Republished from The Journalist’s Resource
We are researchers at the Center for News, Technology & Innovation — a non-profit, non-advocacy global policy research organization that focuses on the intersection of journalism and technology. In fall 2024, we conducted large surveys with journalists and publics — and we identified a few surprising gaps between the two.
Our survey of journalists was conducted in Fall 2024 and included 433 journalists from 63 countries. We partnered with journalism organizations and membership groups to share our survey. We did not have large numbers of journalists from any one country, so we summarize in terms of macroregions (e.g., Global North and Global South).
Our survey of the public included nationally representative samples in Australia, Brazil, South Africa and the United States — each of which included at least 1,000 individuals. We chose these four countries to include a mixture of (1) geographic region, (2) media environments and (3) levels of technology access and adoption.
Although not all the questions were asked the same way between the journalist and public surveys, the same topics were featured across both sets of surveys. Based on what we learned in the surveys, here is what we think might be causing gaps between journalists and the public, and why journalists should be paying attention.
Can the public identify journalism?
When it comes to how people understand journalism, there is a potential disconnect between journalists and the public. About half (49%) of the journalists we surveyed believe the public can distinguish between journalism and other types of news and information. And those numbers obscure a split among geographic lines.
Journalists in the Global North are more pessimistic: Only a minority (40%) think the public can tell journalism apart from other kinds of news and information. In the Global South, however, a majority (55%) have more confidence in the public to make that distinction.
Meanwhile, the geographic pattern is reversed for members of the public: About two-thirds of Australians and Americans (65%) say there is a difference between journalism and news. That number drops in Brazil and South Africa: Only around half of Brazilians (54%) and two-in-five South Africans (40%) agree.
We explored definitions of journalism in more depth with open-ended questions. Journalists were asked the question, “In just a few words, how do you define journalism?” People in our public survey were asked a slightly different question (and only if they had previously responded that journalism and news are different), “In just a few words, what is it that makes journalism different from news?”
Among journalists, the most common themes discussed elements of professional practice (e.g., distribution of information and facts) and the social function of journalism (e.g., empowering people to take on civic responsibility). The major themes for the public, which will be presented in a forthcoming report on our website, revolve around the idea that journalism goes beyond news, which is by definition factual and timely. What journalism adds is largely perceived as positive, with responses focusing on rigor and ethics or content and depth, but some individuals voiced negative qualities like “spin” and bias.
These findings reflect a potential mismatch between how journalists and the public view journalism. It may be unsurprising that the public does not focus on the professional practice and norms of journalism — after all, other research has shown that the public knows very little about the work journalists do. But this gap represents an opportunity for journalists to teach their audiences and, in doing so, to build trust.
Who can produce journalism?
We also asked questions about who can produce journalism. Most journalists agreed that (1) formal education and training and (2) working for a news organization are at least somewhat important for a person to be considered a journalist, suggesting a strong professional identity within the field that is based on training, credentials and experience.
Yet, journalists do not see themselves as the only people capable of producing journalism. Indeed, about six-in-ten journalists (58%) say that people who are not journalists can still produce journalism. And while there is a regional difference between journalists in the Global North and Global South, at least half in each region believe journalists are not the sole producers of journalism.
The public largely agrees. Across the four countries we surveyed, about half or more say (1) people who are not journalists can produce journalism and (2) everyday people can produce journalism. And among the public, support for this broader view of journalism is also especially strong in the two Global North countries. In Australia and the US, most people say journalists are not the sole producers of journalism today.This alignment between journalists and the public suggests openness to a broader range of journalism producers, which is particularly relevant in an information ecosystem where content creators and influencers are increasingly viewed as legitimate sources of information.
If both professionals and the public are starting to separate the journalism profession from the associated processes and products, then there is an even greater need to explain the process of authenticating and verifying information.
What about attitudes on technology and AI?
Both journalists and the public see digital technology playing an important role connecting them to the information ecosystem. Nearly every journalist we surveyed said technology is essential to their work. The public agrees with this general sentiment: Strong majorities (90%+) in each of the four countries assert that technology is important for keeping them informed. The public is also largely accepting of journalists using technology in a variety of ways — from improving writing to fact-checking materials and translating content.
While technology as a whole is generally viewed positively, tension emerges when considering artificial intelligence and its role in journalism. Among journalists, views are split. Those in the Global South are much more positive about developments in AI enabling an informed public than those in the Global North.
A similar split emerges among the public: Australians and Americans are significantly less positive about the impact of AI on their personal ability to keep informed. These attitudes extend to the impact of AI on journalists’ reporting. Australians and Americans remain much less positive.What explains these regional differences? Resource constraints, varying exposure to the technologies and different definitions may all play a role.
We also have reason to believe that, in the absence of a definition, respondents may have interpreted “AI” narrowly to mean generative AI tools rather than broadly to include all forms of algorithmic automation. (Alas, we could not explicitly test this hypothesis.) Journalists have been using various automated tools for more than twenty years, such as machine-assisted transcription, natural language processing keyword searches and data-to-text tools for formulaic content like sports scores and earning reports. However, it was less common to refer to these technologies as “AI” until the generative AI boom of the last five years.
What remains clear across regions is that, as AI systems and tools continue to rapidly develop, it is crucial for journalists to communicate about them. The public needs to be informed about how journalists use these technologies and how they can benefit the public’s ability to stay informed about issues and events — as well as their limitations and potential negative impacts.
Conclusion
Across the two sets of surveys, there is important alignment between journalists and the public on several topics, including the broadening definition of who can produce journalism and the importance of digital technology.
Yet our results suggest that journalists may need to do a better job of explaining how they work. We support recent calls for transparency about AI — but without transparency about journalism itself, the public may not be able to interpret that information about AI.
We also found important regional differences showing that journalism is not perceived the same way around the world. A global perspective, which CNTI aims to bring to the discussion, is essential for building a comprehensive understanding of how both journalists and members of the public think about news and journalism today.
This article first appeared on The Journalist’s Resource and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Leave a Reply