade ago, just two online networks were delivering news content to more than 10% of the report's global sample. That has now grown to six.
Facebook reaches more than a third (36%), while YouTube is not far behind (30%). Instagram and WhatsApp are used by around a fifth for news content, while 16% turn to TikTok and 12% still receive news from X.
There are concerns that truth will suffer. Overall, 58% of the populations studied remain worried about their ability to tell what is true from what is false online. Concern is highest in Africa (73%) and the US (73%).
The phenomenon of news avoidance continues to rise as users restrict the amount they consume, complaining about feeling overwhelmed by a gloomy news agenda. Four in 10 people in the study's global sample said they sometimes or often avoid the news – up from 29% in 2017 – the joint highest figure ever recorded.
The UK has one of the highest proportions of news avoiders, where 46% say they sometimes or often avoid the news.
In another major change on the horizon, young people are already turning to artificial intelligence chatbots such as ChatGPT or Google's Gemini for news. It poses a serious risk to news companies as users may receive all the information they need through a chatbot without ever visiting the original source of the story.
The numbers using chatbots for news are still relatively small overall, but are higher with under-35s at 12% of the group. Across all the countries involved in the study, people expect AI will make the news cheaper and more up-to-date but less transparent, less accurate and less trustworthy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
30 minutes ago
- The Independent
David Lammy refuses to say whether US attack on Iran was ‘right' or ‘legal'
Foreign secretary David Lammy has refused to defend Donald Trump 's attack on Iran and confirm it was either legal or even 'the right thing to do'. In an awkward interview on BBC Radio 4's Today Programme, Mr Lammy was asked four times if the attack on Iranian nuclear facilities was legal. It comes after Donald Trump's regime conducted airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear sites, despite Sir Keir Starmer pushing for de-escalation in the preceding days. The questions followed reports that UK attorney general Lord Hermer has suggested it would not be legal for the UK to launch such attacks. Radio 4 Today presenter Justin Webb asked him four times if the attack was legal with the foreign secretary avoiding the answer. 'We were not involved, it is for the Americans to discuss those legal issues," he responded repeatedly. The issue is important because of fears that it undermines the case against Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine. However, Mr Lammy was not even able to answer whether the attack by US B-2 stealth bombers was even 'the right thing to do'. Mr Webb asked him: "Was the (US) military action the right thing to do?" Mr Lammy avoided the question, answering: "I've said that we weren't involved in the military action." Webb asked again: "Was it the right thing to do?" Lammy responded: "What I've said is that ultimately this can only be dealt with in diplomacy." The foreign secretary was not the only senior minister to refuse to answer difficult questions about the rapidly changing international crisis in the Middle East. Earlier, armed forces minister Luke Pollard claimed it is 'not for [him] to comment' on US action in the Middle East, refusing to say whether Britain is supportive of US strikes in Iran. Asked whether the UK was disappointed or pleased about the military intervention, Luke Pollard told Sky News: 'Well, it's not for me to comment on the particular US action, but we're assessing the battle damage at the moment to understand the true extent of the strikes. 'But our focus and the work that we are doing in conjunction with our US allies as well as those across Europe, is to put the pressure on the Iranian regime to get back to negotiating because a diplomatic solution is how we bring this crisis to an end.' When it was put to Mr Pollard that it was specifically his role to comment on military action around the world, he replied: 'I'm not going to be able to comment on that question, but what we can say is that we were not involved in the military action that the US took.' He added that Britain's focus was also on putting 'pressure on the Iranian regime to get back to negotiations because a diplomatic solution is how we bring this crisis to an end, with Iran not able to create a nuclear weapon, handing over their nuclear materials that they possess, and giving commitments that they won't threaten regional stability by developing a nuclear weapon in the future'. Over the weekend, the US attacked Fordo, Isfahan and Natanz which are linked to Iran's nuclear programme. Ahead of the strikes, the prime minister had been calling for calm, saying he has 'no doubt' that Mr Trump backs the G7's call for a de-escalation of tensions in the Middle East. It is understood there was no British involvement in the action but the government was informed before the US strikes. After the strikes took place, Sir Keir backed Mr Trump's administration describing Iran's nuclear programme as a 'grave threat to international security'. 'Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon, and the US has taken action to alleviate that threat', he added. But he later warned there was a risk of the Middle East crisis spiralling beyond the region and urged all sides to return to negotiations.
