TikTok Surges as Top News Source, Outpacing TV Among U.S. Adults in 2025

Sources
Places
Social media and video apps have overtaken television as Americans’ main source of news for the first time, capping a rapid shift that has pushed TikTok and other platforms to the center of the country’s information ecosystem. More than half of U.S. adults, 54%, now say they get news from networks like Facebook, X and YouTube, edging out TV at 50% and news sites and apps at 48%, according to the Reuters Institute’s 2025 Digital News Report.crn +1
Against that backdrop, TikTok has emerged as the fastest‑growing individual platform for news. A new Pew Research Center survey found that one in five U.S. adults — 20% — now regularly get news on TikTok, up from just 3% in 2020.economictimes Among Americans under 30, the shift has been especially stark: 43% say they regularly get news on TikTok, compared with 9% five years earlier.economictimes The platform’s reach has also deepened among its own users: 55% of adult TikTok users say they regularly get news there, more than double the share in 2020.economictimes +1
The new habits are part of a broader generational divide in where Americans turn for information. Pew’s 2025 social media fact sheet shows that 53% of U.S. adults at least sometimes get news from social platforms, with Facebook and YouTube still leading in overall reach, but TikTok and Instagram rapidly closing the gap.pressgazette +1 Younger adults are far more likely to treat TikTok, Instagram, Reddit and X as regular news sources, while older Americans continue to lean on television and established outlets.pressgazette Women skew toward getting news on Facebook, Instagram and TikTok, while men are more likely to rely on YouTube, X and Reddit. Partisan patterns are also visible: Democrats are more likely than Republicans to get news on Instagram, TikTok and Reddit, even as both parties still consume significant amounts of TV news.pressgazette +1
For traditional broadcasters and publishers, the turning point underscores a loss of gatekeeping power that has been building for a decade. The Reuters Institute report describes U.S. media as “struggling to connect with much of the public,” noting declining engagement, low trust and stagnating digital subscriptions even as more people say they value accurate brands.pewresearch In the United States, weekly viewing of news video has jumped from 55% in 2021 to 72% in 2025, much of it consumed inside social platforms rather than on news organizations’ own sites.crn That has left publishers torn between pushing content into feeds that rarely send users back, and risking irrelevance with younger audiences who seldom visit homepages.
The new environment has also elevated individual personalities over institutions. The Reuters analysis found that podcaster Joe Rogan was the single most widely seen news or commentary figure in the U.S., with about 22% of respondents saying they had encountered his material in the previous week.pewresearch Separate research from YouGov this year showed that while legacy outlets such as PBS, the BBC and The Weather Channel remain among the most trusted brands, most social platforms score negative trust ratings for news — with TikTok near the bottom at -26.pewresearch Even so, 61% of Americans report getting news from social media in the past month, more than from any individual TV channel or news site.pewresearch
The rise of TikTok has revived long‑running national security and misinformation concerns in Washington. U.S. officials have warned that the app’s Chinese ownership could be leveraged to subtly tilt political content or suppress topics, a fear sharpened by its growing role in shaping young voters’ information diets.bbc +1 TikTok avoided an outright U.S. ban through a negotiated deal now being formalized in an executive order, but the platform remains under pressure to demonstrate how it polices propaganda and falsehoods.reuters Researchers, meanwhile, note that social algorithms across platforms routinely privilege “shareworthiness” — emotionally charged, polarizing content — over traditional news values, a dynamic they say can amplify misinformation and deepen ideological divides.usnews
Newsrooms and political strategists are racing to adapt. Many outlets have built TikTok and Instagram video teams to produce short, informal explainers tailored to the vertical screen, even as editors worry about cannibalizing their own traffic. Some are experimenting with AI‑generated summaries and personalization tools to keep audiences inside their apps.pewresearch Politicians have increasingly bypassed mainstream interviews in favor of appearances with sympathetic podcasters and influencers, mirroring a wider trend in which candidates rely on creators’ vast followings to reach voters who rarely watch cable news.pewresearch +1
Despite the upheaval, surveys suggest Americans still say they prize trustworthy reporting, even if they encounter it less often. Pew finds that when people actively try to check whether something they’ve seen online is true, many still turn to familiar news brands — but younger and less affluent users are more likely to stay inside social platforms, scrolling comments or asking AI chatbots instead of seeking out original sources.pewresearch +1 That gap, researchers warn, leaves large parts of the public navigating a news environment increasingly shaped by opaque algorithms and viral personalities, with fewer shared reference points than ever before.
Sources
economictimes
Trump plans envision major U.S. investment in Russia, restoring oil flows to Europe: Report
Trump plans envision major U.S. investment in Russia, restoring oil flows to Europe: Report U.S. President Donald Trump's plan for peace in Ukraine includes proposals to restore Russian energy flows to Europe, major U.S. investment in Russian rare earths and energy, and tapping frozen Russian sovereign assets, the Wall Street Journal said. The newspaper said the plans were detailed in appendices to peace proposals handed to European counterparts over recent weeks. They include a plan for U.S. financial firms and other businesses to tap $200 billion of frozen Russian sovereign assets for projects in Ukraine, including a major new data center powered by the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant now controlled by Russian forces, the paper said. U.S. companies would invest in Russian strategic sectors such as rare-earth extraction and oil drilling in the Arctic, while Russian energy flows to Western Europe and the world would be restored, it added. The paper said one unidentified European official compared the proposed U.S.-Russian energy deals to an economic version of the 1945 Yalta conference. RECOMMENDEDSTORIES FOR YOU At that meeting, the victors of World War Two, the Soviet Union, the United States and Britain, divided up their spheres of interest in Europe. Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022 after eight years of fighting between Russian-backed separatists and Ukrainian troops in the Donbas, formed of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions.
pressgazette
Top 50 news websites in the US in October: Ten biggest sites see YoY traffic decline
Biggest websites for news US: Top 50 updated each month Each of the ten biggest news websites in the US saw traffic decline year on year in October, according to the latest Similarweb data. * Top 50 most popular news websites in the UK (monthly ranking) * Top 50 most popular news websites in the world (monthly ranking) Syndication website MSN saw the biggest drop year on year among the top ten by more than a third (39.5% to 144 million visits). It was the fifth biggest site in the US by web traffic in October. The New York Post (down 33% to 97.7 million visits) and USA Today (down 32% to 125.4 million) had the second and third biggest year-on-year declines within the top ten sites in October. Just one site among the top ten saw month-on-month growth, with Yahoo Finance (in fourth place) increasing its traffic 10% on September to 145.7 million visits. Sign up for Press Gazette’s weekly Future of Media US newsletter on Substack for more stories like this Only 12 sites saw year-on-year growth across the top 50, with the biggest increase in traffic for The Times of India (up 43% to 25.2 million visits), Substack (up 39% to 74.9 million) and News Break (up 38% to 32.2 million). Across the top 50, 14 sites saw a month-on-month increase in traffic, with US-based politics site The Hill leading growth (up 45% to 44.4 million visits). This was followed by The Sun, up 29% to 26 million, and Politico (up 16% to 48.8 million). The biggest month-on-month decline was seen at NBC News, dropping 30% to 67.7 million visits. In September, the news division saw a spike as it increased 54% month on month (the biggest leap compared to August in the whole top 50 ranking) and 5% year on year to 96.6 million. Among the biggest month-on-month web traffic declines were also the New York Post (down 15% to 97.7 million visits), followed by Newsweek (67.8 million) and CNN (297.1 million), both down 14%. Similarweb generates its traffic data by applying machine learning and modelling to the statistically representative datasets that the company collects. Datasets are based on direct measurement (i.e. websites and apps that choose to share first-party analytics with Similarweb); contributory networks that aggregate device data; partnerships and public data extraction from websites and apps. The sites in the list are based on Similarweb’s classification of news and media publishers, although Press Gazette refines the list to exclude some sites with a less journalistic focus. September 2025 The BBC and NBC News saw the most traffic growth among the ten biggest news websites in the US in September, according to the latest Similarweb data. The BBC was up 27% month on month and 19% year on year to a total of 118.6 million visits in the US in September, making it the eighth biggest site by this metric. This is even though the BBC introduced a dynamic paywall to users in the US in July. NBC News was up 54% month on month (the biggest leap compared to August in the whole top 50 ranking) and 5% year on year to 96.6 million, putting it in tenth place. The only other site in the top ten to see growth both compared to September 2024 and August 2025 was The New York Times, up 9% month on month and 3% year on year to 461.6 million visits in first place. The biggest decline in the top ten was at syndication website MSN, down 10% month on month and 38% year on year to 145.2 million visits in fifth place. Overall, sites in the top 50 fared better in September than they did in August. In August, just five of the top 50 sites had year-on-year growth but in September 18 had an increase in visits compared to a year earlier. Similarly six sites reported month-on-month growth for August, with this hugely increasing to 35 in September. September was a busier news month, including the assassination of right-wing activist and podcaster Charlie Kirk. Year on year in September the biggest growth was at India Times (visits up 59% to 28.2 million) and Substack (up 48% to 73.7 million), while the most significant declines compared to last year were at Forbes (down 54% to 52.2 million visits) and Athlon Sports (down 48% to 18.3 million). Compared to August, six sites saw their visits up by more than a quarter: NBC News, Athlon Sports (up 35%), AP News (up 33% to 92.1 million visits), Reuters (up 27% to 46 million), BBC, and Politico (up 27% to 42 million). Four sites saw a double-digit month-on-month drop: Buzzfeed (down 18% to 31.7 million visits), San Francisco’s SF Gate (down 14% to 23.2 million), MSN and Forbes (down 10%). August 2025 Just five of the top 50 US websites saw year-on-year traffic growth in August 2025, according to the latest data from Similarweb. Substack, now the fourteenth biggest news site in the US, saw the biggest year-on-year boost in visits, up by almost half (42%) to 72.7 million visits in August compared to the same period in 2024. This was down 4% compared to July. India Times (up 33% to 26.9 million), aggregator Newsbreak (32.2 million) and Alabama-focused al.com (18.9 million) also saw double-digit year-on-year growth in August. The latter two both saw an annual boost in visits of 25%. Al.com saw the biggest month-on-month growth at 14%, and was one of just six websites to see an increase in visits compared to July. The other newsbrands to report month-on-month growth were Newsbreak (up 6%), SFGate (4%), USA Today (3%), and LA Times and India Times (both 1%). In July, BBC saw a 15% month-on-month drop in views following the launch of a dynamic paywall for users in the US at the end of June. The site saw an improved 7% drop in visits in August. Today.com fell out of the top 50 after it dropped 39% in July and was replaced with UK-based The Independent. This is despite The Independent seeing the biggest year-on-year fall in traffic, down 56% to 16.4 million. It was down 7% month on month. July 2025 Visits to bbc.com in the US were down 15% in July as the British public service broadcaster introduced a paywall to users in America. The BBC recorded 100.2 million website visits in the US in July, according to digital intelligence platform Similarweb. This meant it fell from seventh place in our top-50 ranking for June to 12th place in July. It was also down 16% year on year. The BBC launched a dynamic paywall for users in the US at the end of June, charging $8.99 (£6.55) per month or $49.99 (£36.40) per year. Whether a user hits the paywall, and when, depends on how regularly they visit the site and how long they stay with the idea to give a more premium experience to the most loyal users. Some content remains free to all users regardless of whether they have hit the paywall, including select global breaking news stories. The BBC’s month-on-month drop was the third biggest behind Reuters (down 24% to 39.3 million US visits) and the Associated Press (down 16% to 85.2 million). More than half (29) of the 50 biggest news websites in the US saw a month-on-month decline. Meanwhile the vast majority (44) saw fewer visits than they did a year earlier in July 2024. The biggest annual drops were at Forbes (down 50% to 63 million visits), Daily Mail (down 44% to 76.8 million), NBC News and Huffpost (down 42% each to 74.4 million and 38.5 million visits respectively), and Washington Post and US News (down 40% each to 69.4 million and 23.5 million visits respectively). Three websites saw double-digit growth compared to July 2024: visits in the US to India Times were up 46% to 26.7 million, Substack was up 40% to 75.4 million and aggregator Newsbreak was up 24% to 30.4 million. The Times of Israel fell back out of the top 50 after its visits almost doubled in June to enter in 43rd place. In July its visits were 12.3 million in the US, compared to 23.7 million a month earlier. June 2025 Many of the biggest news websites in the US moved back into growth in June, according to the latest data from Similarweb. Of the 50 biggest news websites by visits in June, 34 saw month-on-month growth (up from 15 in May) and 29 saw a year-on-year increase (up from 14 last month). The biggest month-on-month increase in June was at The Times of Israel, which saw its visits almost double to 23.7 million in the US (up 98%). Compared to last year it was up 55%, making it the fourth biggest for annual growth. The biggest year-on-year increases were at The Arena Group’s Men’s Journal, up 309% compared to June 2024 to 25.1 million visits, and Substack, up 57% to 73.9 million visits. Among the top ten sites in the US, three were up compared to June 2024 (New York Times, People, BBC and Google News) and seven saw an increase compared to May. The biggest increases were at The New York Times (up 9% year on year to 474.5 million visits) and CNN (up 14% month on month to 356.7 million). The biggest decline among the top ten were at MSN, down 28% year on year and 8% month on month to 168 million visits. May 2025 Only 15 out of the top 50 news websites in the US grew traffic year on year in May, according to the latest data from Similarweb. Most of the top ten sites saw steep year-on-year drops with CNN down 27.9% year on year to 311.7 million visits , Fox News down 23.9% year on year and the New York Post down 27%. The UK-based Sun was the fastest faller, down 59% year on year to 23 million visits per month, according to Similarweb estimates. Mail Online, known as DailyMail.com in the US, also saw a steep traffic drop in May falling 32% year on year to 86.9 million visits per month in the US. Celebrity news website People and the BBC were the only sites in the USA top ten to post year-on-year traffic growth. Publishers have complained in recent years about falling referral traffic