Americans still have faith in local news − but few are willing to pay for it
Many Americans say they have lost trust in national news – but most still believe they can rely on the accuracy of local news.
In 2023, trust in national newspapers, TV and radio reached historic lows. Just 32% of Americans said they have a 'great deal' or 'fair amount' of trust in these news sources. In 1976, by comparison, 72% of Americans said they had a 'great deal' or 'fair amount' of trust in mass media, including newspapers, TV and radio.
And in 2021, the United States ranked last among 46 countries in the trust citizens placed in news outlets.
Yet even as the local news industry is declining in the U.S. – more than 3,200 local and regional newspapers have closed since 2005 – Americans still place much more trust in local news than they do in national news.
In 2024, 74% of Americans said they had 'a lot of' or 'some' trust in their local news organizations, and 85% believed their local news outlets are at least somewhat important to their community.
I am a former local journalist who studies the effects that media content can have on people. Local news can help people understand what their local government is doing, stay aware of day-to-day events, such as local weather, traffic, sports, schools and crime, and even feel a greater sense of community.
Despite their trust in local news, many Americans are not willing to pay for it. Only 23% of Americans who say they pay for online news report paying for a local or regional newspaper.
News organizations in the U.S. have long relied on commercial business practices – such as advertising from companies and subscriptions from readers – that have not been financially sustainable since the mid-2000s.
Newspapers' advertising revenue peaked around 2005 and has since rapidly declined from more than $49 billion a year in 2005 to less than $10 billion in 2020, according to the Pew Research Center. This drop was driven by the rise of the internet.
As a result, the U.S. has lost more than a third of its local and regional newspapers since 2004.
Now, 'news deserts' have become more common. This term describes places where there are not enough reliable news sources to help people get information about their local communities.
Of the local newspapers that remain, 80% are weeklies, as opposed to the daily local newspapers that were more common in the past.
With fewer reporters and editors who closely follow the ins and outs of local and state issues, local newspapers are now less able to hold state and local government officials accountable for their actions.
Americans also read local newspapers less than they once did. Since 2015, print and digital circulation numbers have dropped 40% for weekday news editions and 45% for Sunday editions among locally focused daily newspapers and their websites.
Instead, a larger percentage of Americans now turn to their family members, friends and neighbors than their local news outlets for local news.
Despite local news' problems with declining revenue and readership, Americans still trust local news – and this trust crosses partisan lines.
A 2024 Pew Research Center survey found that both Republicans and Democrats think local journalists are in touch with their local communities. The majority of Democrats and Republicans in this survey agreed that local news media 'report news accurately,' 'are transparent about their reporting,' 'cover the most important stories/issues' and 'keep an eye on local political leaders.'
This might be because local newspapers can focus on issues people encounter in their day-to-day lives rather than on national politics. In many cases, readers are also able to more easily connect with local journalists in their communities and share story ideas or feedback.
People learn about their elected officials and become more informed about local issues from their local news, making it an important component of developing a well-informed public.
Local news gives constituents information they need to monitor whether their local leaders are implementing campaign promises. People who regularly follow local news are more likely to participate in politics, including voting in local elections, contacting a local public official and attending a town hall meeting.
When people no longer have access to local news sources, or they stop following local news coverage, their faith in the integrity of local elections decreases, their ability to assess elected officials is worse, and voter turnout is lower in local elections, compared with those who do follow, read, watch or listen to local news.
Some Americans started relying more heavily on national news when local newspapers shut down, which research shows led to increases in political polarization. My research found that when people trust a partisan-leaning national news source, for example, they're very likely to agree with the partisan-slanted news stories published by that source.
As nonpartisan local newspapers have vanished or downsized, partisan-leaning online local news content has cropped up over the past several years. These sites publish news stories that are focused on local issues but approach it with a partisan bent. As a result, people looking for local news information may take in unreliable information that is presented as local news and interpret it as trustworthy.
Verifying the origins and intentions of information continues to be paramount for news consumers to make sure they are receiving accurate information – including when it comes to local news.
