This is the first of four detailed sections in a report on Americans’ views about the role of journalists in the digital age. The report also includes an overview of the key findings.
This report explores several facets of how the public thinks about “journalists” today: what makes someone a journalist, what their role is in society and how they are expected to act.
But as our focus groups with everyday Americans reveal, and as other Pew Research studies have shown, people get news from a wide range of sources online – some of whom they consider journalists, and others they don’t. This section looks at what people want from the “people they get news from” more broadly, without explicitly using the journalist label.
What traits do Americans value in their news providers?
Large majorities of Americans in our survey say it’s important for the people they get news from to display honesty (93%), intelligence (89%) and authenticity, or “being their true selves” (82%), in their work.
About two-thirds of U.S. adults (66%) also say it’s important that the people they get news from display kindness. Far smaller shares say humor (35%), charisma (33%) and popularity (11%) are important in the work of their news providers.
In our focus groups, several participants discussed the role of charisma in news providers’ work, especially when it comes to the style of presentation and how a story is delivered. For instance, one man in his 30s said, “I guess you’d say the cadence, the charisma, the voices …. Is it calm? Is it inviting? Or is the person’s voice an absolute ratchet you just want to turn off?”
Some groups are more likely to value certain traits in their news providers’ work:
- Younger Americans find it more important than their older peers for the people they get news from to display charisma in their work (38% of adults under 50 vs. 28% of those 50 and older). Hispanic (44%) and Black (38%) Americans also are more likely than White (30%) and Asian (28%) adults to see this as important.
- Women (73%) are more likely than men (58%) to say kindness is important for their news providers to display in their work.
The value of ‘authenticity’ from news providers
It’s clear that most Americans value authenticity in their news providers. But what exactly is authenticity? We posed this question to our focus group participants.
While many participants said they do value authenticity in their news providers, they hold differing views of (or aren’t entirely sure) what the term means.
Authenticity is perceived by some people as integrity and accountability, reflecting “that the person is who they say they are.” By others, it’s “truthfulness”: As one man in his 40s put it, “minimum Pinocchios.”
Several participants see authenticity as the inclusion of “a human touch” and the sharing of personal experience – bringing “your original personal touch to what you’re reporting.” “I think it’s presenting the humanity behind the news,” one man in his 30s said. One woman in her 50s explained it as a “window” into the journalist’s personal experience with a news story: “You have this window, and you can see how the information is coming to them as well as how it’s even affecting them emotionally.”
Participants also discussed differing perceptions of authenticity between journalists and other news providers. Some mentioned caring more about whether they feel an influencer is authentic than whether a journalist is, because they only need or expect the facts from journalists. Others said they think nontraditional news providers have more freedom in general to show their authentic selves than journalists do.
“Podcasts, I think they may be more authentic because they have more freedoms, where if someone’s on a national network or corporately produced newscast, they’re more controlled and could not be as authentic,” one woman in her 50s said.
What roles do Americans expect their news providers to fulfill?
The survey also asked U.S. adults whether they think the people they get news from should perform a variety of functions or responsibilities in their daily work.
Most Americans agree that the people they get news from should definitely report the news accurately (84%) and correct false or misleading information from public figures (64%) in their daily work. And about half (51%) say their news providers definitely should give people the information they need to make decisions.
Smaller shares say the people they get news from definitely should keep an eye on powerful people (41%), give a voice to people often underrepresented in the news (34%) or advocate for the communities they cover (32%).
Americans are least likely to say the people they get news from definitely should seek out audience input (19%) or express personal opinions about current events (8%). In fact, about half of Americans say their news providers probably (27%) or definitely (22%) should not express personal opinions about the news.
Many participants in our focus groups, regardless of party affiliation or age, expressed the view that personal opinion should beseparate from the facts of the news. As one man in his 20s said, “I just want to know the news, not how people feel. If I want to hear how people feel, I’ll go on Facebook comments or something and see everybody argue or whatever.”
Like when we asked about journalists advocating for communities, several participants said that journalists expressing personal views or opinions is acceptable as long as they are explicitly distinct from – and follow – the facts. One man in his 60s said, “If somebody passes off their opinion as news, they’re going to lose a lot of credibility with me.”
