{"id":271612,"date":"2025-08-20T09:51:45","date_gmt":"2025-08-20T13:51:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/?p=271612"},"modified":"2026-02-11T07:12:04","modified_gmt":"2026-02-11T12:12:04","slug":"what-makes-someone-a-journalist","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/journalism\/2025\/08\/20\/what-makes-someone-a-journalist\/","title":{"rendered":"2. What makes someone a journalist?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

This is the second of four detailed sections in a report on Americans\u2019 views about the role of journalists in the digital age. The report also includes an overview of the key findings<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

People increasingly get news from a wide range of sources online<\/a>. With that in mind, the questions in this section were intended to explore what makes someone a journalist in the eyes of the American public. We approached this from multiple angles, including the platforms that news providers use and the types of news content they produce.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Bar<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Americans largely think of people who work on news content in \u201ctraditional\u201d media as being journalists, while there is less consensus about those in \u201cnew\u201d media.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Majorities of U.S. adults say they consider someone who writes for a newspaper or news website (79%), reports on or hosts a TV news show (65%), or reports on or hosts a radio news show (59%) to be a journalist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fewer say the same about people who host a news podcast (46%), write their own newsletter about news (40%) or post about the news on social media (26%).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In each of these cases, roughly a quarter of Americans say they aren\u2019t sure whether these people are journalists, perhaps reflecting the wide variety of individuals engaged in these practices. Focus group participants indicated \u2013 and some of our survey respondents volunteered \u2013 that there are some people who do these things who they would consider journalists, and others they would not. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Focus group participants expressed mixed perspectives on individuals sharing news content via podcasts or social media, though many distinguished them from \u201cjournalists.\u201d Some considered these sources \u201centertaining\u201d but not necessarily accurate. Others appreciated the depth of storytelling individuals can offer via new media formats like podcasts and said these sources\u2019 \u201chands aren\u2019t tied like traditional media, so they\u2019re able to \u2026 get into subjects that main news channels or specific people wouldn\u2019t be willing to talk about.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Bar<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Our survey finds that these perceptions vary widely by age.<\/strong> Younger adults tend to be much more likely than older Americans to say that people who report on or host a news podcast, write their own newsletter about news, or make posts about news on social media are journalists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For example, 41% of adults ages 18 to 29 say someone who posts about news on social media is a journalist, while just 14% of those 65 and older say the same.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some younger participants in our focus groups illustrated these differences when discussing their own news sources.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For instance, one woman in her 30s said, <\/em>\u201cBack when I was a little kid, I always looked at the journalists on TV and I\u2019m like, oh, OK, this is my news source, this is who my grandparents, my mom \u2026 went to to find out information. But now as I\u2019m coming up as a Millennial looking at the news source, I don\u2019t have to rely on them. I can rely on these podcasters and influencers who are actually reporting on every little thing that\u2019s going on that I didn\u2019t know was going on because mainstream [media] didn\u2019t tell me about it.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Meanwhile, differences by political party are modest.<\/strong> Majorities of both Republicans and Democrats agree that someone who writes for a newspaper or a news website would be considered a journalist: 83% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say this, as do 76% of Republicans and Republican leaners.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Republicans are slightly more likely than Democrats to consider people who host podcasts about the news (50% vs. 43%) or write a newsletter about the news (43% vs. 38%) to be journalists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Bar<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

In addition to asking about the medium someone uses to discuss the news, the survey also asked respondents whether they think people who produce various types of news content are journalists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Americans are most likely to see those who primarily conduct their own reporting (59%) as journalists. <\/strong>Smaller shares say they consider those who compile and share other people\u2019s reporting on current events (36%) or offer opinions or commentary on current events (28%) to be journalists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Younger Americans are far more likely than older groups to consider each of these three types of news content producers to be journalists. For instance, seven-in-ten adults under 30 say they would consider someone who primarily conducts their own reporting on current events to be a journalist, versus 47% of those 65 and older.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Again, some respondents express uncertainty: In each case, roughly one-in-five Americans say they are not sure<\/em> if they would consider someone who primarily produces each kind of content to be a journalist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Focus group participants largely agreed that conducting \u201coriginal reporting\u201d is an important expectation they hold for journalists specifically. Several participants described compiling news as a \u201cgame of telephone,\u201d where information can easily get \u201clost in translation\u201d or opinions or bias can be introduced. As one man in his 40s explained, \u201cEverybody whispers to the next person one word, and by the time it comes out, it\u2019s a completely different word. When you\u2019re just rephrasing or rewording something that\u2019s already been out there, you lose translation there and sometimes stuff gets inaccurate. So being the first source with info is usually, in my opinion, best.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the same time, people\u2019s expectations of what news providers more broadly can reasonably do vary depending on the type of source, their size and resources, and what type of news they\u2019re covering. One woman in her 30s noted that \u201cthey all hold different thresholds.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A woman in her 20s said, <\/em>\u201cI hold [traditional sources] to that standard. Like, they should have the resources so they should do original reporting. They should check their own facts, be involved in all of that. I don\u2019t think I would hold smaller sources to that same standard because otherwise, if it\u2019s one person creating their podcast, which I think is great because then they have more freedom of \u2026 not being bound by sponsors or other editing influences. But then they\u2019re naturally more limited. They can\u2019t be on the ground finding some of this stuff. So they naturally have to be using secondary sources.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One man in his 20s said, \u201cThat\u2019s also why I stay away from getting news from social media platforms \u2013 because a lot of times, it\u2019s secondhand reporting.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Do Americans think journalists should go through formal training?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Six-in-ten Americans say that people should have to go through formal training to be a journalist. <\/strong>Meanwhile, one-in-five say people should not have to go through formal training to be a journalist, while a similar share say they are not sure (19%).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Bar<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Some groups are more likely to think journalists should have to go through formal training:<\/p>\n\n\n\n