WHAT COUNTS AS NEWS IS CHANGING, BUT ITS CORE REMAINS

A new Reuters Institute report finds that audiences are broadening their definition of news as social media, influencers, podcasts and AI become part of everyday information use. Yet traditional journalism remains central. Accuracy, verification, professional sources and established news topics continue to shape public understanding, even in digital environments.

What exactly is news? For decades, the answer appeared relatively straightforward: information about significant real-world events, gathered and verified by journalists and presented through established news organisations. But the rise of social media, podcasts, short-form video, individual creators and generative AI has complicated that familiar picture. A new Reuters Institute report, Changing Definitions of News in a Digital Environment: How the Public Defines News Across Six Countries, examines how audiences themselves understand what counts as news and how those definitions are evolving.

The study, by Tali Aharoni, Waqas Ejaz, Amy Ross Arguedas and Richard Fletcher, draws on two stages of research. The first involved media diaries and in-depth interviews with 40 adults across Argentina, Norway, the UK and the USA. The second used nationally representative online surveys of approximately 2,000 people in each of Argentina, Japan, Norway, Spain, the UK and the USA.

The findings point to an important distinction. News audiences may be expanding their definition of what news can look like, but they have not abandoned the traditional idea of news. Around 49% of respondents have what the researchers describe as a ‘traditional core’ definition, centred on topics such as politics and the economy, journalists and experts, dedicated news outlets, and long-form text and video. Another 26% have a ‘core-expanded’ definition, combining those traditional characteristics with newer elements such as gaming, fashion, influencers, social media, podcasts, commentary, debate, satire and short-form video. Only 4% predominantly define news through these newer attributes without strongly retaining the traditional core.

This suggests that the digital transformation of news is less a replacement of the old definition than an expansion of its boundaries. The traditional core remains remarkably resilient, while some audiences are adding new sources, subjects, formats and voices to what they regard as news. Indeed, almost everyone who recognises the expanded attributes also retains the traditional ones.

At the foundation of this understanding is factuality. Across the six countries, 65% said that accurate and verifiable information is essential for something to be considered news. In the UK, the figure rises to 77%. Personal viewpoints, by contrast, were regarded as essential by only 10%, while 18% said that including personal viewpoints could actually prevent information from being considered news.

The research also reveals a continuing hierarchy among news sources. Television and radio bulletins, news websites and newspapers remain strongly associated with news, with more than eight in ten respondents recognising information from each of these sources as news. Social media, podcasts and AI interfaces occupy a much more contested position. Only around 35% considered information from social media to be news, compared with 33% for podcasts and 26% for AI interfaces.

Age, however, makes a difference. Younger audiences are just as likely as older people to recognise traditional sources as news, but they are more likely to extend that definition to newer environments. Among 18–24-year-olds, 53% considered social media information to be news, compared with 23% among those aged 55 and above. Younger respondents were also more likely to recognise podcasts, information from people they know and AI interfaces as sources of news.

The report also challenges the assumption that audiences simply accept everything they encounter on digital platforms as news. Social media can function as a gateway rather than the final destination. People may encounter a story through a social network and then turn to established news organisations to verify or understand it. The research therefore shows that source alone does not determine whether something is considered news; audiences often assess who produced the information, where it appeared and whether it appears credible.

Who delivers the information also matters. Journalists, politicians and experts associated with institutions regarded as having authority are more readily accepted as providers of news than celebrities, influencers, creators and ordinary people. Interestingly, the identity of the source can change perceptions even when the subject remains the same. Information about subjects such as celebrity weddings or zoo animals can become considerably more news-like when presented by journalists or official sources, while information about politics or climate change can be regarded as less like news when it comes from influencers or celebrities.

Context provides another important layer. Relevance, time and geographical proximity can influence whether audiences regard information as news. Events happening now or occurring closer to people are more likely to be recognised as news, although distant events or events from the past can still acquire news value when their wider significance is perceived as important.

Perhaps most significantly for news organisations, being recognised as news does not automatically mean that content will be consumed or enjoyed. Audiences can avoid traditional news when it feels repetitive, excessively negative or disconnected from everyday life. At the same time, explanatory, conversational and creator-led formats can make information more engaging. This creates an important tension: the formats that attract attention may expand the reach of news, but they can also raise questions about quality, credibility and trust.

The report therefore presents a media environment in transition, but not one in which the meaning of news has been completely overturned. Instead, audiences appear to be negotiating a broader information landscape while continuing to rely on familiar signals of credibility. Accuracy and verification remain fundamental; professional journalism retains a strong association with news; and traditional subjects continue to occupy the centre.

What is changing is the perimeter. News can now travel through a creator’s video, a podcast, a social media post or an AI interface. It can be conversational, explanatory or even humorous. Yet the research suggests that audiences have not simply stopped distinguishing news from everything else. They are making more active judgements because the old signals that once travelled together – professional journalists, established news brands, dedicated news platforms and factual reporting – are increasingly separated in the digital environment.

For journalism, that may be the central lesson. The future of news is likely to involve more formats, more voices and more platforms, but the public’s enduring expectation of factual, verifiable information remains a powerful anchor. The challenge for news organisations is not merely to adapt to where audiences consume information, but to preserve the credibility that helps audiences decide what deserves to be called news in the first place.