Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: How do online news sources compare to traditional news outlets in terms of trust ratings?
Executive Summary
Americans’ trust in news is both lower overall and highly polarized by platform and party, with traditional broadcast and print often rated more trustworthy than online and social channels, while partisan outlets maintain strong followings within their camps [1] [2] [3]. Recent polls in 2025 show a decline in general media trust alongside continued confidence in specific local outlets and familiar anchors, producing a fractured landscape where platform, partisan identity, and age predict whom people call “trustworthy” [4] [5] [6].
1. Why traditional outlets still claim credibility — and what that credibility means
Multiple 2025 studies report that traditional media retain higher trust scores in aggregate, especially for broadcast television and established print brands, tied to reputations for editorial processes and legacy accountability mechanisms [1] [2]. These sources emphasize institutional practices — fact-checking desks, editorial oversight, and visible corrections — as reasons respondents associate them with reliability, although surveys note generational shifts that undercut monopoly over attention. The framing implies that trust in traditional outlets is grounded in structural features rather than uniform public esteem, and that this advantage is eroding among younger demographics who favor digital access [7] [2].
2. Online news and social platforms: faster and wider, but trusted less
Analyses in 2025 show online news and social media score lower on trust even while delivering faster, more accessible, and more diverse perspectives to users, particularly younger adults who rely on them as primary news sources [7] [4]. Surveys link lower trust to the perceived absence of gatekeeping, the prevalence of unverified content, and platform algorithms that amplify sensational items. However, some online outlets tied to clear editorial brands escape blanket distrust. The research thus separates platform type from outlet reputation: online delivery alone does not fully determine public trust if editorial signals are strong [7] [2].
3. Polarization: party identity reshapes whom people trust
Multiple pollsters in 2025 document a partisan split where Democrats and Republicans trust distinct news ecosystems: Democrats lean toward outlets like PBS and BBC, while Republicans favor Fox-affiliated networks and right-leaning online sites, producing mirrored information silos [3] [8]. This partisan mapping correlates with overall declines in cross-party confidence: national media trust falls into low double digits among certain groups, and partisan audiences rate their preferred outlets far higher than rivals. The data indicate that perceived ideological alignment with an outlet is now a primary predictor of individual trust assessments [8] [3].
4. Local news and personalities: a resilience not captured by headline distrust
Despite broad media skepticism, polls reveal local outlets and individual journalists often retain higher personal trust, suggesting the public differentiates between “the media” as an abstract institution and concrete local reporters or anchors [4] [6]. Respondents in 2025 consistently rated local news above national and online sources, and many named individual anchors as trustworthy even while expressing low confidence in media overall. This suggests that proximity, perceived impartiality, and familiarity buffer trust — an important nuance showing that blanket statements about “low trust” obscure significant pockets of confidence [4] [6].
5. The trajectory: trust falling but not uniformly across channels
Recent longitudinal polls show a downward trend in overall media trust, reaching low points in 2025, yet the decline is uneven: national institutions see sharper falls among certain partisan groups, while local and some established outlets decline more slowly [5] [9] [2]. The data point to a complex trajectory where structural credibility, partisan sorting, and platform dynamics interact. Methodological differences across surveys — question wording, sample composition, and definitions of “media” — produce variation in measured levels, but all sources converge on the pattern of declining aggregate trust with clear heterogeneity by outlet type and audience [5] [1].
6. What the data omit and why that matters for interpreting trust ratings
Available analyses emphasize headline trust percentages but omit granular behaviors: how consumption frequency, trust in specific topics (health vs. politics), and algorithmic exposure shape judgments. Existing studies also vary in how they classify “online” versus “traditional” and often conflate social platforms with branded digital newsrooms, obscuring important distinctions [7] [1]. Recognizing these omissions matters because policy responses and newsroom strategies that assume a monolithic distrust risk misallocating resources; targeted efforts toward transparency, local reporting, and verification address the nuances the surveys hint at but do not fully measure [2] [4].