from Google and Facebook. While some say Facebook referral traffic has returned this year, others complain that the addition of AI-written summaries to Google search results has deeply impacted click-through rates to articles. Men’s Journal was the fastest growing top-50 news website in the US in May, quadrupling its traffic compared to the same month a year earlier. Substack rose to 19th position with growth of 42.5% year on year to 67.7 million visits in the US for its network of newsletter-driven websites. April 2025 Legal battles between AP News and Donald Trump have not done the news agency’s popularity any harm as it was one of the fastest-growing news websites in the US in April 2025. AP News grew 44.6% year on year to 110.9 million monthly visits, according to Similarweb data. The news agency was banned from presidential media briefings after refusing to rename the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America and a legal dispute is continuing. Press Gazette’s top-50 ranking of US news shows the New York Times hold its lead versus CNN in top spot with 479.3 million visits in the month. CNBC.com was another big winner in April, up 34.2% year on year to 136.3 million visits. Two brands owned by The Arena Group were the two fastest-growing top-50 titles. Men’s Journal rose 338% year on year to 23.5 million visits and sports news website Athlon Sports grew 144/7% to 40.7 million visits. Arena Group reported £126m of revenue last year and moved into profit in the second half. It reported a $4m profit in the first quarter of this year. The Sun was the fastest falling title in Press Gazette’s top-50 ranking, dropping 61.5% year on year to 22.1 million visits. Sister title the New York Post fell 25% year on year to 113.3 million visits. Rival title The Mirror, which is yet to feature in the top 50 US news websites, grew 631% year on year to 15.1 million visits in April 2025 according to Similarweb data. Positive news brand Upworthy was another fast grower outside the top 50 in April. According to Similarweb it grew 158.4% to 17.4 million visits. March 2025 All but eight of the 50 most-visited news sites in the US saw traffic growth in March compared to February, with a third seeing at least 10% growth in the longer month. The Atlantic saw a jump of more than 40% month on month amid its blockbuster story published on 24 March revealing its editor had been accidentally added to a Trump administration group chat about military strikes in Yemen. The Atlantic recorded 30.4 million visits in March according to Similarweb, meaning it was also up 30% compared to March 2024. Climate news site The Cooldown (51.6 million visits, up 52%) was the fastest grower month on month, followed by The Atlantic (30.4 million, up 43%). Other notable month-on-month gainers included Axios (32.3 million, up 33%), CNBC (113.2 million, up 30%), Newsweek (96.6 million, up 25%) and Zero Hedge (26.3 million, up 13%). Three in five of the top 50 news websites in the US recorded year-on-year growth, with the biggest percentage increase seen at sports news site Athlon Sports. Athlon attracted 37.1 million visits in March, a 693% increase compared with March 2024. It was followed by India Times (26.8 million visits, up 82% year-on-year), one of several Indian publishers to climb up the rankings in the past year. It was the 42nd most-visited news site in the US in March. News agency the Associated Press (128 million) was the third-fastest growing site among the top 50 and the fastest-growing of the top ten news sites in the US, increasing its web traffic by 66% compared with March 2024 despite having its access to the White House revoked. The AP’s consumer-facing website has seen “a lot of audience growth” since it relaunched in June 2023. Political and hard news sites generally performed well year-on-year, with Trump-aligned Breitbart (38.6 million visits, up 29%) and The Gateway Pundit (30.3 million, up 35%), agency Reuters (61.7 million, up 38%) and publishing platform Substack (73.1 million, up 60%) also among the biggest risers. Among the ten most-visited news sites in the US, the AP was followed by People magazine (158.3 million, up 14%) for year-on-year growth, then by aggregator Google News (121.1 million, up 9%) and The New York Times (492.5 million, up 6%). The New York Times remains the most-visited news site in the US, followed by CNN (351.5 million) and Fox News (272.8 million). The biggest year-on-year drop among the top ten was seen at Gannett’s USA Today, which shed 17% of its March 2024 traffic to attract 134.7 million visits last month. Close behind was the New York Post (120.4 million, down 16%), while CNN and aggregator MSN (201.3 million) both dropped 9% year-on-year. Fox News and Yahoo Finance (155.9 million) were respectively flat and up 3% compared with last year. Month-on-month, however, all but one of the top ten saw traffic rise in March compared with February. Google News, The New York Times and Yahoo Finance all saw a 9% month-on-month rise in visits, while People, Fox News and USA Today rose 5%. The smallest increases were seen at the AP (4%), MSN (3%) and CNN (2%), while the New York Post lost a negligible proportion of traffic. Despite its monthly gain The Cooldown was the second-largest faller year-on-year among the top 50, losing 24% of its traffic compared to March last year. Only UK tabloid The Sun (24.2 million, down 55%) fell further. Three other sites, Huffpost (44 million, down 23% year-on-year), US News (31 million, also down 23%) and Business Insider (59 million, down 20%) were down by a fifth or more, followed not far behind by The Washington Post (81.8 million, down 19%) and the Daily Mail (101.1 million, down 18%). The Washington Post was also among the eight news sites not to increase its web traffic compared to February, instead dropping 6%. The only sites to lose more visits compared to the month before were CBS News (71.1 million, down 9%), Athlon (down 11%) and another UK site, The Independent (23.6 million, down 11%). Since November 2023 Similarweb has excluded the figures for edition.cnn.com in its report to Press Gazette since they are counted under the main domain. Visits to edition.cnn.com however make up a very small share of all visits to the CNN domain in the US. Similarweb generates its traffic data by applying machine learning and modelling to the statistically representative datasets that the company collects. Datasets are based on direct measurement (i.e. websites and apps that choose to share first-party analytics with Similarweb); contributory networks that aggregate device data; partnerships and public data extraction from websites and apps. The sites in the list are based on Similarweb’s classification of news and media publishers, although Press Gazette refines the list to exclude some sites with a less journalistic focus. Continue reading for previous months’ coverage of the top 50 websites for news in the US: February 2025 Most top US news sites saw traffic pull back in February following a busy January. Among the 50 most-visited online newsbrands in the US in February, 11 increased their traffic compared with the month before, while 19 saw decreases of 10% or more. The drops mirror widespread gains in February, when only nine top sites saw traffic losses and 21 posted gains of 10% or greater. However they are also in spite of an eventful February for US news which included an airplane crash in Washington DC and an Oval Office row between Donald Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The sharpest month-on-month fall was seen at January’s fastest grower, The Los Angeles Times. The publication, likely spurred by the city’s historic wildfires, grew its web visits nearly 120% to 42.3 million in January, but in February these returned to 20.8 million – a 51% month-on month fall. The publication’s February traffic was 27% lower than in February 2024. Two publications increased their visits by 10% or more month-on-month: political news site The Hill (42.9 million visits, up 17%) and UK title The Independent (26.5 million, up 12%). The Gateway Pundit, a website that promoted false claims the 2020 US presidential election was stolen, was not far behind, rising 9% month-on-month to 29.5 million. Among the ten most-visited news sites in the US specifically, meanwhile, news agency the Associated Press (122.8 million visits, up 5.7% month-on-month) was the only publication to grow its traffic compared with January. USA Today (128.8 million, down 19%) was the fastest faller among the group, followed by CNN (345.1 million, down 14%) and BBC News (112.3 million, down 11%). The shallowest fall in the top ten was seen at People magazine (150.6 million), which nonetheless lost 5% of its traffic. Year-on-year the picture was more mixed. The AP was the fastest-growing top-ten site compared with February 2024, increasing its traffic by 76%, followed by the BBC (up 30%), People (7.1%) and The New York Times (452.4 million, up 6.4%), which remains the most-visited news site in the US. The other six top-ten sites lost visits, although Fox News (260.5 million) dropped less than a percentage point. The biggest year-on-year decline in the top ten was seen at aggregator MSN (196.4 million, down 8%) and USA Today (also down 8%). Among the broader top 50 by far the greatest year-on-year growth came at Athlon Sports (41.4 million), which registered an 854% increase in visits compared with the same month last year. It was followed by India Times (23.9 million, up 82%), the AP and publishing platform Substack (72.1 million, up 71%). The Gateway Pundit and another site supportive of Donald Trump, Breitbart, were also among the fastest growers year-on-year, up 54% and 26% respectively. Seven sites posted year-on-year traffic declines of 10% or greater. The largest and sixth-largest drops were at British tabloids The Sun (21.6 million, down 62%) and Daily Mail (94.8 million, down 19%). Business Insider (48 million, down 33%) saw the second-greatest fall, followed by the LA Times and aggregator Yahoo News (73.3 million, down 27%). January 2025 The Los Angeles Times more than doubled its web traffic month-on-month in January as its home city battled historic wildfires. The California newspaper, which has seen traffic dip in recent months, recorded 42.3 million visitors last month, up 118% compared with December 2024 according to Similarweb. That figure also represented a 44.9% increase against January 2024. As a result the site jumped from 50th place on last month’s table to 30th in January. The paper has reportedly suffered subscription cancellations in recent months after proprietor Patrick Soon-Shiong intervened to block its editorial board from endorsing Kamala Harris in the US presidential election. January also produced significant traffic gains for US political and hard news sites amid the start of Donald Trump’s second administration, with the ten fastest-growing sites on the top 50 including Axios (31.4 million, up 44% month-on-month), CBS News (102.9 million, up 39%) and Politico (38.5 million, up 30%). Overall only nine websites posted month-on-month traffic declines in January. Among the ten most-visited news sites in the US almost every publisher posted traffic gains in January, with the UK-based BBC in particular (125.8 million visits, up 13%) re-entering the top-ten. CNN (399.1 million, up 12%) and USA Today (158.6 million, up 10.4%) increased their visits by double-digit percentage points, while the New York Post (127.9 million, down 10%) the only top-ten site to lose traffic. Athlon Sports (46.9 million) was again the fastest-growing publication on the top 50 year-on-year, nearly quadrupling visits, and was followed by India Times (27.7 million, up 100%) — one of several Indian news sites that has risen quickly up the global top 50 chart but first appeared on the US top 50 in December. The Associated Press (116.2 million, up 25%), Substack (73.1 million, up 22.5%) and the BBC (125.8 million, up 13.1%) were also among the fastest growers compared with January 2024. The BBC saw the fastest growth among the ten most-visited news sites in the US, followed by People magazine (158.6 million, up 14%) and the most-visited publication overall, The New York Times (494.4 million, up 12.2%). Fox News (278.4 million, down 3.7%), aggregator MSN (214.3 million, down 8.2%) and the New York Post (127.9 million, down 8.7%) lost traffic, meanwhile. A third of the top 50 lost traffic year-over-year, with the largest decline seen at the US version of the UK’s un-paywalled Sun tabloid (23 million, down 63.8% year-over-year). The US Sun has been affected by Google’s algorithm changes and reduced the size of its newsroom in September to target fewer key content areas. Business Insider (56.8 million) and Huffpost (43.7 million) each received 25% less traffic this January than January last year. Among the nine websites to lose traffic month-on-month, five saw decreases of 2.1% or lower. Four saw double-digit percentage point falls, however: the New York Post, Buzzfeed (52.5 million, down 10.2%), Athlon Sports (down 13.4%) and SF Gate (21.5 million, also down 13.4%). December 2024 The New York Times extended its lead over CNN has the most popular news website in the US according to Press Gazette’s latest top-50 ranking. Among the 50 most-visited news sites in the country only 11 grew their visits month-on-month in December. Some 32 sites grew their total number of website visits year on year, according to Similarweb. The biggest traffic pullback in the top ten was at USA Today (143.6 million, down 29.4%), followed by CNN (356.6 million, down 22.5%) and Fox News (253.6 million, down 17%). Half of the top ten sites saw double-digit percentage decreases. CNN began charging its most regular readers for website access in October 2024. November was a big month traffic-wise for many US news websites helped by the 5 November presidential election. In the broader top 50 both climate news site The Cooldown (25.4 million, up 123.1% month-on-month) and sports news site Athlon Sports (54.1 million, up 38.7%) saw significant growth compared with November. Buzzfeed (58.5 million, up 12.3%), the Daily Mail (108.6 million, up 6.3%) and local publishing network Patch (25.7 million, up 16.3%) also grew. In terms of annual growth Athlon Sports and The Cooldown again topped the charts, with both seeing greater than 300% year-on-year growth. They were followed by India Times (24.5 million, up 78.1%), the Associated Press (93 million, up 54.9%) and publishing platform Substack (59.7 million, up 46.6%). Among the top ten most-visited sites specifically, all but two sites saw some year-on-year growth. Business publisher Forbes (115.4 million, up 41.5%) saw the fastest rise, followed by People magazine (144.6 million, up 14.2%), The New York Times (up 8.9%) and the New York Post (142.1 million, up 8.1%). The biggest fallers compared with December 2023 among the whole top 50 were UK tabloid The Sun (23 million, down 55%), The Los Angeles Times (19.4 million, down 33.2%) and Huffpost (43.6 million, down 21%). November 2024 Traditional hard news and politics sites saw the largest web traffic growth in November amid the 2024 US presidential election. Three in five of the top 50 most-visited news sites in the US saw traffic grow compared with October — although there were some notable exceptions. The Los Angeles Times (23.7 million visits) and Washington Post (102.4 million) saw the sixth and eighth largest drops, falling by 7.9% and 6.6% respectively compared with October. The two publishers experienced similar controversies going into the election after their proprietors each blocked their editorial boards from endorsing Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris, reportedly resulting in subscription cancellations. The biggest month-on-month traffic surges came at NBC (136 million visits, up 45.9%), the Associated Press (144.7 million, up 45.7%) and The Daily Wire (25.5 million, up 40.9%). Major political publishers like Axios (31.5 million, up 35.3%) and Politico (50.2 million, up 27.6%) also fared well, alongside right-leaning publishers Fox News (305.6 million, up 18.4%), Newsmax (36.2 million, up 20.1%) and Breitbart (39.6 million, up 17.5%). [Read more: Top publishers saw less traffic on day of 2024 US election versus 2020] Most of the ten most-visited news sites in the US benefitted from the November surge, with The New York Times (528.6 million, up 11% month-on-month), USA Today (203.5 million, up 9.8%) and CNN (460 million, up 8.2%) all notching notable gains. People.com, the website of People magazine, saw the largest fall among the top ten, losing 10% of its audience compared with October. Yahoo Finance (149.8 million, down 2.3%), the New York Post (142.4 million, down 1.8%) and aggregator MSN (234.6 million, down 