“I think it’s OK for journalists to show emotion and to show … their own perspective if they have reported the facts,” a woman in her 50s said. “That brings a human touch to it.”
In other cases, participants candidly admitted they are more accepting of opinions they agree with. When asked when, if ever, it’s acceptable for a news source to provide personal opinions, one woman in her 50s simply replied with a laugh, “When they agree with my politics.”
There also was some recognition from participants that nontraditional news providers, such as podcasters or influencers, may be more likely to share their opinions. Participants often discussed granting these sources more leeway to be opinionated – and, at times, specifically said they turn to these sources for their editorializing – while they expect “just the facts” from people they consider to be journalists.
Views by party
Most Republicans and Democrats in our survey (including independents who lean toward each party) agree on which functions they most want the people they get news from to fulfill in their daily work. In both cases, reporting the news accurately rises to the top.
But there are large gaps between the two parties about some types of roles they think their news providers should fulfill:
- “Watchdog” roles: Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say the people they get news from should definitely correct false or misleading information from public figures (73% vs. 57%) and keep an eye on powerful people (52% vs. 31%).
- Advocacy roles: Democrats also are more likely than Republicans to say the people they get news from should definitely give a voice to people often underrepresented in the news (45% vs. 22%) and advocate for the communities they cover (39% vs. 24%).
These differences are largely driven by Democrats and Democratic leaners who describe themselves as liberal. For instance, liberal Democrats are far more likely than moderate or conservative Democrats to say the people they get news from should definitely correct false or misleading information from public figures (81% vs. 66%) and keep an eye on powerful people (64% vs. 44%).
One of the key functions for journalists we discussed with focus group participants was the traditional “watchdog” role that seeks to hold powerful people – including elected officials, public figures, corporations or other institutions – accountable by doing investigative research into what they’re doing.
Many of our focus group participants had heard of and understood the “watchdog” role and said they feel this role is valuable and important, regardless of party affiliation. Several discussed it as fulfilling a need that everyday people could not possibly do for themselves. As one man in his 20s said, “I think it’s pretty important because the size and scope of government is just so large that just an ordinary citizen can’t review everything the government’s doing by themselves.”
As was the case when we asked about people’s confidence in journalists to act in the best interests of the public, some participants saw journalists’ watchdog role as increasingly affected by corporate and financial interests. One man in his 60s said, “I think it’s harder for journalists to be watchdogs nowadays because they have to fight for money, for likes, for that kind of thing, and there’s no independent source …. There’s not an independent means of support, so it’s hard for them to be watchdogs.”
Others noted that performing this role can place journalists at risk, making it difficult to fulfill. A woman in her 20s said, “It takes a lot of courage to do it because there can be a lot of consequence. Like, there are whistleblower protections and whatnot for the people, the sources, but also, the journalists often have negative consequences when they attempt to hold powerful people accountable.”
What types of backgrounds do Americans want their news providers to have?
As people increasingly get news from a range of online sources – including news influencers unaffiliated with a news organization – we asked survey respondents whether certain backgrounds or qualifications are important to them when it comes to their news providers.
Seven-in-ten Americans say it is extremely or very important for the people they get news from to have deep knowledge of the topics they cover. People are far more likely to see this as important than to say the same about being employed by a news organization (31%) or having a college or university degree in journalism (25%).
Close to half of Americans (45%) find it not too or not at all important for the people they get news from to have a degree in journalism. And 38% say the same about employment by a news organization.
Certain groups are more likely to find it extremely or very important for the people they get news from to be employed by a news organization:
- Democrats. Four-in-ten Democrats find this extremely or very important, compared with 22% of Republicans.
- Older Americans. Americans ages 65 and older (41%) are nearly twice as likely as adults under 30 (22%) to say it’s highly important for their news providers to be employed by a news organization.
According to our focus group participants, topical knowledge and personal experience are key factors when deciding if a news provider is credible. Several participants mentioned caring about “how long they’ve been in the game” or whether a source is “a subject matter expert on anything that they’re talking about.”
As one man in his 40s said, “If they know their topic really well, if they have been in that industry for a long time, I feel like then they’re credible because they’ve been in that industry.”
Other participants focused more on the content – particularly whether the information is factual and easy to understand – than on the news provider’s background or training.