While the local news industry continues to face financial problems, research shows that local journalists could consider new content ideas to increase readers' interest, such as engaging with community members by answering their specific questions.
Meanwhile, I believe that news consumers should consider whether they are willing to pay for and continuously support the local news they say that they trust. Without that support, their trusted local news source may disappear.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Jennifer Hoewe, Purdue University
Read more:
Trust in U.S. media hit an all-time low in 2024 − a new survey shows Black midwesterners have found other trusted messengers of news
Local news outlets can fill the media trust gap – but the public needs to pony up
Readers prefer to click on a clear, simple headline − like this one
Jennifer Hoewe does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
24 minutes ago
- New York Post
Democrats are in the polling dumps — fighting America on this key demand
The Democratic Party has never been more unpopular — yet no Democrat seems to understand why. Some say they're not fighting President Donald Trump hard enough. Others say they aren't messaging their agenda well enough. In reality, they're fighting too hard for an agenda that Americans reject, with a central demand of welfare for all. Thirty-two years after President Bill Clinton promised to 'end welfare as we know it,' no idea unifies the Democratic Party more than the belief that welfare should be never-ending. This vision of government dependency spurred their most notable policies of recent years, and explains their intransigent opposition to Republican reforms. While some Democrats show an increasing willingness to compromise on other leftist priorities, such as biological men in women's sports, the party brooks no dissent on welfare — even though Americans want to fix the system's many failures. Consider the ongoing federal budget battle. House Republicans have put together a reconciliation bill that would slow the rate of Medicaid growth — from a projected 59.6% increase to 40% — over the next decade. Democrats oppose even that, including GOP attempts to end waste, fraud and abuse. Yet the latest federal data show that 22% of Medicaid payments and 12% of food-stamp payments went to ineligible recipients. More than 70% of likely voters want to protect taxpayers from fraud and abuse, polls show, yet Democrats essentially deny there's a problem that needs to be solved. In fact, when the Trump administration proposed a rule in March to end $11 billion in improper ObamaCare subsidies — aiming solely to curtail fraud — Democrats immediately opposed it. Democrats are just as adamant when it comes to work requirements for welfare recipients. My organization, the Foundation for Government Accountability, recently found that six in 10 able-bodied adults on Medicaid don't work at all, hoovering up resources that would benefit the truly vulnerable. When voters in purple Wisconsin were asked two years ago if welfare recipients should work as a condition of receiving benefits, nearly 80% said yes — but national Democrats now say no. They also reject Republican attempts to block Medicaid payments for illegal immigrants, which would save billions of dollars over the next decade. More than 70% of voters don't want illegal immigrants to receive government benefits, yet Democrats bizarrely disagree. But it's not just Congress; Democrats are striking the same strange tune in state capitols. Over the past 10 years, virtually all Republican-led states have taken steps to purge waste, fraud and abuse from welfare programs. By contrast, Democrat-run states have expanded illegal immigrants' access to Medicaid and pushed able-bodied adults onto welfare programs. In recent months, Democratic governors in Kansas and Arizona have vetoed Republican bills that would ban food-stamp purchases of soda and junk food — a reform that could lower state and federal Medicaid spending and encourage healthier choices. Democrats have a long history of supporting restrictions on consumers' options, but as soon as welfare enters the picture, they oppose it. Apparently limiting freedom is fine by them, but limiting federal welfare is unthinkable. The left's unwillingness to support even modest welfare reforms reflects the reality that government dependency is the biggest thing Democrats now offer Americans — even beyond limitless immigration and the Green New Deal. The Affordable Care Act, the central achievement of Barack Obama's presidency, dramatically expanded Medicaid while creating a new welfare system for the individual health-insurance market. Joe Biden enacted a work-destroying child tax credit and sought perpetual expansions of Medicaid and food stamps under the guise of pandemic relief. A slew of Biden regulations made it easier for people to abuse the taxpayer's generosity, from Medicaid to food stamps to free school lunches for rich kids. Democrats' end goal is clear: Get every American on the dole. Yet insisting that government dependency is always the answer means Democrats can't publicly admit that seemingly infinite welfare has any shortcomings. In fact, the left's agenda of welfare-for-all is profoundly harmful, and voters know it. Democrats have built a welfare system that taxpayers can't afford while pushing millions of people out of the workforce — a dual assault on the economic growth. They've left fewer resources for disabled children and the elderly by prioritizing able-bodied adults and illegal immigrants. And they're corrupting the foundational American belief that welfare is temporary assistance whose recipients should work to get back on their feet. No wonder Democrats are so unpopular: They're fleecing taxpayers, crippling the economy, hurting the truly needy and giving handouts to those who don't deserve them — none of which has Americans' support. The first Democrat who wakes up on welfare will be the hero their party desperately needs. Hayden Dublois is data and analytics director at the Foundation for Government Accountability.