1.4%) saw modest drops. November also delivered The New York Times back to the top of the top 50 chart, ahead of CNN. Year-on-year the fastest-growing top ten news site was the AP, which saw 162.5% more visits in November 2024 than it did in the same month in 2023. NBC News, similarly, grew its traffic 112.5% compared with last year, while USA Today managed growth of 65.5%. All of the ten most-visited news sites in the US in November received more visits than they did a year earlier. The smallest grower, Yahoo Finance, still managed year-on-year growth of 5.2%. For another month the fastest year-on-year grower on the top 50 was athlonsports.com (39 million visits, up 305.7%), followed by the AP and The Daily Dot (25.1 million, up 147.3%). Overall only seven of the top 50 recorded year-on-year traffic declines in November: Yahoo News (82.8 million visits, down 16.8%), the LA Times (down 13.9%), financial publisher Bloomberg (23.5 million, down 10.5%), the Daily Mail (102.2 million, down 7%), Huffpost (50.9 million, down 5.2%), CNBC (90.9 million, down 2.2%) and The Sun (26.6 million, down 1.1%). Among the ten most-visited news sites in the US only three sites had a busier December than November: Yahoo Finance (155.9 million visits in December, up 4.1%), aggregator Google News (119.6 million, up 3.2%) and celebrity and human interest magazine People (144.6 million, up 2.1%). October 2024 Most of the top newsbrands in the US saw web traffic growth in October following two months of declines. All but one of the ten most-visited news sites in the US, and almost four in five of the top 50, grew their visits compared with September. Thirty websites in the top 50 also saw their visits grow year-on-year in October, as well as eight of the top ten. Among the ten most-visited news sites in the US, Forbes (118.4 million visits) saw the greatest growth, increasing 42.7% compared with October 2023 and 4.7% compared with September 2024. It was followed by USA Today (185.3 million, up 41.6% year-on-year) and the website of People magazine (157.4 million, up 32.3%), which were the only other top-ten sites to see double-digit growth compared with 2023. CNN (425 million) remains the most-visited news site in the US despite an 11.8% year-on-year decrease in traffic — the only fall among the top ten besides Fox News (258.1 million), which lost 22.5% of its October 2023 traffic. The broader traffic bounce back may reflect increased news interest in the run-up to the US election, which happened in the first week of November. The Fox web traffic decline contrasts with the network’s reported surge in TV viewership around the election. Among the broader top 50 news sites in the US, sports news site athlonsports.com (34.7 million) continued its reign as the fastest-growing publisher, nearly quadrupling its web visits compared to October 2023. It was followed by The Daily Dot (28.2 million, up 200.7%), Real Clear Politics (23.3 million, up 158%) and Newsweek (111.3 million, up 110.9%). British news site The Independent (34.8 million), which claimed in November to have become the biggest British-born news site in the US according to Comscore data, also notched 70.4% year-on-year growth. Month-on-month, CNN’s traffic stayed largely flat, growing 0.3%. At the start of October the site deployed a new paywall, which does not appear to have immediately hurt its web visits. Fox also lost approximately 1% of its US web visits in October compared with the month before. The fastest-growing top-ten site month-on-month was USA Today, followed by aggregator Google News (122.4 million, up 8.6%) and People. Also possibly reflecting interest in the US presidential election, the fastest monthly growth among the top 50 was seen at Real Clear Politics, where visits were up nearly 40% compared with September. Newsweek (up 20.1%), The Atlantic (26.6 million, up 16.2% month-on-month), The Washington Post (109.7 million, up 8.7%) and Substack (53.9 million, up 7.9%) were similarly among the fastest growers. Also possibly reflecting interest in the US presidential election, the fastest monthly growth among the top 50 was seen at Real Clear Politics, where visits were up nearly 40% compared with September. Newsweek (up 20.1%), The Atlantic (26.6 million, up 16.2% month-on-month), The Washington Post (109.7 million, up 8.7%) and Substack (53.9 million, up 7.9%) were similarly among the fastest growers. On the other end of the scale the fastest year-on-year traffic losses were seen by the Los Angeles Times (25.8 million, down 30% on October 2023), the Daily Mail (104.1 million, down 22.8%) and Fox News. Despite its robust politics offering, Axios (23.3 million) was the top 50 site with the largest monthly traffic fall, losing 17.4% of its visits compared with September. It was followed by The Independent (down 12.4% month-on-month) and Business Insider (64.3 million, down 11.8%). September 2024 Almost all the top 50 news sites in the US saw traffic fall in September, deepening a decline that began in August. But for most publishers visits have nonetheless improved year-on-year, with three-fifths of the top 50 recording traffic increases of at least 10% compared with September 2023. All of the ten most-visited news sites in the US saw traffic drop compared to August. The contraction was sharpest at Yahoo Finance (down 11.3% month-on-month to 144.4 million visits) and third-placed Fox News (down 11.2% to 260.2 million). In August eight of the top ten publishers saw month-on-month decline, which marked a correction after an eventful July (in which the Paris Olympics kicked off, Joe Biden left the US presidential race and Donald Trump was shot). Major news events in the US in September included Hurricane Helene hitting North Carolina, a second failed assassination attempt against Trump, and the first TV debate between him and Kamala Harris. In September the shallowest traffic falls were recorded at The New York Times (down 1.9% to 355 million) and Forbes (down 2.1% to 113 million). Despite the drop September’s ranking reflects the first time Forbes has entered the US top ten after jumping three places to ninth. Google News (visits down 6.7% to 112.7 million), meanwhile, fell out of the top ten. CNN, which was again the most visited site in the US, saw visits fall 4% to 424 million. The site has since rolled out its inaugural paywall, the effects from which will only become visible next month. The Daily Mail (down 7.5% month-on-month to 113 million), which was the ninth most popular news site in the US in both July and August, dropped in September to tenth. The only riser within the top ten, besides new entrant Forbes, was People, which was up one spot despite visits dropping 9.5% month-on-month to 147.2 million. September saw the re-entry of The Atlantic into the top 50 (visits down 0.2% month-on-month but up 15.2% year-on-year to 22.9 million) after it dropped off in August. Far-right website Gateway Pundit, which entered the chart at 48th last month, has in turn fallen out of the top 50. Athlon Sports (up 218.4% year-on-year to 35 million) was the fastest riser in the ranks of the top 50, jumping eight places to 33rd on the back of 18% month-on-month traffic growth, the second most growth of any publisher in the top 50. The only site to see a larger rise in visits compared with August was CBS News, where traffic rose 20.7% to 92.5 million, translating to a five-place rise on the charts. Another notable riser was local publisher SF Gate (up six places to 36th on the back of a 0.4% month-on-month traffic drop, to 29.3 million) and libertarian blog Zero Hedge (25.2 million), which rose five places to 40th despite a 7.7% traffic decline. The UK’s The Independent, which has been on a US expansion campaign, saw some fruits from that bid in September: it was one of the four sites to see month-on-month traffic growth (rising 5.7% to 39.7 million) and notched year-on-year growth of 88.3%, the fourth highest overall. Going the opposite direction, however, was the US outpost of fellow British publisher The Sun (22.2 million visits), which dropped 15 places to 50th on the back of 34.9% month-on-month and 65.1% year-on-year traffic declines. The Sun recently made steep cuts at its US operation. After Athlon the fastest-growing site in the US year-on-year was The Daily Dot (up 174.2% year-on-year to 29.2 million), which entered the top 50 for the first time in August. They were followed by Newsweek, where visits rose 115.1% year-on-year to 92.6 million. Newsweek’s rapid rise up the charts has stalled in recent months: having been in the top ten in July it fell out last month and in September placed 14th. All but two of the ten most-visited sites in the US in September saw year-on-year traffic growth. New top ten entrant Forbes was also the fastest-growing site in the group, seeing visits rise 48% compared with September 2023. It was followed by People magazine (up 37.8%), USA Today (up 29.6% to 166 million) and The New York Times. The two top ten sites to see year-on-year traffic declines were Fox News (down 0.7%) and Mail Online, where visits dropped 7.2%. August 2024 Two-thirds of the top news sites in the US saw traffic shrink month-on-month in August following a bumper July. But the picture is rosier over a longer timespan, with three-quarters of the top 50 publishers seeing year-on-year growth in visits in August. The contraction is particularly pronounced among the top ten US news sites by traffic, where eight publishers saw visits drop compared to July. In July every site in the top ten saw month-on-month traffic growth, likely driven by blockbuster news events including the first assassination attempt on Donald Trump and Joe Biden’s departure from the presidential race. But in August People.com (162.6 million visits) and Yahoo Finance (162.8 million) were the only top ten sites to continue growing their traffic, by 3% and 2% respectively. The biggest drop came at CNN, which saw visits fall 16% to 441.4 million. It nonetheless remained the most-visited news site in the US, a position it has held since Similarweb updated its data model in June and pushed the site ahead of The New York Times. The New York Times maintained its position in second place, with 361.8 million visits, and Fox News was third on 293 million. Yahoo Finance and People both shuffled up the board one spot to sixth and seventh place respectively, pushing the New York Post (150 million visits, down 7% year-on-year) down to eighth. Mail Online remained steady at ninth place with 122.2 million visits while Google News (120.8 million) jumped three places to tenth despite losing 4% of traffic month-on-month, displacing Newsweek (115.7 million) from the top ten. Further down the rankings The Daily Beast was the highest debuting publication, entering the top 50 at 39th place after seeing traffic rise 22% month-on-month to 30 million. The other new entrants in August were Dailydot.com (29.8 million, 40th place), NJ.com (26.6 million, 47th) and Newsbreak.com (25.7 million, 50th). The four sites that dropped off the top 50 to make room for them were climate site The Cooldown, which had been enjoying a rapid traffic rise in recent months, local publishers Patch.com and KSL.com, and current affairs magazine The Atlantic. The biggest riser already on the charts was progressive news site Raw Story, which climbed eight spots to 37th place on the back of a 24% month-on-month traffic increase to 33.2 million. It was followed by UK news site The Independent (up six places with 37.6 million) and the Los Angeles Times (up five places with 28.5 million). Among all top 50 sites The Daily Dot grew fastest month-on-month, seeing traffic rise 25%. Year-on-year, however, the fastest growth was at sports publisher Athlon Sports, which has been the case among the US top 50 every month since May. The site received 374% more visits in August 2024 than in August 2023, reaching 29.6 million. The next fastest growth was at Newsweek, where traffic rose 158%, and the Daily Dot (88%). Among the top ten news sites by US traffic People magazine again saw the most year-on-year growth in August, having also been the fastest annual growers in April, May and June. July’s fastest year-on-year riser, USA Today, followed in second place in August. July 2024 All but two of the top 50 news websites in the US saw visits grow month-on-month amid an eventful July for political news. All of the top-ten most-visited news sites in the US saw traffic growth when compared with June, according to figures from digital intelligence platform Similarweb. The biggest increases in traffic were at USA Today (34%), CNN (33%), Newsweek (21%), Fox News (20%) and The New York Times (15%). These figures contrast against June, when none of the top ten saw month-on-month growth. The figures for July are the first Press Gazette has published since Similarweb updated its data model. The company says the update has improved the accuracy of the data, particularly with regard to smaller websites. The most notable result of the change appears to be that it has bounced CNN (525 million visits) ahead of The New York Times (385.7 million) to retake the top spot on the traffic ranking. Fox News (336.7 million) retained its position in third place, ahead of MSN (263 million) which it overtook in May. Under the new model People.com (158.3 million) drops from fifth place, which it occupied in May, to eighth, behind USA Today (188.1 million) in fifth, the New York Post in sixth (160.5 million) and Yahoo Finance in seventh (159.5 million). Mail Online (136.1 million) gains a place, rising to ninth, and Newsweek (133.3 million) leaps from 16th to tenth place. The only sites to see visits decline month-on-month were the US website of the UK’s The Sun newspaper (37.1 million) and Athlon Sports (27.5 million), which both dropped 3%. Year-on-year, however, Athlon (athlonsports.com) saw the greatest growth in the top 50, drawing in 697% more visits in July 2024 than in July 2023. The second-fastest annual growth was at climate site The Cooldown (25.5 million, up 562%) and the third-fastest was at Newsweek (172%), which was also the fastest-growing site among the top ten domains. All the top-ten sites by total visits grew year-on-year in July, seven of them by double-digit percentages. Six of the top 50 saw year-on-year visit declines in July. The Sun was again the biggest faller, dropping 46% of its traffic. It was followed by Yahoo News (down 22%), Buzzfeed (down 17%), the Los Angeles Times (down 12%), and CNBC and SFGate, each of which declined 2%. The largest gains month-on month were at political and hard news sites, again reflecting a historic July for news. ABC News (83.5 million visits) saw the most growth between June and July, increasing traffic 81%. MSNBC (29.2 million) increased visits by 66%, NBC News (128 million) by 62%, Axios (40 million) by 54% and The Atlantic (28.2 million) by 52%. June 2024 Newsweek was once again the fastest-growing news website in the US in June 2023, notching 15% month-on-month growth to 110.2 million visits. In addition Newsweek saw visits rise 144% compared to June the prior year, but it did not see the most year-on-year growth among the top 50. The fastest year-on-year growth came at Athlon Sports, which attracted 28.5 million visits in June, up 484% from the prior year. Climate news site The Cooldown saw the second most year-on-year growth, with visits rising 152% to 21.9 million. Among the top ten sites by traffic no publisher saw month-on-month growth in June. The New York Post saw the biggest decline – dropping 11% of traffic month-on-month – followed by The New York Times, which dropped 10% to 336 million visits. Celebrity-focused People.com saw the most year-on-year growth in the top ten, growing visits 37% to 142.1 million. It was followed by USA Today, which saw traffic rise 11% to 140.3 million. May 2024 Note: Figures from May 2024 and earlier were calculated using an old Similarweb data model that has since been updated. Celebrity-focused newsbrand People.com was the fastest-growing news website in the US in May, according to Press Gazette’s latest ranking. Visits to the popular magazine’s website were up 18% month-on-month to 165.3 million, according to data from digital intelligence platform Similarweb. It was followed by two News Corp titles, foxnews.com (269.1 million visits) and nypost.com (160.8 million), which were both up 8% month-on-month. CNN (419.2 million visits, up 3%) and the New York Times (503.4 million, up 3%) also saw growth, albeit more modest, compared to April. While the New York Times remained the biggest newsbrand in the US by number of visits followed by CNN, a strong monthly performance from Fox News led it to overtake MSN (261.3 million visits) into third place, pushing MSN into fourth. People meanwhile retook fifth place following