Telegraph
38 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Trump will not lose Maga support over bombing Iran. This is why
'I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?' Donald Trump boasted at an event in Iowa during his first campaign for president in 2016. 'It's, like, incredible.' Will he lose his Maga base after bombing Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities? Clearly he doesn't think so. On June 19 the president told journalists: 'My supporters are for me. My supporters are America First and Make America Great Again. My supporters don't want to see Iran have a nuclear weapon.' In the aftermath of the attack he ordered on Iran on June 21, Trump likely has Fifth-Avenue-style immunity from mutinies by most of his conservative populist supporters, in spite of their scepticism toward overseas military interventions. He is helped by the fact that the pundits and elected representatives who claim to speak for his Maga followers do not agree. There are hawks like the TV and radio pundit Mark Levin and advocates of restraint like Georgia representative Marjorie Taylor Green. Tucker Carlson himself engaged in a harsh debate with Texas Republican senator Ted Cruz about U.S. policy toward Israel and the Middle East. Fox News leans toward the pro-war side. His former aide Steve Bannon, host of the popular podcast 'Bannon's War Room,' whom Trump invited to the White House before the attack, has urged restraint. But even without these divisions over Middle Eastern strategy on the populist Right, Trump has little reason to fear a significant loss of support. The reason is that Maga is not a creed or a movement with many leaders who share a common and well-understood set of principles; it is a cult of personality around a single charismatic leader. Charismatic presidents with cults of personality have existed in America's past. Their ranks include Andrew Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan. (Lincoln and Kennedy were only deified in the public mind after their assassinations). Because he served an unprecedented four terms, FDR showed how powerful a cult of personality can be. Between his first inauguration in 1933 and his death during World War II in 1945, he abandoned or reversed policies many times. As a candidate in 1932, FDR denounced President Herbert Hoover for the 'reckless growth of government.' Once in power, however, he dramatically expanded the federal government's role in the economy and society. He promised to keep the U.S. out of World War II but made the U.S. a de facto co-belligerent of the UK and Soviet Union even before Pearl Harbour. He was a deficit hawk at times and a deficit dove at others. He backed anti-trust reformers in the 1930s then reined in government attacks on big businesses whose help was needed during the war. In spite of his inconsistency, FDR retained the loyalty of millions of Americans, particularly members of the working class majority. Trump's base, like that of FDR, is found among working-class whites, along with a growing number of working-class Hispanics and blacks. They don't follow disputes about the questionable constitutionality of many of his executive orders, but they approve of his campaigns to enforce border laws and take on the oppressive woke Thought Police in their journalistic and academic bastions. Charisma cannot be passed on when a charismatic president leaves office, as Jackson's successor Martin van Buren, TR's successor William Howard Taft, and FDR's successor Harry Truman found out. A cult of personality is a kind of celebrity worship, not a body of political or economic principles. On May 23, at an investment conference in Riyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia, Trump echoed the themes of the anti-interventionist Right and the anti-imperialist Left while condemning previous American administrations. 'In the end, the so-called nation builders wrecked far more nations than they built. And the interventionists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand.' Now he has carried out the long-sought goal of the neoconservatives who despised him and has bombed Iran; something that even George W. Bush refused to do. If Trump commits U.S. troops to an open-ended war with Iran, rather than limiting hostilities with Iraq to air strikes, some of his followers no doubt will defect, accusing him of betraying them by launching a new Forever War in the Middle East like Bush's Iraq war. Most of his followers, however, will stick with him – not only because of the rally-round-the-flag effect in war-time, but also because their loyalty is to him, not to a particular domestic agenda or foreign policy. Meanwhile, conservative pundits who fear losing access and favour no doubt will try to rationalise the apparent inconsistency of his policy toward Iran shows that Trump is playing a brilliant game of three-dimensional chess – 'peace through strength,' or something like that. In 1077, following his excommunication, Emperor Henry IV of the Holy Roman Emperor journeyed through the snow to Canossa Castle in Italy to beg forgiveness from Pope Gregory VII. On June 18 of this year, before the bombing and after he denounced the Trump administration for being 'complicit' in Israel's attacks on Iran, conservative commentator Tucker Carlson spoke to the president. Trump told reporters: 'He called and apologised the other day because he thought he said things that were a little bit too strong, and I appreciated that.' Following the strikes on Iran, Republican Representative Thomas Massie denounced them as unconstitutional and unnecessary: 'There was no imminent threat to the United States which is what would authorise that.' On Truth Social, his personal social media platform, Trump excommunicated him: 'Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky is not Maga, even though he likes to say he is. Actually Maga doesn't want him, doesn't know him, and doesn't respect him.' Massie's excommunication, like Carlson's metaphorical road to Canossa, demonstrates that in the Church of Maga Donald Trump is both Emperor and Pope.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Controversial US billionaire buys stake in Crystal Palace to stave off threat of European expulsion
The US billionaire Woody Johnson has bought the crucial John Textor stake in Crystal Palace, leaving the road clear for the club to play in the Europa League next season. Johnson, understood to have paid around £200 million, has bought 42.9 per cent of the club previously owned by US investor Textor. The deal was struck over the weekend and should satisfy Uefa there are no multi-club issues that could prevent Palace, the FA Cup winners, playing in Uefa competitions. It is subject to approval by the Premier League and its owners and directors' test. Clarification over Palace's eligibility to play in Europe next season is expected by Uefa soon. Johnson is a major new figure to enter the Premier League ownership world, his family controlling the famous NFL franchise the New York Jets. Johnson, 78, is viewed as a controversial figure in US sport, with the Jets facing scrutiny last year following reports of 'controversial and dysfunctional practices' under his watch. He bought the Jets in 2000, with the NFL franchise now estimated to be worth around $6.9 billion. The Jets' $1.6 billion MetLife Stadium will host next year's World Cup final. Johnson is also well-known in UK politics. The long-time Republican Party donor was appointed as US ambassador to the UK during Donald Trump's first term. His brother, Christopher, took over Jets operations during his post. The American businessman has long been interested in buying a Premier League club, having made enquiries over acquiring Chelsea in 2022. The development takes Textor out of the picture, leaving chairman Steve Parish, original US investors Josh Harris and David Blitzer, to run the club with Johnson as a supportive partner. Palace faced the threat of expulsion from the Europa League having been caught in the web of multi-club ownership because of an administrative error. Textor had neglected to place his shares in Ligue 1 Lyon in a blind trust by the early March deadline in order to comply with Uefa rules on multi-club ownership. Palace's three other owners have made their case to Uefa this month that there was no multi-club issue - they shared no recruitment, or sporting infrastructure with Lyon or indeed any other club in Textor's Eagle Football group.