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Smithsonian Goes to War With Trump Over His Attempt to Fire Staff
The Smithsonian has fired back at Donald Trump and declared itself a 'nonpartisan institution' after the president attempted to meddle in the operations of the prestigious research and museum complex. In a statement, the Smithsonian asserted its independence in a thinly veiled rebuttal of Trump's recent claim that he had fired Kim Sajet, director of the Smithsonian Institution's National Portrait Gallery. 'All personnel decisions are made by and subject to the direction of the Secretary, with oversight by the Board. Lonnie G. Bunch, the Secretary, has the support of the Board of Regents in his authority and management of the Smithsonian,' the statement said. 'Since its inception, the Smithsonian has set out to be a nonpartisan institution. As the nation's museum, the Smithsonian must be a welcoming place of knowledge and discovery for all Americans.' The Smithsonian, established by Congress in 1846, is not part of the executive branch and has operated as an independent entity for nearly 180 years. Among its treasured exhibits are the Space Shuttle Discovery and the original 'Star-Spangled Banner.' It is governed by a Board of Regents, with Bunch overseeing day-to-day management of its vast network of museums and the National Zoo. On May 30, Trump declared that he had fired Sajet, accusing her of being a 'partisan person and a strong supporter of DEI [Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion], which is totally inappropriate for her position.' Whether Trump has any legal authority to fire someone from an independent cultural institution is questionable. Sajet and the National Portrait Gallery have so far ignored the president's order, with Sajet continuing her work as usual, The Washington Post reported. The Board of Regents has also directed Bunch to 'articulate specific expectations' to museum directors and staff regarding content displayed in Smithsonian museums, allowing time to ensure all exhibits remain 'unbiased.' 'The Board of Regents will continue its vigilant, independent oversight of the Smithsonian and its museums to protect their rigorous scholarship and expertise, nonpartisanship, and accuracy, and ensure that the Smithsonian is welcoming to all Americans,' the statement added. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Daily Beast. Before targeting Sajet, Trump signed an executive order in March directing the Smithsonian to stop presenting U.S. history as 'inherently racist, sexist, oppressive, or otherwise irredeemably flawed.' Trump's attempt to assert control over the Smithsonian is the latest example of the president trying to impose his will on, and extend MAGA influence over, Washington's cultural institutions. The Trump administration has already overhauled the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, with Trump installing himself as chairman and replacing waves of board members and other top roles. In February, Trump vowed on Truth Social that there would be 'NO MORE DRAG SHOWS, OR OTHER ANTI-AMERICAN PROPAGANDA' at the Kennedy Center. Since Trump's takeover, the Kennedy Center has seen plummeting ticket sales and a wave of artist boycotts.