its strong growth, with Yahoo Finance (154.4 million) falling into seventh. Year-on-year, People was again fastest-growing with visits up 42%, while The New York Times (up 17%) and USA Today (125.7 million, up 16%) also saw strong growth – contrasting with USA Today’s sharp monthly slump (its visits were down 15% making it the biggest-falling site among the top ten compared to April). Among the top 50, Newsweek, which has topped the list for growth in several of the past months, was only the third fastest growing site year-on-year despite another strong month. Visits to the news magazine’s website were up 198% compared to May 2023 to 95.5 million but it was beaten by two specialist newsbrands. Fastest-growing was long-standing sports publisher Athlon Sports, which entered our top 50 for the first time in 33rd place (35.9 million visits, up 962% year-on-year). Athlon is best known for publishing pre-season single-title sports annuals on professional and college sports, and was temporarily merged with Sports Illustrated in 2022. It was followed by financial news and advice site Moneywise (27.6 million visits, up 334% year-on-year). The same two sites topped the table for monthly growth with visits to Athlon Sports up 126% and visits to Moneywise up 70% compared to April. AP News (98.8 million, up 21%) and Variety (43.8 million, up 19%) also saw growth of over or close to a fifth. The Daily Mail remained the best-ranked British newsbrand in the ranking climbing one place into tenth (117.8 million visits), while the BBC was in rank 11 (112.7 million). Since November Similarweb has excluded the figures for edition.cnn.com in its report to Press Gazette since they are counted under the main domain. Visits to edition.cnn.com however make up a very small share of all visits to the CNN domain in the US. Similarweb generates its traffic data by applying machine learning and modelling to the statistically representative datasets that the company collects. Datasets are based on direct measurement (i.e. websites and apps that choose to share first-party analytics with Similarweb); contributory networks that aggregate device data; partnerships and public data extraction from websites and apps. The sites in the list are based on Similarweb’s classification of news and media publishers, although Press Gazette refines the list to exclude some sites with a less news-based focus. April 2024 Newsweek continued a strong run of growth to retake its spot as the fastest-growing news website in the US in April, according to Press Gazette’s latest ranking. Visits to the news magazine’s website were up 149% year-on-year to 90.5 million, according to data from digital intelligence platform Similarweb. Newsweek was followed by Virginia-based national newsbrand Axios which like Newsweek more than doubled its traffic (31.9 million visits, up 107% year-on-year), new climate and sustainability news site The Cool Down (27.8 million visits, up 71% year-on-year) and Advance Local Michigan news site M Live (22.7 million, up 66%). Month-on-month Newsweek did less well, seeing no change in audience compared to March. Instead fastest-growing was M Live (up 27% month-on-month), followed by CBS News (84 million, up 26%), Axios (up 21%), and technology specialist The Verge (up 17%). The US Sun was also among the fastest-growing sites month-on-month, up 16% to 46.3 million, sharing joint fifth place with Forbes (108.3 million, also up 16% month-on-month). Among the ten biggest sites by number of visits, celebrity newsbrand People was the fastest growing year-on-year for a second month (140.2 million visits, up 31%). It was followed by Gannett’s flagship newsbrand USA Today (148.1 million, up 25% compared to April 2023), The remainder of the top ten either declined year-on-year or in the case of the New York Times (up 1%) and the New York Post (down 1%) registered virtually no change in traffic. Fox News saw the biggest slump at 14% with visits down to 249.9 million despite a busy news cycle in the US with national elections later this year. Month-on-month New York Post (149.4 million, up 7%), USA Today (up 3%) and MSN (263.2 million, up 2%) were fastest-growing. Those that declined only saw small traffic drops with People (down 4% compared to March) and Washington Post (117 million, also down 4%) seeing the largest drops. The New York Times remained the biggest newsbrand in the US by number of visits (487.6 million), followed by CNN (405.7 million), MSN, Fox News and Yahoo Finance (151 million) which retained its fifth position after knocking People off fifth spot last month. The Daily Mail remained the best-ranked British newsbrand in the ranking (rank 11, 115.4 million visits), pulling further ahead of the BBC (rank 13, 106.1 million), which fell one place from twelfth in March. Since November Similarweb has excluded the figures for edition.cnn.com in its report to Press Gazette since they are counted under the main domain. Visits to edition.cnn.com however make up a very small share of all visits to the CNN domain in the US. March 2024 Celebrity newsbrand People was the fastest-growing news website in the US in March according to Press Gazette’s latest ranking. Visits to People.com were up 27% year-on-year to reach 145.7 million, according to data from digital intelligence platform Similarweb. Along with USA Today (143.4 million visits, up 13% year-on-year) and New York Times (498.6 million, up 10%), it was one of three of the top ten websites by number of visits in March to see double-digit growth. In contrast, top ten sites Fox News (248.5 million, down 19%), the New York Post (139.3 million, down 16%), MSN (258.5 million visits, down 13%), Google News (131.8 million, down 10%) and CNN (402.2 million, down 10%) saw double-digit slumps in visits compared to March 2023. Month-on-month the picture was more positive for the ten biggest sites, with all but People (down 8%) seeing more visits in March than February. The New York Post (up 12%) saw the biggest monthly gain, followed by The New York Times, USA Today, Washington Post (122 million) and CNN, which each saw a 9% month-on-month boost in visits. Among the wider top 50, The Cool Down, which entered our ranking last month for the first time in 42nd position, saw strong growth for another month, moving up from 42nd to 35th in the table. Visits to the climate-specialised newsbrand were up 25% month-on-month and 421% year-on-year (30.4 million visits). The Cool Down was the fastest-growing site year-on-year among the whole top 50. It was followed by Newsweek (90.5 million visits, up 144% year-on-year). A Newsweek spokesperson told Press Gazette last month that “the share of readers visiting us via our front door is setting records” and is its “best source of stable, growing audience independent of third-party algorithm changes” as many publishers experience Google and Facebook referral declines. Month-on-month, both Newsweek (up 31% compared to February) and The Cool Down were beaten by publishing group Advance Local’s Alabama-focused site al.com (22.6 million visits, up 67% month-on-month). It was followed by independently run consumer-focused science news site sciencealert.com (24.4 million visits, up 66% month-on-month). Long-running magazine The Atlantic also saw a strong March with 30 million visits, an increase of 26% month-on-month. The New York Times remained the biggest newsbrand in the US by number of visits, followed by CNN, MSN, Fox News and Yahoo Finance (150.1 million visits) which knocked People out of fifth position. The Daily Mail remained the best-ranked British newsbrand in the ranking (rank 11, 113 million visits), just ahead of the BBC (rank 12, 106.9 million). Since November Similarweb has excluded the figures for edition.cnn.com in its report to Press Gazette since they are counted under the main domain. Visits to edition.cnn.com however make up a very small share of all visits to the CNN domain in the US. Similarweb generates its traffic data by applying machine learning and modelling to the statistically representative datasets that the company collects. Datasets are based on direct measurement (i.e. websites and apps that choose to share first-party analytics with Similarweb); contributory networks that aggregate device data; partnerships and public data extraction from websites and apps. The sites in the list are based on Similarweb’s classification of news and media publishers, although Press Gazette refines the list to exclude some sites with a less news-based focus. February 2024 Newsweek was the fastest-growing news site in the US in February while climate news startup The Cooldown entered the list in 42nd position, according to Press Gazette’s latest ranking. Visits to the site of news magazine Newsweek, which has expanded its rankings content and consumer guides in the past year, were up 130% year-on-year to 69.1 million, making it the fastest growing news site in the top 50, according to data from digital intelligence platform, Similarweb. (We excluded The Cool Down from the year-on-year analysis because the site only recently launched towards the end of 2022). Newsweek was followed by Axios (25 million visits, up 88% year-on-year) and Politico (50.7 million, up 51%). UK newsbrand The Independent (25.7 million, up 44%) also made the top ten for growth, ranking 39th in the top 50. Last month The Independent also featured among the ten fastest-growing sites in the top 50, as it seeks to grow its US foothold. Month-on-month the fastest-growing newsbrand was The Cool Down (24.3 million visits, up 52% compared to January). Ranked 42nd in this month’s top 50, the site was launched by founder and CEO of the sports media outlet Bleacher Report Dave Finocchio and Anna Robertson, an ABC and Yahoo News executive, and purports to be the “first mainstream climate brand” in the US. It was followed for month-on-month growth in visits by progressive news website Rawstory (20.4 million, up 24%) and Newsweek (up 10% month-on-month). None of the ten biggest news websites by number of visits grew month-on-month in February. People (158.7 million visits, down 2% month-on-month) and Yahoo Finance (147.2 million, down 3%) saw the smallest falls, while Fox News (242.5 million, down 10%) and Gannett’s flagship title USA Today (131.3 million, down 13%) saw the only double-digit declines. Annually, the picture was more mixed for the ten biggest sites. People (up 30% year-on-year), USA Today (up 20%) and Yahoo Finance (up 14%) saw the biggest increases in visits compared to February 2023. At the other end of the list however, Microsoft news aggregator MSN (247.4 million visits) and News Corp’s New York Post (124.9 million) saw the biggest year-on-year slumps at 17% each. The New York Times (456.7 million visits) remained the biggest newsbrand in the US by number of visits, followed by CNN (372.8 million), MSN, Fox News and People. The Daily Mail remained the best-ranked British newsbrand in the ranking (107.7 million visits) in tenth, one place ahead of the BBC (101 million). Since November Similarweb has excluded the figures for edition.cnn.com in its report to Press Gazette since they are counted under the main domain. Visits to edition.cnn.com however make up a very small share of all visits to the CNN domain in the US. January 2024 The Independent was one of the fastest-growing news sites in the US in January, according to Press Gazette’s latest ranking. Visits to the UK publisher’s site were up 29% month-on-month to 24.3 million, making it the second-fastest growing news site in the US, according to data from digital intelligence platform, Similarweb. The Independent is one of several UK newsbrands along with The Sun, Daily Mail, Daily Mirror, Express and the BBC that have recently put focus on expansion in the US. The Independent’s chief executive Christian Broughton told Press Gazette last year that US expansion, along with e-commerce, Independent TV, reader revenues and AI, are the main drivers of growth for the publisher. The Daily Mail remained the best-ranked British newsbrand in the ranking (119.8 million visits) although it dropped one place to eleventh from tenth in the past month. Fastest-growing month-on-month in the top 50 was Advance Local-owned New Jersey news site nj.com (23.5 million visits, up 33% month-on-month) while third fastest-growing was Business Insider (74.4 million, up 21%). Year-on-year, compared to January 2023, the fastest-growing site was Newsweek (62.7 million visits, up 94%), followed by Axios (28.8 million visits, up 60%) which in recent years has expanded into local news and its professional subscription service, Axios Pro. The Independent also featured among the fastest-growing websites year-on-year coming in fifth place having seen visits up 40% compared to last January. Among the ten biggest news websites by volume of visits, USA Today was the fastest-growing for a third month in a row. Visits to the Gannett-owned site were up by 32% year-on-year to 151.4 million – echoing its year-on-year growth rate last month. It was followed by People (161.4 million visits, up 16% year-on-year) and both were the only large sites to see year-on-year growth for the second month in a row. People and USA Today also saw the biggest growth month-on-month among the top ten sites. Visits to People were up 11% compared to December while they were up 8% to USA Today. In contrast to the annual figures, however, all of the ten biggest sites saw month-on-month growth of at least 3% in January. The largest site in the US remained The New York Times (482.7 million visits), followed by CNN (398.8 million) and Fox News (270.2 million). Since November Similarweb has excluded the figures for edition.cnn.com in its report to Press Gazette since they are counted under the main domain. Visits to edition.cnn.com however make up a very small share of all visits to the CNN domain in the US. Email pged@pressgazette.co.uk to point out mistakes, provide story tips or send in a letter for publication on our "Letters Page" blog
pewresearch
1 in 5 Americans now regularly get news on TikTok, up sharply from 2020
1 in 5 Americans regularly get news on TikTok, up sharply from 2020 A fifth of U.S. adults now regularly get news on TikTok, up from just 3% in 2020. In fact, during that span, no social media platform we’ve studied has experienced faster growth in news consumption, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis. TikTok is primarily known for short-form video sharing and is especially popular among teens – 63% of whom report ever using the platform. How we did this Pew Research Center conducted this analysis to understand the ways Americans get news in a digital age. The Center regularly studies the platforms and social media sites Americans use to get news. This also continues our work on measuring news consumption online. For this analysis, we surveyed 5,153 U.S. adults from Aug. 18 to 24, 2025. Everyone who took part in this survey is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), a group of people recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses who have agreed to take surveys regularly. This kind of recruitment gives nearly all U.S. adults a chance of selection. Interviews were conducted either online or by telephone with a live interviewer. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education, presidential vote (among voters), social media site use and other factors. Read more about the ATP’s methodology and how we use the NPORS (National Public Opinion Reference Survey) to weight our social media data. Here are the questions used for this analysis, the topline and the survey methodology. But it has also become a popular news source for young adults. In our new survey, 43% of adults under 30 say they regularly get news there, up from 9% in 2020. Adults ages 30 to 49 have also increasingly been getting news on TikTok: A quarter now say they do so regularly, up from just 2% five years ago. Much smaller shares of adults ages 50 to 64 and 65 and older say they regularly get news there (10% and 3%, respectively, as of this year). When looking at adult TikTok users specifically, news consumption has also increased sharply in recent years. More than half of TikTok users (55%) now say they regularly get news on the platform, up from 22% in 2020. TikTok is now on par with several other social media sites – including X (formerly Twitter), Facebook and Truth Social – in the share of its adult users who regularly get news there. Note: This is an update of a post originally published Nov. 15, 2023. Here are the questions used for this analysis, the topline and the survey methodology. Emily Tomasik is a research analyst focusing on news and information research at Pew Research Center. Katerina Eva Matsa is a director of news and information research at Pew Research Center.
