Being informed about current issues and events is a key piece of civic and social engagement for people. As we saw in our focus groups, people take an active role in shaping how they stay informed on the issues and events of the day, making choices about which information sources to follow and cross-referencing information across multiple sources. Focus group participants also frequently described mainstream news organizations¹ as playing a role in their process of getting informed, acting as a starting point for catching up on the news and/or a validator for information encountered elsewhere. Through this survey, we sought to further understand how widespread those behaviors and attitudes are across four different countries.

The public sees news organizations that employ reporters as critical for an informed society (but not as valuable to their individual information needs)

Across all four countries, strong majorities (76-81%) think that “news organizations that employ reporters are a critical part of an informed society.”

Moreover, when asked about where they personally look for information about issues or events, the majority of respondents in each country still say organizations. But, the value of individual voices begins to emerge.

Overall, people in all four countries turn more to information coming from organizations than from individuals. Approximately three-quarters of Australians, South Africans and Americans look for information from an organization (73%, 72% and 75%, respectively) with a smaller majority (57%) of Brazilians stating the same. But sizable minorities in each country (20-30%) turn more to news from individuals. While this is still a minority, other newer yet firmly established pathways to news also fall into this range such as social media, where 25% of U.S. adults “often” got news in 2024.

When it comes to getting their news from individuals, people are not limiting themselves to professional journalists. Strong majorities in both the U.S. (74%) and Australia (70%) say that “people who are not journalists” can produce journalism. That sentiment is a bit more muted in Brazil and South Africa, with about half agreeing (52% and 49%, respectively). Similarly, majorities in all four countries (56-73%) agree that “everyday people” can produce journalism, with strong majorities in the U.S. (73%) and South Africa (65%).

These findings reinforce sentiments that emerged in the focus groups, where many participants described a preference for more accessible, directly communicated information: from individual journalists on social media, “snippets” of longer media products shared online and word of mouth in their real-world communities. While news organizations may be seen as providing foundational information, new formats and voices are shaping how participants are accessing that information.

This broader sense of who can produce journalism has also been embraced by many journalists themselves. CNTI’s international survey of journalists found that about half of journalists in the Global South (including Brazil and South Africa) say that people who are not journalists can produce journalism, as do strong majorities in the Global North (including Australia and the U.S.).

Indeed, looking across both surveys, professional journalists and the public agree that journalism can be produced by a wide range of people, including “everyday people.” This broader acceptance of journalism producers with a much decreased “gatekeeper” role, coupled with widespread public appreciation for reporter-based news, raises further questions: What do people mean when they talk about journalism? What makes it “critical for an informed society?” What enables such a broad range of people to produce journalism and how much of it is a part of people’s news consumption? The answers have high stakes, as private and public actors seek to draw lines around which individuals and organizations are given priority in contexts as far ranging as media funding mechanisms, information integrity and allotted press credentials.

The public expects honesty in producers of journalism

When asked to consider the top traits they associate with people who produce journalism, most people offer positive attributes, emphasizing mission-driven qualities like honesty and truthfulness. There are some, though, who express more negative sentiments. 

Our preliminary analysis found that people across countries expect several common traits from producers of journalism: honesty or truthfulness was the trait mentioned by the most people in Australia, Brazil and the U.S., and the second most mentioned in South Africa, where informing people was most important. Informing people was also second most mentioned in Brazil. 

The collective focus on honesty and truthfulness across each of the four countries highlights people’s expectation that producers of journalism serve as honest arbiters of information. Examples of the types of responses for the concepts of honesty, truthfulness and informing are provided below: 

• “I suppose honesty. Being true to what is actually happening. Not misleading or disinformation.” (Australia)
• “Preparation, honesty, sincerity, not making things up.” (Brazil)
• “I think it’s about finding the truth and telling the story.” (South Africa)
• “Steadfast quest for truth.” (United States)

Integrity, reliance on facts and impartiality or lack of bias are also among the top five traits in Australia, Brazil and the United States, further highlighting the desire for accurate information.

• “Factual, in depth and engaging.” (Australia)
• “Honesty, intelligence, informed and unbiased.” (Australia)
• “Be impartial about news, especially politics.” (Brazil)
• “Presentation of the facts without bias.” (United States)

South Africans’ main qualities for producers of journalism also include education and investigation — further highlighting that South Africans may consider journalism a specialized profession to a greater degree than other countries.

• “Professionalism. A degree in journalism.” (South Africa)
• “Someone qualified or has a degree or going to school.” (South Africa)

On the other hand, smaller numbers of people across all four countries say that producers of journalism display bias. Preliminary analysis suggests they occur more in Australia and the United States. These responses suggest dissatisfaction with the sources of information available.

• “They are generally trying to manipulate you; it’s very seldom you get an unbiased story.” (Australia)
• “They are often biased and don’t present the whole picture.” (United States)

CNTI’s earlier focus groups, conducted as part of the Defining News Initiative, found similar sentiments.

A follow-up report will include a more detailed analysis of the open-ended responses to examine similarities and differences in the qualities expressed by people in each of the four countries.