28% Avoid News, Yet Trust Declines in 2026

A staggering 70% of adults globally are concerned about false or misleading information, according to a recent Reuters Institute Digital News Report. This isn’t just a casual worry; it’s a deep-seated apprehension that underscores why being truly informed matters more than ever. But what does it mean to be genuinely informed when the information ecosystem feels so fractured?

Only 28% Actively Avoid News, Yet Trust Continues to Decline

Here’s a number that always makes me pause: Despite the constant hand-wringing about declining trust in media, a minority—just 28% of individuals—actively avoid news. This isn’t some fringe statistic; it’s a consistent finding across multiple studies, including a comprehensive analysis by the Pew Research Center published late last year. What does this tell us? It means people still want to know what’s happening. They haven’t given up on the idea of being informed. They’re just fed up with the delivery. They’re not avoiding the news; they’re avoiding what they perceive as noise, bias, or outright falsehoods. I see this in my own work with clients at Veritas Insight Group, a media consulting firm specializing in public perception. We’ve found that audiences are increasingly seeking out direct, unfiltered sources, even if those sources are less polished. They’re hungry for truth, even when it’s inconvenient or challenging to find. The problem isn’t a lack of interest; it’s a crisis of confidence in the conduits of information.

Average Daily News Consumption Down 10% Since 2020

This next data point is critical: The average time spent consuming news daily has dropped by 10% since 2020. This isn’t a minor fluctuation; it’s a significant trend, as reported by AP News in a recent media trends report. I think many people misinterpret this as a sign of apathy. “People just don’t care anymore,” they’ll say. I disagree vehemently. My professional interpretation is that this decline reflects a growing fatigue and an inability to process the sheer volume of information, much of it contradictory. It’s not disinterest; it’s overwhelm. Think about it: in 2020, we were glued to every update. Now, the constant barrage of alerts, the endless scroll, the conflicting narratives – it’s exhausting. People are rationing their mental energy. They’re not spending less time because they’re less curious; they’re spending less time because they’re protecting themselves from cognitive overload and the emotional toll of constant negativity and uncertainty. It’s a self-preservation mechanism, not a sign of a society abandoning the pursuit of being informed. We saw this manifest acutely with a client, a local government agency in Alpharetta, Georgia, trying to disseminate critical public health information during a regional outbreak. Their traditional press releases and scheduled news segments were barely registering. We had to pivot to hyper-localized, direct messaging campaigns through community apps and neighborhood watch groups to cut through the noise, because people weren’t tuning into the usual news cycles. This situation highlights why 2026 demands depth in reporting to truly engage audiences.

Fact-Checking Submissions Up 40% in Two Years

Here’s a number that speaks volumes about the current climate: Fact-checking organizations have seen a 40% increase in content submissions over the past two years. This comes from an internal report I reviewed from the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) at the Poynter Institute. Let that sink in. People are actively questioning what they see and hear, and they’re seeking out verification. This isn’t just about politically charged content either; it spans health claims, economic data, and even local community alerts. It demonstrates a profound distrust in initial sources and a desperate need for reliable arbitration. From my perspective as someone who helps organizations manage their public narrative, this trend is both alarming and encouraging. Alarming because it shows the extent of misinformation, but encouraging because it proves there’s a strong underlying desire for accuracy. It tells me that the public hasn’t given up on truth; they’re just having to work a lot harder to find it. The conventional wisdom might say this indicates a populace easily swayed by falsehoods, but I argue it shows a populace fighting back, albeit often overwhelmed and under-equipped. They’re trying to be informed, but the burden of verification has been unfairly shifted onto their shoulders.

Generative AI Implicated in 15% of New Disinformation Campaigns

Now, for a truly unsettling statistic: Generative AI tools are now implicated in 15% of newly identified disinformation campaigns. This data point, compiled from a joint study by cybersecurity firm Mandiant (now part of Google Cloud) and the Atlantic Council’s DFR Lab, was released just months ago. When I first saw this, my immediate thought was, “It’s worse than we thought.” We’re not just dealing with human-generated falsehoods anymore. We’re facing an industrialized, automated production line of deception. This changes everything. The sheer scale and speed at which AI can create convincing, contextually appropriate, yet entirely fabricated content makes the task of staying informed exponentially harder. It’s not just deepfakes of politicians; it’s entire fake news sites, algorithmically generated social media personas, and personalized narratives designed to exploit individual biases. This isn’t a problem for the future; it’s a problem right now. My experience in digital forensics tells me that detecting AI-generated text or images is a cat-and-mouse game, with the technology often outpacing detection methods. This means that even the most diligent individual trying to be informed will struggle to discern reality from AI-crafted fiction, making critical thinking and source verification more vital than ever before.

Challenging the Conventional Wisdom: It’s Not About Media Literacy, It’s About Media Integrity

The conventional wisdom often posits that the solution to our information crisis lies primarily in “media literacy.” Teach people to spot fake news, and all will be well, right? I fundamentally disagree. While media literacy has its place—and yes, understanding logical fallacies and checking sources is important—it’s a band-aid on a gaping wound. The real problem isn’t solely a deficit in the public’s ability to discern truth; it’s a profound crisis of media integrity. We’re asking individuals to become forensic investigators in their daily lives, to fact-check every headline, every image, every claim. This is an unreasonable burden. The onus needs to shift back to the creators and disseminators of information. When I advise organizations, whether they are a startup in the Atlanta Tech Village or a long-established non-profit near Piedmont Park, I emphasize that their credibility is their most valuable asset. The expectation should be that news organizations, social media platforms, and content creators uphold rigorous standards of truthfulness and transparency. We need better gatekeepers, stronger accountability mechanisms, and platforms that actively de-amplify disinformation, not just expect users to filter it out. Expecting every consumer to possess the expertise of a seasoned journalist or a digital forensic analyst is a fantasy. The problem isn’t primarily that people are gullible; it’s that the system designed to inform them is compromised. We need systemic solutions, not just individual coping strategies. We need platforms like NewsGuard to become the norm, not the exception, in guiding users toward credible sources. If we don’t demand integrity from the sources themselves, no amount of individual literacy training will truly solve the problem. It’s like teaching people to swim better in a polluted ocean instead of cleaning up the ocean itself. It’s a reactive, not a proactive, approach. I had a client last year, a small business owner in Decatur, who was nearly ruined by a concerted online smear campaign that leveraged AI-generated reviews and fabricated local news stories. No amount of media literacy on his part or his customers’ part could have prevented the initial damage. What he needed was a rapid response from platforms and a clear path to debunking the fabricated content. That’s a system integrity issue, not a literacy one. This is why investigative reports are 2026’s truth shield.

In a world saturated with information, the ability to discern truth from fiction isn’t just a skill; it’s a necessity for informed decision-making and a functioning society. Demand transparency, question everything, and actively seek out diverse, verifiable sources to protect your understanding of the world. To truly combat this, we must also learn to deconstruct news narratives with a skeptical eye.