crn
The 10 Biggest News Stories Of 2025 (So Far)
The 10 Biggest News Stories Of 2025 (So Far) This year’s leading news stories (so far) include the wave of agentic AI technology development, tariffs and economic uncertainty, the mixed fortunes of Nvidia and Intel, and Hewlett Packard Enterprise’s completed $13.4 billion acquisition of Juniper Networks. For the IT industry and the channel, 2025 (so far) has been marked by economic uncertainty. Much of that has been driven by the Trump administration’s ever-changing tariff plans, which have kept IT industry executives constantly guessing about the impact on the economy and their businesses. All this, nevertheless, has failed to distract IT vendors from their frenzy of agentic AI development in 2025, the current focus of the broader AI wave that began sweeping through the IT industry in early 2023. Other top stories for this year include several mega-mergers including Hewlett Packard Enterprise’s completed $13.4 billion purchase of Juniper Networks and Google’s deal to buy cloud security darling Wiz for $32 billion, significant layoffs at some of the industry’s biggest companies, and a ransomware attack against a leading distributor. Here’s our look at the top 10 news stories of 2025 (so far), starting with No. 10 and counting down to No. 1. Take a look and see if you agree with our choices. No. 10: The Changing Of The Guard At Kaseya The new year started off with a shock when Fred Voccola, the hard-charging Kaseya CEO who built the company into the dominant MSP platform, unexpectedly stepped down after more than 10 years leading the company to more than $1.5 billion in annual recurring revenue. The company has also been making plans for an initial public offering. “With Kaseya coming off the strongest quarter and year in our history, now is the right time for me to step up into the role of vice chairman and hand over operating responsibilities to a new CEO,” Voccola said in a statement. Kaseya partners expressed surprise at the news and called the change in leadership at the company a potential “sea change” for MSPs given the amount of growth they realized working with Miami-based Kaseya under Voccola’s management. But some partners also said his departure could open the door to building a better future for the company and its partners. In June, Kaseya announced that it had hired Rania Succar, a former Google and Intuit executive, as its new CEO. Succar brought to the CEO post more than a decade of experience building innovative technology solutions for small businesses. In an interview with CRN, she outlined a bold vision for Kaseya’s future anchored on accelerating innovation, enhancing customer experience and strengthening company culture. “I have spent the last nine years building innovative technology solutions for small businesses to fuel their success,” she told CRN. “Kaseya is incredibly well-positioned to play a big role in small business success, given our deep partnership with MSPs. These providers are trusted advisors to small businesses and we’re here to supercharge their impact.” Kaseya has made other changes and additions to its executive ranks including naming SaaS Alerts co-founder Jim Lippie as the company’s new chief product officer in April. Just last week Kaseya named Anthony Anzevino, a Commvault, Veeam Software and Amazon Web Services veteran, as the company’s new chief revenue officer and Pratik Wadher, previously with Intuit, Applatix and Data Domain, as chief technology officer. With the appointments, Succar is putting her stamp on the company as she looks to accelerate innovation while reinforcing the company’s commitment to keeping MSPs at the core of its vision. All these leadership changes come as Kaseya faces increased competition from ConnectWise, N-able and other MSP platform upstarts. No. 9: The IT Industry Tangles With Tariff Uncertainties Through 2025 (so far) the IT industry and the channel have had to navigate a treacherous minefield of the Trump administration’s ever-changing tariff policies that impact international trade. The administration’s tariffs and retaliatory tariffs implemented by some countries have created confusion for the IT industry and raised concerns about their impact on channel growth. Many IT companies rely heavily on components and systems manufactured outside of the U.S., and many sell their products overseas. Research from IPED, the channel consulting arm of CRN parent The Channel Company, found that in the earliest days of the global tariff war, some solution providers were already seeing vendor price increases and longer sales cycles. “It’s a very fast-moving, volatile, unstable environment where today the situation might be clear and tomorrow it might be different than what it is today,” said Mark Bakker, Hewlett Packard Enterprise executive president and general manager of operations, in an interview with CRN in April. “I think we are in a situation of continued uncertainty and volatility, which makes it hard for anybody in the supply chain to make any decisions about what to move, where and how quickly.” The impact of tariffs, so far, has been spotty. Early on, distributors were grappling with the possible impact of tariffs. In March distributor Arrow Enterprise Computing Solutions said it had begun raising prices due to rising costs from tariffs against products imported from China, Canada and Mexico. And in August, Mike Bauer, CEO of distributor ScanSource, told CRN that customers appeared to be accelerating orders in the company’s fiscal 2025 fourth quarter (ended June 30) in response to tariff-driven uncertainty, potentially impacting sales in the current quarter. In April, Pure Storage blamed tariffs for its plan to reduce special pricing discounts that could increase hardware prices by 10 percent. Other companies, including PC maker Acer, vowed to try to avoid passing tariff costs along to customers for as long as possible. No. 8: Rodney Clark Steps Down As Cisco Channel Chief On August 18, partners in Cisco’s universe were surprised when the tech giant announced that Rodney Clark (pictured), the company’s global channel chief for less than two years, was stepping down. Tim Coogan, previously senior vice president of Cisco’s U.S. commercial business, was named senior vice president of Cisco’s Global Partner Sales organization—effective immediately. No reason for the management change was given. Clark is staying on as a strategic advisor through the end of the year. Cisco partners applauded the appointment of Coogan, a 25-year Cisco veteran, to the global channel chief role and said the move had them energized about the future of Cisco’s channel strategy. “Tim gets it,” Manak Ahluwalia, CEO of Aqueduct Technologies, a Canton, Mass.-based Cisco Gold partner, told CRN. “He understands where the partner provides value, the sales landscape, what it means to get down on the street. He has heard partners talk about profitability and operational challenges. He gets Cisco. That’s a great choice.” The executive change came about six weeks after Cisco rival HPE completed its acquisition of Juniper, another rival, in a move aimed at reshaping the networking landscape. Cisco is also in the process of rolling out a major revamp of its partner program called Cisco 360. The program, designed under Clark’s direction, is scheduled to be fully live in February 2026 and at the time of Clark’s departure a Cisco spokesperson said that Cisco 360 was “moving forward as planned.” Cisco 360 makes some significant changes in how the company works with its partners, including rewarding partners more for the value they provide rather than on sales transactions. That’s a significant break from the previous program that made the biggest payouts to partners landing large, capex infrastructure deals. The new partner program is causing anxiety among some Cisco partners, especially those who have had strong past years with the tech giant, solution providers told CRN in June. In July, Cisco provided more details about Cisco 360’s all-important partner incentives and profitability metrics, including the Value Index, partner designations and the Cisco Partner Incentive Estimators. No. 7: Nvidia Hits Market Cap Of $4 Trillion; Intel Continues To Struggle AI infrastructure provider and chip designer Nvidia has continued to flourish in 2025 despite hurdles such as moves by the Trump Administration to restrict its sales in China (resulting in a multibillion-dollar write-off against first-quarter earnings). It even briefly became the most valuable company in the world when its market capitalization hit $4 trillion in July. The company achieved the benchmark on July 9 when the company’s share price grew 2.8 percent to $164.42. Huge demand for its Blackwell GPUs has been driving Nvidia’s success, and in August CEO Jensen Huang said that he sees “significant growth opportunities ahead” that could allow Nvidia to seize a large part of an AI infrastructure market it forecasts to reach up to $4 trillion by the end of the decade. The Nvidia founder made the comments after the Santa Clara, Calif.-based company reported second-quarter revenue of $46.7 billion, up 56 percent from the same period one year earlier. In January Nvidia unveiled a mini desktop PC powered by a smaller version of its Grace Blackwell Superchip, indicating a possible bigger expansion by the company into the system-on-a-chip market for personal computers. And in March Nvidia revealed details of Blackwell Ultra, the follow-up to the Blackwell GPUs. In a surprise twist, Nvidia on September 18 unveiled plans to invest $5 billion in Intel common stock and jointly develop “multiple generations” of products with the rival chipmaker. The deal could prove to be a lifeline for Intel, whose struggles to regain the momentum that once made it one of the IT industry’s most powerful companies have continued in 2025 with flat revenue and net losses, widespread layoffs, executive turnover, discontinued products—and even conflict with the Trump Administration. In July as part of its second quarter financial results it disclosed plans to end 2025 with about 75,000 employees—down about 24,500 workers from the roughly 99,500 employees it had at the end of 2024. Charged with the task of turning the chip maker around is Lip-Bu Tan who was named CEO on March 12. He took over from interim co-CEOs David Zinsner and Michelle Johnston Holthaus who had run the company since then-CEO Pat Gelsinger suddenly stepped down in December. In January Intel said it was canceling its next-generation Falcon Shores AI accelerator chip, focusing instead on developing a system-level solution at rack scale with a successor chip called Jaguar Shores. The company also took steps to shed some businesses, including its Network and Edge Group business unit, and spin off its RealSense computer vision business. In February Intel, citing both market conditions and the need to manage its own financial capital, said it was slowing construction of its $28 billion semiconductor factory project in Ohio. In April the company announced a plan to reduce its operating expenses by $500 million this year and another $1 billion in 2026. The company has also lost key personnel. Justin Hotard, head of Intel’s Data Center and AI Group, left in February, a few months after shakeups to the company’s leadership team and a re-evaluation of its AI chip strategy. In April, departing executives included Chief Commercial Officer Christoph Schell—whose oversight of Intel’s Sales and Marketing Group included the company’s global partner organization—and Chief People Officer Christy Pambianchi. In May, Uday Yadati and Cameron Chehreh, data center and public sector sales leaders, respectively, left the company. To its credit Intel, amid all the turmoil, has continued to support its channel partner base. In January Dave Guzzi, named Intel’s new channel chief in October 2024, said the company was boosting funding for partner investment and incentives. That was followed in August with news that Intel would boost partner incentives as part of a plan to launch a simplified Intel Partner Alliance program this coming October. Nvidia and Intel have both found themselves entangled in disputes with the White House in 2025. In early August U.S. President Donald Trump called for Tan to resign “immediately.” But the dustup cooled after Tan met with Trump on Aug.11 and on Aug. 22 Trump said Intel would sell the U.S. government a 10 percent stake in the chipmaker. Huang met with Trump in July over the issue of sales of advanced chips to China and in August Nvidia (along with AMD) struck deals under which the chip companies can export certain AI chips to China and will share 15 percent of the revenue from those sales with the U.S. government. No. 6: Ingram Micro Hit By SafePay Attack As Industry Continues To Grapple With Ransomware Ransomware attacks have been a growing threat for businesses and organizations of all types. But the danger was really brought home to the IT industry and the channel in July when distributor Ingram Micro was attacked, halting its ability to process orders and ship products. The distribution giant was hit with the SafePay ransomware attack on July 3, taking down its web site and online ordering systems, including Ingram’s AI-powered Xvantage platform and the Impulse license provisioning system. “This is our worst nightmare come true,” said the CEO of one CRN Solution Provider 500 company at the time. “If we can’t place orders or get quotes, it stops our business. We are extremely concerned that this could last for some time.” On July 5 Ingram Micro confirmed that it had been hit by a ransomware attack and that it was “working diligently to restore the affected systems” so that it could process and ship orders.” The distributor also said it had notified law enforcement authorities about the attack and had launched an investigation with the assistance of cybersecurity experts. On July 9, Ingram Micro issued a statement saying it was able to process and ship orders via EDI, phone or email. And on July 10 a statement from the distributor said that it had restored all global business operations. In August, Ingram Micro CEO Paul Bay acknowledged that “certain data was exfiltrated from our systems” during the ransomware attack and said that an investigation was ongoing. The Ingram Micro attack was just one of many high-visibility attacks in 2025. Companies and government agencies have been targeted by a seemingly nonstop series of cyberattacks — including both disruptive ransomware attacks and incidents focused on data theft and extortion. On Aug. 30, cloud security technology developer Zscaler issued an advisory warning that attackers had gained access to credentials in Salesloft Drift, a popular third-party Salesforce application, and stolen authentication tokens that allowed them to steal customer data from Salesforce CRM systems. (The breach was first disclosed by the Google Threat Intelligence Group on Aug. 26.) During the first week of September it became clear that hundreds of businesses and organizations had been impacted in the incident—as well as a number of the cybersecurity industry’s leading companies including Zscaler, Palo Alto Networks, Proofpoint, CyberArk, and Tenable. In July a wave of widespread cyberattacks struck customers that use on-premises Microsoft SharePoint servers through exploitation of zero-day vulnerabilities. Reports indicated that the victims included U.S. agencies and the Department of Energy confirmed it was “minimally impacted” in the attacks. Researchers at Google Cloud-owned Mandiant and Microsoft pointed to at least some of the attacks originating from China-based threat actors. Early in the year Ivanti disclosed that a critical-severity, zero-day vulnerability impacting its widely used Connect Secure VPN had been exploited in attacks. Security experts at Zero Trust World 2025 in February said that cybercrime groups, which follow no code of ethics and have amassed huge amounts of wealth, had become a far more concerning cyberthreat than state-sponsored threat actors. Much of the focus was on ransomware groups who think nothing of attacking targets such as hospitals. In March Rob Allen, chief product officer of endpoint security vendor ThreatLocker, told attendees at the XChange March 2025 conference said that ransomware gangs had become “more persistent than they ever were” at finding ways to bypass security tools. No. 5. Google Moves To Buy Cloud Security Startup Wiz For $32B On March 18, Google parent Alphabet announced that it had inked a definitive agreement to acquire Wiz, a high-flying startup in the cloud security space, for $32 billion in an all-cash deal. The Google-Wiz deal is just one of a number of multi-billion-dollar acquisitions in the cybersecurity space this year. If the Wiz acquisition—the largest in Google’s history—is completed, Wiz will become part of Google Cloud, Google’s $48 billion cloud business. Google said the acquisition would accelerate two significant and growing trends in the AI era that Google Cloud is driving: improved cloud security and the ability to implement and use multi-cloud architectures. “Wiz and Google Cloud share a vision to improve security by making it easier and faster for organizations of all types and sizes to protect themselves, end-to-end, across all major clouds,” Google Cloud CEO Thomas Kurian said in a blog post announcing the acquisition deal. While the big price tag raised some eyebrows in the industry, CRN reported that Wiz has stood out as a highly unique and disruptive player in the red-hot category of cloud security. Wiz specializes in capabilities that rapidly improve visibility into cloud environments, enabling much faster fixes for misconfigurations and other security gaps in the cloud, and is now extending those capabilities to the increasingly crucial AI security space. The company’s astronomical growth alone, going from zero to $100 million in annual recurring revenue during its first 18 months in the market and to $500 million in ARR over the next two-and-a half years. Partners told CRN that the Wiz acquisition will boost Google Cloud’s competitive posture against cloud security rivals Microsoft and Amazon Web Services. And the Wiz deal could be the prelude to a coming wave of merger and acquisition activity in the cloud security space. But the acquisition already faces potential hurdles from regulators: On June 16 published reports said the U.S. Department of Justice was reviewing whether the acquisition would limit competition in the cloud security space. Alphabet and Wiz were first reported to be in acquisition talks in 2024 with a reported price tag of $23 billion. But those discussions broke off without a deal—reportedly because Wiz wanted to remain independent. The cybersecurity space, which some observers have said is ripe for consolidation, has seen a great deal of merger and acquisition activity in 2025 (so