Boston Globe
27 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trump hails limited trade agreement with China after talks in London
Advertisement Less than two weeks after accusing China of violating a trade-war truce, Trump on Wednesday had nothing but praise for the Chinese leader. 'President Xi and I are going to work closely together to open up China to American Trade. This would be a great WIN for both countries!!!' the president wrote in a second Truth Social post. Under the renewed truce, the United States will impose a 55 percent tariff on Chinese goods, and China will hit American products with a 10 percent import tax, the president said. Those are both higher rates than before Trump took office, but lower than the triple-digit tariff levels that each nation imposed this spring. US and Chinese negotiators agreed late Tuesday to try again to implement the trade-war truce that collapsed amid recriminations on both sides just weeks after it was reached during an earlier round of talks in Geneva. Advertisement Speaking near midnight in London, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick announced what he called a 'handshake' deal to put into effect the terms of the May 12 US-China agreement that called for both nations to lower their tariffs and take additional steps to facilitate trade. 'We have reached a framework to implement the Geneva consensus and the call between the two presidents,' Lutnick told reporters, referring to a June 5 telephone conversation between Trump and Xi. 'I think it's really beneficial to the United States of America. It's very beneficial to the Chinese and the China economy.' Negotiators released no text of either the London framework or the earlier Geneva accord to de-escalate the US-China trade war. But Lutnick said both nations would remove new trade barriers they had erected as the truce broke down. That means China is expected to permit an increased flow of critical materials known as 'rare earths' for auto and defense production. As those shipments increase, the United States will lift measures that it imposed recently 'in a balanced way,' Lutnick said. 'We do absolutely expect that the topic of rare-earth minerals and magnets, with respect to the United States of America, will be resolved in this framework implementation,' Lutnick said. He did not specify which US measures would be lifted in response. But his department has implemented a number of restrictions on exports to China of aerospace technology and advanced semiconductor equipment, which Chinese officials urgently want removed. Lutnick described the diplomatic breakthrough as the first step toward expanding US-China trade, which topped $580 billion last year. The United States buys more than three times as much from China as Chinese customers buy from Americans, a trade deficit that the president has inveighed against for years as a measure of industrial decline. Advertisement 'We have an existing, significant trade deficit, and President Trump's fundamental goal is to reduce the trade deficit and increase trade. So this was the first step of the framework by which we will then approach and discuss growing trade . But first we had to sort of get the negativity out," Lutnick said. Briefing reporters outside Lancaster House, the 19th-century mansion in London's West End that hosted two days of talks, Lutnick credited the involvement of both presidents with producing quick results. 'You have to get things done if you're working for President Trump. I'm sure they felt they had to get it done because they were working for President Xi,' he said. The US delegation also included Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. Bessent left the talks a few hours early to return to Washington in time to appear before Congress on Wednesday. The Chinese team was led by Vice Premier He Lifeng, a close associate of Xi. In China, Li Chenggang, China's vice commerce minister, said the talks were 'professional, rational, in-depth and candid,' according to Chinese state media, and Beijing hopes the discussions will 'be conducive to increasing trust between China and the United States.' Yao Yang, an economist at Peking University, said the fact that Beijing and Washington engaged in negotiations amid bitter trade tensions is positive. 'The Chinese government's stance has always been, if you want to fight, we are going to take it. But the purpose of fighting is not just for the sake of fighting, it is to prepare for negotiation or to bring the other side to the negotiation table,' he said. Advertisement Yet even as the latest attempt to put US-China relations on a sound footing moved forward, Greer nodded to the long list of issues that divide the two sides. The Trump administration has complained about Chinese policies that fuel what it sees as excess production of manufactured goods, which depress global prices and hurt American factory workers. 'There are some things that the Chinese and US economies, they just don't fit together very well. Other things, maybe they do. And there'll be a time for broader conversations on that,' he said. The 90-day pause on triple-digit tariffs that amounted to a de facto US-China trade embargo expires Aug. 12. In response to a question about prospects for an extension, Greer said that would be up to the president. Further talks are expected, though no date has been agreed to yet. The Trump administration notched a legal win Tuesday when a federal appeals court ruled that many of the tariffs the president imposed on China can remain while the government appeals a lower-court ruling that found they were illegal. The Court of International Trade, a little-known specialized court in New York, ruled last month that Trump exceeded his authority by invoking emergency powers to impose tariffs on imports from China and other nations. The Trump administration quickly appealed and the appeals court temporarily paused the lower court's decision. On Tuesday, it said that pause could stay in place while the appeal was decided. Advertisement 'The court also concludes that these cases present issues of exceptional importance warranting expedited en banc consideration of the merits in the first instance,' the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said Tuesday. The appeals court said it would expedite the issue and hear arguments July 31.