far). On July 30 cybersecurity giant Palo Alto Networks announced an agreement to acquire identity security powerhouse CyberArk for approximately $25 billion. If completed, it would be the biggest acquisition in Palo Alto Network’s history and one of the largest M&A deals in the security industry to date. Other IT security industry acquisitions in 2025 include Proofpoint’s $1 billion deal to buy Microsoft 365 security specialist Hornetsecurity, Sophos’ completion of its $859 million acquisition of XDR specialist Secureworks, Arctic Wolf’s $160 million purchase of endpoint security provider Cylance, Okta’s deal to buy Axiom Security (with a reported price tag around $100 million) and Zscaler’s recently completed Red Canary acquisition for $675 million in cash, plus equity. No. 4: The IT Industry Wrestles With Economic Uncertainty And Layoffs The U.S. economy has sent mixed signals throughout the year in terms of growth, inflation and employment: It experienced its first contraction in three years in the first quarter with real gross domestic production (GDP) falling at an annual rate of 0.5 percent. But the country avoided a recession when growth rebounded in the second quarter to 3.3 percent. The economic uncertainties, combined with the Trump administration’s constantly shifting tariff policies, have created major challenges for the IT industry and the channel. And it has led to a steady stream of layoffs from major IT companies through the first eight months of the year—the most since the massive wave of layoffs that hit the industry in late 2022 and early 2023. Microsoft has announced significant layoffs this year, more than 15,000 in total, including cuts to sales and customer-facing positions. So far, Microsoft has portrayed the layoffs more as resource allocation and reduction in management layers than a sign of needing fewer people to do business in a generative AI world. But CEO Satya Nadella publicly revealed in April that AI already writes as much as 30 percent of the company’s code. Perhaps no company has made deeper cuts to its employee roster than chip maker Intel. In July, as part of its second quarter financial results, the company shocked the industry when it disclosed plans to end 2025 with about 75,000 employees—down about 24,500 workers from the roughly 99,500 employees it had at the end of 2024. (The main driver behind those cuts, however, was the company’s efforts to restructure its business rather than a response to external business conditions.) The job cuts have taken place across a broad swath of the industry. On Feb. 5 cloud application giant Salesforce said it was cutting about 1,000 jobs including many in sales and marketing with manager and director titles. The very same day Workday disclosed that it was eliminating about 1,750 jobs, about 1.5 percent of its workforce, as part of a restructuring plan. Just a few weeks later HP Inc. said it planned to lay off up to 2,000 workers “offset macro and geopolitical uncertainties.” In early March, Hewlett Packard Enterprise said it would reduce its workforce by 5 percent, about 2,500 employees. And in April, NetApp began a round of layoffs that could impact up to 700 employees or about 6 percent of its workforce. CrowdStrike said in May that it would cut 500 jobs. On July 17 Lenovo said it was cutting 3 percent of its U.S. workforce while the same day AWS confirmed employee layoffs without disclosing how many or which groups would be impacted. Those cuts came one day after Jamf said it was laying off 6 percent of its staff. No. 3: Broadcom Acquisition Of VMware Continues To Reverberate Through The Channel More than a year after Broadcom completed its $61 billion acquisition of virtualization leader VMware in November 2023, the impact of the blockbuster deal continues to send aftershocks through the IT industry and the channel as Broadcom continues its march toward building a smaller, services-focused VMware partner base. In March CRN reported that starting in April, Broadcom was increasing the cost of VMware for some customers by boosting the minimum purchase from 16 cores to 72 cores. Additionally, Broadcom was implementing a penalty equivalent to 20 percent of the price of a first-year subscription for customers that did not renew their subscription licenses by their anniversary date. One VMware partner told CRN that the change would particularly hurt partners that are only selling VMware licenses but not offering value beyond that transaction. Another partner said the Broadcom changes would increase costs and push customers to seek alternatives. In June Broadcom-VMware global channel chief Brian Moats disclosed in a blog post the company’s plan to cut partners in its lowest channel tier from their ability to resell VMware products as the company looked to slim down its partner base. The elimination of the lowest “Registered” tier from the Broadcom Advantage Partner Program for VMware Resellers reduced the number of partners authorized to resell VMware solutions in the Americas, and the Asia-Pacific and Japan regions. (Broadcom appointed Moats as its new senior vice president of global commercial sales and partners in early January. He replaced Cindy Loyd who announced in December that she was taking a different job within the company after presiding over sweeping VMware channel changes through 2024.) The impact of Broadcom’s changes at VMware continues to be felt throughout the industry. In July Acumera acquired Scale Computing in what was seen as a move to create a bigger, more competitive alternative to Broadcom-VMware and seek to capture more market share in the virtualization arena. Nutanix, meanwhile, has aggressively courted VMware customers to move to its platform, adding more than 600 new customers nearly every quarter since Broadcom’s VMware acquisition. Last month the company reported that its fiscal 2025 sales jumped 18 percent as the company added 2,700 new customers—many of them VMware customers flipping to the Nutanix hyperconverged infrastructure platform. No. 2: HPE Resolves DOJ Opposition, Completes $13.4B Juniper Networks Acquisition On July 2, Hewlett Packard Enterprise ended the long road to complete its $13.4 billion acquisition of networking vendor Juniper Networks. HPE CEO Antonio Neri declared that day the start of a “new era” for HPE as Juniper became a wholly owned subsidiary of the company. HPE announced the deal to buy Sunnyvale, Calif.-based Juniper on Jan. 9, 2024, setting up a competitive battle with Cisco Systems for dominance in the AI networking arena. Juniper was especially strong with its service provider and campus networking businesses as well as its acclaimed Juniper Mist AI portfolio. But the acquisition plan ran into problems in January of this year when the U.S. Department of Justice sued to halt the deal, claiming the acquisition would “reduce competition and weaken innovation.” What seemed to be a straight-forward acquisition deal through 2024 as the two companies ground through the acquisition process was suddenly thrown into doubt in 2025. HPE and Juniper called the lawsuit “fundamentally flawed,” setting off about five months of legal wrangling between the companies and the DOJ. All the while CEO Neri expressed confidence that the acquisition would get done. On June 27 the DOJ agreed to settle the case under an agreement that requires the combined HPE-Juniper to license the source code for Juniper’s Mist AIOps software used in Juniper’s WLAN products and to divest HPE’s Instant On wireless networking business. “We are not just building a stronger company,” Neri told industry analysts and the press in a conference call just days after the company announced the completion of the deal. “We are establishing an industry powerhouse with the vision, scale and innovation to define and lead the future, one that will serve our customers and partners better than ever and reimagine what is possible.” HPE and Juniper, the latter now under the name “HPE Juniper Networking,” are now taking steps to leverage the combination of the two companies. Former Juniper Networks CEO Rami Rahim is now president and general manager of HPE’s $9.6 billion networking business and Juniper channel chief Gordon Mackintosh was named vice president, worldwide channel and partner ecosystem networking sales for HPE. In an interview with CRN, HPE Networking Senior Vice President of Products Sudheer Matta, one of the executives leading the charge on the HPE-Juniper Networks integration, said the newly combined company is not going to “repeat the mistakes of other large vendors who left customers confused by internal competition.” In September, CEO Neri announced new sales incentive plans to boost sales of both the Aruba and Juniper Networks product portfolios and eliminate potential sales conflict. HPE, meanwhile, made a change in its channel leadership in March when Phil Soper stepped aside suddenly from his role as vice president of North America Channels and Partner Ecosystem. In May HPE hired Jeremiah Jenson as vice president of North America channel and partner ecosystem. Jenson worked at AWS for about seven years, including global leader of channel resell partners, and before that worked at HPE for more than 15 years, leaving with the title of vice president of Americas channel sales. On September 16, HPE named Phil Mottram, previously the head of its Aruba Networking business, as the new head of its global sales efforts. No. 1: Agents Of Change: The AI Wave Focuses On Agent Technology Development Since OpenAI launched ChatGPT in late 2022, the IT industry has been locked in a frenzy of developing new AI software and incorporating AI capabilities into products. In 2025 (so far) those development efforts have focused on developing AI agents, autonomous AI systems that can perform tasks and respond to—and learn from—their environment and new data. AI agents are seen as a key component for applying AI technology to mainstream business processes and tasks. Some agentic AI initiatives are tightly linked with IT companies’ broader AI efforts. Microsoft has aggressively rolled out a series of AI agents that work with its Copilot software and Azure AI Agent Service, pitching agents as an alternative to applications from Salesforce and other competitors. In March Amazon Web Services launched multi-agent collaboration capabilities within Amazon Bedrock, the company’s generative AI and foundational model service. Other AI agent efforts are intended to bring the benefits of agentic technology to a broad range of tasks. In March Microsoft unveiled a set of six AI agents that work with the company’s Security Copilot program and provide automated capabilities to overworked security teams. In June Hewlett Packard Enterprise debuted its HPE GreenLake Intelligence agentic AI framework that brings autonomous, self-learning AI agent assistants to IT operational management. In August Google Cloud debuted a series of new data engineering and data science AI agents that work with such flagship products as BigQuery, Spanner, Google Data Cloud and Gemini. It also launched a new “code interpreter” agent that translates complex natural language questions into executable python code. AI agent technology is being applied to even more mainstream business tasks. In August startup Drata launched an AI agent for vendor risk management, the first of a planned series of AI agent assistants for governance, risk and compliance tasks. Some IT vendors have focused on providing technology that makes it easier to develop, implement and manage AI agents. Informatica, in addition to developing its own line of data management AI agents, in May unveiled an agentic AI engineering service that can link and manage AI agents throughout an IT network. In June data and AI platform giant Databricks debuted Agent Bricks, a unified workspace for building production-scale AI agents. And in July Kyndryl launched the Kyndryl Agentic AI Framework that aims to ease the deployment of agentic AI to work alongside human teams. The AI agent wave has driven a number of acquisitions this year. In January ServiceNow struck a deal to buy Cuein, a developer of AI-based data and insights technology, in a move to improve the ability of ServiceNow agents to understand, processes and transform data from customer interactions. And in May ServiceNow said it would buy data.world to help customers leverage agentic AI to automate customer workflows. At Hewlett Packard Enterprise, one of the first moves undertaken following the completion of the company’s $13.4 billion acquisition of Juniper Networks was to unveil new agentic AI capabilities for the HPE Juniper Networking Mist platform for creating more autonomous, self-driving enterprise, branch, and data center networks. Cloudflare is counting on its April purchase of developer database company Outerbase to boost the AI and agent development capabilities of its connectivity cloud service platform. And in July global business and technology services provider Capgemini said it was acquiring India-based WNS for $3.3 billion in a move to build scale in the business process services needed to provide agentic AI capabilities. As AI agent development accelerates, leading IT companies have sought ways to bring the technology to market. In March Salesforce launched a new online marketplace for its Agentforce AI platform to help partners build and monetize agentic AI components. In April Google Cloud fired up a dedicated section, the AI Agent Marketplace, within the Google Cloud Marketplace where partners can sell agents developed for specific industries and tasks. And in July AWS launched a new AI agents category inside the AWS Marketplace that the cloud giant said would make it easier for partners to sell—and customers to buy—agentic AI solutions. The category had 800 agentic AI offerings at the time of launch. The wave of AI agent technology is also changing how IT vendors work with the channel and creating opportunities for partners. At a sales kickoff meeting in January, for example, ServiceNow executives said channel partners would be a key component of the company’s increased focus on AI agents. In June Snowflake CEO Sridhar Ramaswamy told CRN that he and his executive team have ongoing conversations with the global and regional systems integrators the data cloud giant works with about how their business models will change in the agentic AI era. Google Cloud has emphasized how providing partners with greater access to specialized AI agents around such products as BigQuery will aid solution providers who look to leverage the tech giant’s technology as part of their service offerings and in customer conversations around Google Cloud’s value proposition in data and AI. And in June HR and financial management application giant Workday launched a new partner program, the Agent Partner Network, for channel and technology partners who build AI agents that connect with Workday’s Agent System of Record platform.
bbc
Social media now main source of news in US, research suggests
Social media now main source of news in US, research suggests Ian YoungsCulture reporter Social media and video networks have become the main source of news in the US, overtaking traditional TV channels and news websites, research suggests. More than half (54%) of people get news from networks like Facebook, X and YouTube - overtaking TV (50%) and news sites and apps (48%), according to the Reuters Institute. "The rise of social media and personality-based news is not unique to the United States, but changes seem to be happening faster – and with more impact – than in other countries," a report found. Podcaster Joe Rogan was the most widely-seen personality, with almost a quarter (22%) of the population saying they had come across news or commentary from him in the previous week. The report's author Nic Newman said the rise of social video and personality-driven news "represents another significant challenge for traditional publishers". The institute also highlighted a trend for some politicians to give their time to sympathetic online hosts rather than mainstream interviewers. It said populist politicians around the world are "increasingly able to bypass traditional journalism in favour of friendly partisan media, 'personalities', and 'influencers' who often get special access but rarely ask difficult questions, with many implicated in spreading false narratives or worse". Despite their popularity, online influencers and personalities were named as a major source of false or misleading information by almost half of people worldwide (47%) - putting them level with politicians. The report also stated that usage of X for news is "stable or increasing across many markets", with the biggest uplift in the US. It added that since Elon Musk took over the network in 2022, "many more right-leaning people, notably young men, have flocked to the network, while some progressive audiences have left or are using it less frequently". In the US, the proportion that self-identified as being on the right tripled after Musk's takeover. In the UK, right-wing X audiences have almost doubled. Rival networks like Threads, Bluesky and Mastodon are "making little impact globally, with reach of 2% or less for news", it stated. Other key findings about news sources: * TikTok is the fastest-growing social and video network, used for news by 17% of people around the world, up four percentage points since last year. * The use of AI chatbots to get the news is on the rise, and is twice as popular among under-25s than the population as a whole. * But most people think AI will make news less transparent, accurate and trustworthy. * All generations still prize trusted brands with a track record for accuracy, even if they don't use them as often as they once did The report is in its 14th year and surveyed almost 100,000 people in 48 countries.
niemanlab
For the first time, social media overtakes TV as Americans’ top news source
Social media and video apps weren't quite able to overtake good old television as Americans' most-used source for news. That's finally changed.
reuters
US news consumers are turning to podcaster Joe Rogan and away from traditional sources, report shows
Prominent podcasters like Joe Rogan are playing a bigger role in news dissemination in the United States, as are AI chatbots, contributing to the further...
theguardian
Trump voters for Mamdani and a new left coalition: the biggest surprises from New York’s election
Political analyst Michael Lange, a born and raised New Yorker who predicted Zohran Mamdani would win, discusses election night's trends and...
usnews
20 Largest Credit Unions in America
Credit unions are different from banks as they operate as not-for-profit organizations and require a membership to use their services.
pewresearch
The Political Gap in Americans’ News Sources
Democrats are much more likely than Republicans to both use and trust many major news sources.
pewresearch
Social Media and News Fact Sheet
Social Media and News Fact Sheet Digital sources have become an important part of Americans’ news diets – with social media playing a crucial role, particularly for younger adults. Overall, about half of U.S. adults (53%) say they at least sometimes get news from social media, roughly stable over the last few years. Facebook and YouTube outpace all other social media sites as places where Americans regularly get news: 38% of U.S. adults say they regularly get news on Facebook, and 35% say the same about YouTube. Smaller shares of Americans regularly get news on Instagram (20%), TikTok (20%) or X, formerly known as Twitter (12%). Fewer say they get news on Reddit (9%), Nextdoor (6%), WhatsApp (5%), Threads (3%), Rumble (2%), Truth Social (2%) and Bluesky (2%). News consumption by social media site % of U.S. adults who say they regularly get news on each social media site Note: The other response option was “No, don’t regularly get news on this.” Only respondents who indicated that they use each site were asked if they regularly get news on it. Refer to our detailed tables for the underlying data. Source: Survey of U.S. adults conducted Aug. 18-24, 2025. PEW RESEARCH CENTER Some social media sites – despite having relatively small overall audiences – stand out as destinations for news among many of their users. For example, 57% of X users get news there, as do a similar share of users (55%) on Truth Social, the site owned by President Donald Trump’s media and technology company. On the other hand, only 15% of WhatsApp users regularly get news on that platform. Just over half of TikTok users (55%) say they regularly get news on the site, up from 22% in 2020. The shares of users who get news on some other sites, such as YouTube and Instagram, also have risen. Social media sites by portion of users who regularly get news there % of each social media site’s users who say they regularly get news there Note: The other response option was “No, don’t regularly get news on this.” Only respondents who indicated that they use each site were asked if they regularly get news on it. Social media sites are shown left to right in descending order by the share of U.S. adults who regularly get news there. Refer to our detailed tables for the underlying data. Source: Survey of U.S. adults conducted Aug. 18-24, 2025. PEW RESEARCH CENTER The people who regularly get news on different social media sites often differ by gender, age and other factors. For example, women are more likely to regularly get news from Facebook, Instagram and TikTok, while men are more likely to say they get it from YouTube, X and Reddit. Other patterns are unique to individual sites. Younger people are more likely to be regular news consumers on TikTok, Instagram, Reddit and X. Black, Hispanic and Asian Americans are more likely than White Americans to regularly get news from YouTube, Instagram and WhatsApp. In addition, those without a college degree are more likely than those with a college degree to get news from Facebook and TikTok. Democrats are also more likely than Republicans to say they get news from Instagram, TikTok and Reddit. Roughly equal shares of each party, though, say they regularly get news from YouTube. (Read the Appendix for data on the demographic profiles and party identification of regular social media news consumers in the United States.) Tab Contents Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, X (Twitter), RedditNextdoor, WhatsApp, Threads, Rumble, Truth Social, Bluesky Find out more This fact sheet was compiled by Research Analysts Christopher St. Aubin and Jacob Liedke. Here are the questions used in this analysis, the topline and the methodology. Follow these links for related research: * News Platform Fact Sheet (Sept. 25, 2025) * Podcasts and News Fact Sheet (Sept. 25, 2025) * America’s News Influencers (Nov. 18, 2024) * How Americans Get News on TikTok, X, Facebook and Instagram (June 12, 2024) * Republicans have become more likely since 2024 to trust information from news outlets, social media (May 8, 2025) * Many Americans find value in getting news on social media, but concerns about inaccuracy have risen (Feb. 7, 2024) * 5 facts about how Americans use Facebook, two decades after its launch (Feb. 2, 2024) * About half of TikTok users under 30 say they use it to keep up with politics, news (Aug. 20, 2024) * Americans are following the news less closely than they used to (Oct. 24, 2023) Check out our other reports and blog posts related to social media and the news.
today
Trust in Media 2025: Which news sources Americans use and trust
Trust in Media 2025: Which news sources Americans use and trust The American news landscape remains polarized by political party identification, and to some extent age, with few news sources both used and trusted widely among Democrats and Republicans. Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to trust the news in general, as well as to trust most specific major outlets included in YouGov's 2025 poll of trust in media. Democrats and Republicans find common ground on sources for financial news, but hold vastly different opinions on most other news sources, including the two used by the most Americans: CNN and Fox News. In our latest poll, we ask Americans about each of 52 news sources, including their use of it in the past month and its trustworthiness. In doing so, we revisit questions asked on similar surveys in 2024, 2023, and 2022. The results reflect American views on the news media and on specific outlets — including opinions of many people who haven't gotten news from the outlets any time recently. Some news organizations are used more heavily or elicit opinions from more Americans, and these outlets are more likely to sit at the top and bottom of these charts. The most and least trusted news sources Like in last year's survey, we asked Americans in 2025 whether they find news from each of 52 outlets very trustworthy, trustworthy, untrustworthy, very untrustworthy, or neither trustworthy nor untrustworthy. Using these results, we calculate each outlet's net trust score – that is, how much more likely Americans are to say the outlet's news is trustworthy or very trustworthy than untrustworthy or very untrustworthy. By this measure, The Weather Channel persists as the most trusted news source, as it was in 2022, 2023, and 2024: Americans are 49 percentage points more likely to call The Weather Channel trustworthy as they are to call it untrustworthy — up from +43 last year. Like last year, the Weather Channel is followed by two public broadcasters: the BBC (+26) and PBS (+25). By far the least-trusted outlet included in the poll is the National Enquirer (-37, better than -44 last year, when it also ranked last for trust). The outlets trusted least besides the Enquirer are, like last year, Infowars (-15) and Breitbart News (-7). Average net trust in news outlets increased slightly this year — to +8 from +4 in 2024 — after a move in the opposite direction last year from 2023. Overall, trust in outlets included in each of the last four years has changed little — as have their relative positions for trust. Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to say they trust the news in general, and the same is true for trust in most specific news outlets included in the poll. For 44 of the 52 outlets asked about (85%), a greater share of Democrats trust than distrust them. That's true for only 21 outlets among Republicans (40%). While both Democrats and Republicans generally are more likely to trust certain television news sources over print or online outlets, they differ on which TV sources they place their trust in. Democrats have the most trust in PBS, BBC, and NBC, while Republicans particularly trust Fox News, Fox Business Channel, and Newsmax. There is little overlap in the sources that Democrats and Republicans find most trustworthy — other than The Weather Channel, which is more trusted than not on both sides of the aisle. 27% of news outlets surveyed have net positive trust among members of both parties, up from 13% last year, ahead of a presidential election. Many outlets with net positive trust among people in both parties are focused — at least in name — on the economy or financial news: Forbes, the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, Business Insider, and the Economist. There is even less partisan overlap on the specific news outlets Americans distrust. Only one outlet is considered more untrustworthy than trustworthy by both Democrats and Republicans: the National Enquirer. CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News are the most politically polarizing outlets. Net trust in CNN is 80 points higher among Democrats than among Republicans, and net trust in MSNBC is 77 points higher. Net trust in Fox News is 76 points higher among Republicans than among Democrats. In addition to having more trust in CNN, Democrats also place far more trust than Republicans do in ABC (75-point difference in net trust), CBS (73 points), NBC (71 points), PBS (71 points), and NPR (65 points). Beyond their higher trust in Fox News, Republicans have higher net trust than Democrats do in Fox Business (66-point difference), OAN (36 points), and Newsmax (36 points). Among Democrats, average net trust in the outlets asked about in the survey increased 3 percentage points from last year, to +28 from +25. The largest increases in net trust among Democrats are for Al Jazeera (10-point increase in net trust), Bloomberg (10-point increase), and the Associated Press (8-point increase). There was a 7-point increase in Republicans' average net trust in the outlets surveyed, to -1 from -8 last year. The outlets with the biggest increases in net trust among Republicans are Fox News, CNN, Yahoo News, Comedy Central, MSNBC, ESPN, The Weather Channel, and the Los Angeles Times — by between 12 and 18 points each. People who have recently used each outlet for news are more likely than Americans overall to consider it to be trustworthy. For outlets which 100 or more respondents say they have used in the past month, average net trust among recent users of each outlet is 55 points higher than average net trust among all Americans. Among the outlets for which this gap is largest are OAN (+79 net trust among recent users vs. -2 for Americans overall), Al Jazeera (+75 vs. -3), and Fox Business Channel (+77 vs. +2). These differences could have several causes, including that people tend not to use news they don't trust and that users are more familiar with news sources' trustworthiness. Even though many Americans consume news from social media — 76% named at least one of the platforms listed on the survey as a source for their news in the past months — most specific platforms are viewed by more Americans as untrustworthy than trustworthy. YouTube (+12 net trust) and Linkedin (+4) are regarded slightly more highly than others. The least trusted social media platforms asked about are TikTok (-26), Facebook (-22), and Snapchat (-21). Truth Social and X are the most politically polarizing platforms: Republicans are far more likely than Democrats to trust each of them. Among Republicans, Truth Social is tied with YouTube as the most trusted social media platform, but among Democrats, it ranks as the least trusted. Democrats are more likely than Republicans to trust most other social media platforms. Trust in news on social media platforms has increased over the past year, to an average of -10 across platforms from an average of -16 in 2024. This is largely due to increasing trust among Republicans; average net trust rose 15 points, to -3 from -17 in 2024. Republican trust has risen most in YouTube, X, Facebook, and Instagram. The largest shift among Democrats has been on their trust in news from X, which is now -35, down from -20 in 2024 and from -5 in 2023, when it was Twitter. Americans are divided by age far more for their trust in news from social media than for their trust in other sources of news. Adults under 45 are more trusting of news on social media platforms than older adults are — especially news from TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, WhatsApp, and X. The higher levels of trust in X and Truth Social among younger adults is striking because older adults are more likely than younger ones to be Republicans. Where Americans get their news Americans are most likely to say that in the past month, they've gotten news from social media (61%) or television (60%). The popularity of these formats is split by age: Adults under 45 are most likely to have used social media for news, while older adults are most likely to have relied on television. 45% of Americans say that in the past month they've heard about news from a friend, family member, or acquaintance. News websites are also common ways to receive news (45%), followed by radio (29%), news apps (29%), and search engines (28%). 13% have used print newspapers for news in the past month, including 16% of Americans 45 and older and 10% of younger adults. 4% have used AI chatbots for news. In the last year, the share of Americans who say they've gotten news from social media in the past month has risen 7 points, with a similar increase among both younger and older Americans. Republican use of social media as a source for news rose significantly, by 14 points. Among Democrats, there have been increases in the shares saying they've gotten news from every source asked about, with the biggest increases for news from friends, family, or acquaintances (an increase of 12 points) and from news websites (10 points). Of the 52 outlets asked about in the survey, Americans are most likely to say that in the past month, they've gotten news from Fox News (40%) and CNN (36%). ABC (30%), CBS (30%), and NBC (30%) also rank highly in news usage. The New York Times is the most-read news source with a print component: 24% say they've used the Times for news in the past month. Yahoo News is the most likely to have been used among exclusively online news sources: 19% have used it. Each of the 45 other news sources included in the survey were used by fewer than one in five Americans. Republicans' news sources are somewhat more consolidated than Democrats'. 61% of Republicans say they've used Fox News in the past month — up from 54% last year — while less than 30% of Republicans say the same about any other news source. Democrats use a wider variety of outlets in the poll: A majority have recently used CNN (55%) and one-third or more have used each of ABC, NBC, CBS, the New York Times, BBC, and MSNBC. Adults under 45 are somewhat more likely than older Americans to say they've gotten news from the New York Times, CNN, USA Today, and Forbes, and less likely to have gotten it from ABC, NBC, CBS, and The Associated Press. There has been little change over the past year in the shares ofAmericans who say they have recently used most specific outlets included in the poll as sources for news in the last month. Among Democrats, there has been a 10-point increase in the share saying they've used BBC in the past month and an 8-point increase in the share who say they've used the AP. Fox News usage increased 7 points among both Democrats and Republicans. And use of CNN increased 6 points among Democrats and 8 points among Republicans. Net trust generally is higher in outlets with more users, consistent with our finding that people have higher trust in news sources they've recently used. Deviating somewhat from that pattern, The Weather Channel, PBS, the BBC, and the Wall Street Journal all have higher net trust relative to peers with similarly sized audiences, while net trust is lower relative to usage for CNN and Fox News. More Americans say they've gotten news from social media networks Facebook (44%) or YouTube (41%) than from any of the individual news outlets polled. (Some of the news they got from social media might have originated in the news outlets.) Younger Americans are especially likely to rely on the social media outlets asked about: 50% of adults under 45 say they've used YouTube for news in the past month, compared to only 34% of older adults. One-quarter (26%) of Americans have seen news in the past month on X, 25% on Instagram, and 19% on TikTok. News-aggregators — especially Google News — also are a common way to consume news. 37% say they've gotten news from Google News in the past month, 15% from Apple News, and 12% from MSN. 8% say they've consumed news from ChatGPT, including 14% of adults under 45. Twice as many Americans say they got news from ChatGPT than from an AI chatbot. Compared to last year, more Republicans now say they've used X (an increase of 8 points), Instagram (8-point increase), and Facebook (7-point increase) as sources for news in the past month. And while Democrats' trust in X has decreased significantly in the past year, their likelihood of having used the platform for news has not changed much. Bluesky, which wasn't asked about in last year's poll, has been used in the last month as a news source by 9% of Democrats and 2% of Republicans. How news makes Americans feel While about half (53%) of Americans say that consuming news generally makes them feel informed, other common reactions to the news are more likely to be negative than positive. Between 32% and 43% say that consuming news makes them feel either angry, anxious, cynical, overwhelmed, or depressed. Fewer than one in five say it makes them feel more motivated, entertained, or hopeful. Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say that consuming news makes them feel hopeful. Democrats, on the other hand, are more likely than Republicans to say it causes anxiety, depression, anger, and a feeling of being overwhelmed. Interested in learning more? Explore and download results from our survey below. Editor's Note: While several of the media outlets or social media networks are YouGov clients, no client had any involvement in this poll or analysis. Related: * Trust in Media 2024: Which news sources Americans trust — and which they think lean left or right * Trust in Media 2023: What news outlets do Americans trust most for information? * Trust in Media 2022: Where Americans get their news and who they trust for information See the results from this YouGov poll conducted May 11 - 12, 2025 — David Montgomery contributed to this article Methodology: The poll was conducted among 2,211 U.S. adult citizens from May 11 - 12, 2025. A random sample (stratified by gender, age, race, education, geographic region, and voter registration) was selected from the 2019 American Community Survey. The sample was weighted according to gender, age, race, education, 2024 presidential vote, 2020 election turnout and presidential vote, baseline party identification, and current voter registration status. 2024 presidential vote, at time of weighting, was estimated to be 48% Harris and 50% Trump. Demographic weighting targets come from the 2019 American Community Survey. Baseline party identification is the respondent’s most recent answer given around November 8, 2024, and is weighted to the estimated distribution at that time (31% Democratic, 32% Republican). The margin of error for the overall sample is approximately 3%. Image: Getty What do you really think about President Trump, American politics in general, and everything else? Share your reality, join the YouGov panel, and get paid to share your thoughts. Sign up here.
socialmediatoday
Report Finds Facebook and TikTok Are Key News Sources
Report Finds Facebook and TikTok Are Key News Sources This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback. Pew Research has published its latest overview of the use of social media as a news source, and how people are increasingly relying on social media apps to keep them informed of the latest information and updates. Which is a critical consideration. Over time, more and more people have come to rely on social media as a news and information source, guiding their thinking on key topics, and how they support, or don’t, political candidates. Indeed, it’s not a stretch to say that social media now shapes the world we live in, whether you personally use it or not, and as such, it’s worth noting the latest trends, and understanding how people are keeping themselves informed on key news issues. First off, in terms of social media news sources, Facebook and YouTube still lead the way, though both TikTok and Instagram are steadily rising as news sources. As you can see in these charts, 38% of U.S. adults regularly get news updates from Facebook, followed by YouTube (36%) then TikTok (20%) and Instagram (20%). X’s value as a news source has declined in recent years, following Elon Musk’s takeover of the platform formerly known as Twitter, while Threads is making its debut appearance in Pew’s report. It’s interesting, and somewhat concerning to see that Facebook remains a key news outlet, especially given its more recent shift away from third party fact-checking, with crowd-sourced Community Notes failing to provide the same levels of protection from misinformation in social apps. Facebook is also increasingly being filled with AI-generated garbage, and with so many people relying on the platform for news content, it does seem like there are various vectors for misinformation and misleading reports, which could skew broader understanding. But Facebook is also the most-used social media platform in the world, and while others are likely now seeing more time spent within their apps, Facebook remains a critical connector, and clearly, a key source of news and information for many people. Indeed, about half of U.S. adults (53%) say that they get at least some news from social media, which is around the same level that it’s been for the past few years. It’s interesting, too, to note news consumption among regular users of each app, with this element more specifically looking at how regular users of each app use them for news content. Facebook seems to have regained its value for news in the last two years, which could also be related to its switch to Community Notes, while both TikTok and Instagram are becoming more critical news sources for their respective audiences. That suggests that these apps are more relevant news providers for younger people, which could point to evolving informational trends, and where audiences will increasingly be looking to get informed about the latest topics. That’s also reflected in this chart relating to TikTok specifically: Young audiences are far more likely to get news input from TikTok, which underlines its rising value as an informational source, and a key medium for distributing news updates in order to reach these audiences. Which is why politicians are now posting TikTok clips, and why Donald Trump is so keen to save TikTok, which he’s credited for helping him win the 2024 election. Though this also underlines the concerns that security officials have around TikTok’s influence, and the potential for the app to be used as a means for the Chinese government to influence opinions in other nations. That’s part of the reason why the app has been skirting a ban in the U.S. (which it now seems to have avoided), and if this remains an element of concern, the rising influence of TikTok as a news provider surely underlines its power in this respect. Essentially, TikTok and IG are becoming more powerful, while Facebook remains the key driver of broader opinion. Whether that’s a good thing or not is down to your individual perspective, but if you want to get a better understanding of why people think the way they do, and how they see political issues, these notes could point you in the right direction. Either way, some interesting data on the state of news consumption across social media apps, and the influential role that social continues to play in shaping opinions, and informing people of the latest updates. You can check out Pew’s full “Social Media News” report here.
pirg
How misinformation on social media has changed news
Misinformation that seems real - but isn't - rapidly circulates through social media. The problem is only getting worse.
reuters
Trump will sign TikTok executive order on Thursday, source says
President Donald Trump will sign an executive order on Thursday that declares a deal being negotiated by the White House to sell TikTok's...
ox
Digital News Report 2025
We find traditional news media struggling to connect with much of the public, with declining engagement, low trust, and stagnating digital subscriptions.
newsroom
TikTok and Luminate Release the Latest Music Impact Report
The Music Impact Report - which analyses data from 2024 - considers the impact that TikTok and its users have on the music industry and artists.
hootsuite
60 social media statistics marketers need to know in 2025
Dive into the latest social media stats for ol' faves Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, X (Twitter), LinkedIn, and Pinterest, plus newcomers RedNote and...
statista
Social media as a news outlet worldwide 2025
Social media as a news source worldwide 2025| Statista Log in or register to access precise data. * For commercial use only * Free Statistics Based on your interests * Free Statistics * Premium Statistics The statistic on this page is a Premium Statistic and is included in this account. * Free + Premium Statistics * Reports * Market Insights 1 All prices do not include sales tax. The account requires an annual contract and will renew after one year to the regular list price. Compare accounts Statistics on " News consumption in the U.S. " Other statistics that may interest you News consumption in the U.S. Brands and leaders 6 Consumption 6 Trust 4 Spotlight: 2024 election news 7 Further Content: You might find this interesting as well * For commercial use only * Free Statistics Based on your interests * Free Statistics * Premium Statistics The statistic on this page is a Premium Statistic and is included in this account. * Free + Premium Statistics * Reports * Market Insights 1 All prices do not include sales tax. The account requires an annual contract and will renew after one year to the regular list price. Compare accounts Learn more about how Statista can support your business.
insight
Political News? Not in My Feed.
Political News? Not in My Feed. Marketing Nov 1, 2025 A new study of smartphone habits reveals that, in the runup to the 2024 U.S. presidential election, political content was mostly an afterthought. Lisa Röper Summary Americans’ consumption of political content on their phones is much lower than expected, according to research from Kellogg’s Guy Aridor and colleagues. The study used a novel dataset that tracks how often people were exposed to election-related keywords across all smartphone applications during the two months leading up to the 2024 election. On a typical day, the median individual only saw around 13 election-related keywords—less than half of what they’d encounter in reading a single news article. While social-media apps such as Facebook and X varied in the amount of political content they showed users, individual preferences drove most of the differences in news consumption. In the run-up to the 2024 U.S. election, it may have seemed like political news was omnipresent. But in today’s fractured media landscape—where more people get information from their phones than newspapers and television—it’s harder than ever to gauge how much election information Americans actually consumed. With an unprecedented dataset on the content people see on their phones, a team of researchers including Kellogg’s Guy Aridor was able to measure just how often people see election news. And the answer was so low they had to double-check their methods. “For the first two months after we had gotten these results, we said there must be something wrong since the finding was so surprising,” says Aridor, an assistant professor of marketing. On a typical day in fall 2024, the median individual in their study only encountered around 13 election-related keywords—less than half of what they’d encounter in reading a single news article. And of those encounters, only 5 percent came while viewing news apps or websites. The researchers also sorted out how much of the observed inequality in this exposure was driven by systematic personal preference or the policy of apps such as Facebook and X to suppress or promote political content. While they confirmed that the amount of election news varied across these platforms, America’s meager political interest was mostly driven by people’s own phone habits. “Everyone’s in kind of their own little world about the types of content that they see,” Aridor says. “People that use news apps actually seem to be getting reasonable amounts of news. It’s just that a lot of people that are spending time on Instagram, TikTok, or YouTube are occasionally running into [terms like] ‘Donald Trump’ and scrolling past it very fast, without getting much information. It is a little bit sobering.” What people are really seeing on their phones For their study, Aridor and colleagues Tevel Dekel, Rafael Jiménez-Durán, Ro’ee Levy, and Lena Song utilized a list of over 500 election terms (such as “vote,” “debate,” or “election”) and politicians’ names, including Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. They partnered with consumer-engagement company Screenlake to track how often these keywords appeared on several thousand Americans’ smartphones across all applications on their phone—including email, messaging, social-media, news, music and video, and browser apps. Whenever one of these terms appeared on the phone screen, Screenlake’s screen-management app counted it as an exposure. This passive data collection was a leap forward from previous studies, Aridor says, which usually rely upon self-reported surveys or URL-based browser data on computers that often overstate news consumption. Their study captured people’s exposure to the election terms from September to November 2024, with an average of 1,170 users per day. In total, the median individual saw election keywords on their phone for only around 21 seconds each day—out of a daily average of five-and-a-half hours spent on their phone. Only about one in five participants viewed election content for over a minute daily. Most people’s exposures to the keywords were also sprinkled throughout the day, not concentrated in a short period of time as you would expect from someone reading news stories. “Apart from the very politically engaged, people don’t open the news at all,” Aridor says. “They’re getting election exposures sporadically throughout the day. So, the low amount of engagement that we find is not from intense bouts of political news consumption.” The influencer effect This low level of exposure remained steady over the three months of the study. Only two days saw a spike in election interest: the day of the presidential debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris and election day itself. On election day, most of the exposures occurred after polls had closed, suggesting that people were looking at results, not at information on how they should vote. But there were specific events that did increase political exposure for certain groups. For example, people with higher-than-average exposure to the keyword “Taylor Swift” saw more political terms in the days after Swift’s Instagram endorsement of Kamala Harris. “For the median consumer, they seem to not be caring about these topics. But when it appears from someone relevant to them, like when someone follows Taylor Swift, that can actually lead to increased consumption,” Aridor says. “If people aren’t watching or reading the news, then whatever’s showing up on their social-media feeds is what’s popping up for them.” The finding supports many election post-mortems that suggested politicians will need to rely less on traditional media or advertisements and more on celebrities and online influencers to raise their profile. Politicians in local congressional races—who rarely registered in the study’s data—stand to see the most benefit from this approach, Aridor says. “I think if you can find a podcaster that is very popular in your area, that actually may be the only way that you can reach your constituents,” he says. “Basically, it’s a weird world now where these nonpolitical figures can actually make a difference, and I think a lot of politicians actually seem to be recognizing that.” Platform vs. user effects The researchers also examined whether policy decisions made by social-media platforms influenced people’s exposure to political information. In 2024, Meta announced that they would stop recommending political posts to users of Facebook, Instagram, and Threads (a decision they would reverse in early 2025). Conversely, studies found that the X platform put more political content into its users’ feeds in the run-up to the election. Aridor and colleagues found that these policies did affect exposure to election content; regular Facebook and Instagram users saw fewer posts on politics, while people on X saw more (and around 43 times more content on owner Elon Musk). But did these platform decisions explain the differences the researchers saw in election-related content consumption? Because they could monitor what people see across all their applications, they could tease out the influence of systematic differences in exposure across applications (the app effect) or across individuals (the individual effect). They found that, while there were meaningful app effects, individual effects by far dominate what people saw. “Despite the fact that we document these differences across apps, that’s actually not the main reason why people are not consuming political news,” Aridor said. “It’s because they apparently don’t want to.” That finding has significant implications for policymakers, who have considered regulating the algorithms on social-media platforms that control what users see. The problem, Aridor thinks, is much bigger than “censorship.” “It would’ve been nice to say, ‘Oh, it’s just because Facebook is down-ranking news; that’s why people are not consuming it,’” he says. “Because that’s much easier to fix than figuring out why people don’t want to engage with the news.” All the news that’s fit for you Instead of actively suppressing political news or pushing particular points of view, social media and streaming content may have just become too efficient at giving people what they want. “They’ve gotten really good at personalization to the point where they don’t even need you to give explicit signals of, ‘I’m following this person because I like this,’” Aridor says. “I think that change in the last four years has made a big difference in terms of the fragmentation of content.” In one sense, this makes it easier than ever for people to find content on their favorite niche topic. But it may also be pushing people away from the information they need to keep up with candidates and issues and participate in democracy. “If Facebook is making it so you’re not reading the news, and that makes you less informed—which changes how you vote and your political attitudes—that matters from a societal perspective,” Aridor says. Featured Faculty About the Writer Rob Mitchum is the editor in chief of Kellogg Insight. About the Research Aridor, Guy, Tevel Dekel, Rafael Jiménez-Durán, Ro’ee Levy, Lena Song. 2025. “Digital News Consumption: Evidence from Smartphone Content in the 2024 US Elections.” Working Paper.
pewresearch
Social Media Fact Sheet
Which social media platforms are most common? YouTube and Facebook are the most widely used social media platforms in the United States.
ox
Digital News Report 2025
We find traditional news media struggling to connect with much of the public, with declining engagement, low trust, and stagnating digital subscriptions.
nature
Following news on social media boosts knowledge, belief accuracy and trust
The treatment enhanced current affairs knowledge, participants' ability to discern true from false news stories and awareness of true news stories, as well as...
frontiersin
Modeling Jordanian audience engagement and news credibility in the digital media era: a PLS-SEM approach
The rise of digital news has reshaped the landscape of news consumption, especially in emerging media environments such as Jordan, where audiences...
theguardian
Social media overtakes TV as main source of news in US, analysis finds
Global study shows 54% of Americans receive news from social media, while the UK has highest proportion of news avoiders at 46%
deloitte
2025 Digital Media Trends: Social platforms are becoming a dominant force in media and entertainment
This year's Digital Media Trends lends data to the argument that video entertainment has been disrupted by social platforms, creators, user-generated content (...
sproutsocial
Social media demographics to inform your 2025 strategy
Table of Contents. Social media demographics: the numbers you need to knowFacebook demographics and usageInstagram demographics and...
pewresearch
Americans’ Social Media Use 2025
YouTube remains the most popular, but adults are increasingly using Instagram, TikTok, WhatsApp and Reddit. Use of some platforms varies by...
vogue
The Vogue Business TikTok Trend Tracker
Vogue Business brings you weekly exclusive data from TikTok, unpacking the latest creators and biggest trends sweeping its Gen Z user base.
frontiersin
Algorithmic influence and media legitimacy: a systematic review of social media’s impact on news production
Frontiers 1 Introduction Between 2015 and 2025, journalism has undergone a profound transformation, driven by the proliferation of social media platforms and the pervasive integration of algorithmic systems at nearly every stage of news production, circulation, and reception. Platforms such as Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, and Twitch have evolved from secondary distribution tools into infrastructural elements of contemporary journalism. They function simultaneously as channels of dissemination, interactive spaces of audience engagement, and intermediaries mediating the producer–consumer relationship (Al-Zoubi et al., 2023; Chua and Westlund, 2022; D’Amico et al., 2023; McGregor and Molyneux, 2020; Swart, 2021). This paradigmatic shift has displaced static and cyclical models of news with interactive, real-time ecosystems. As a result, the democratic role of journalism, its professional credibility, and its legitimacy are undergoing fundamental reconfiguration under conditions of platformization. At the center of this reconfiguration lies algorithmic curation. Social media algorithms, optimized primarily for engagement, seldom privilege content according to journalistic significance or professional editorial judgment. Instead, they amplify material designed to stimulate reactions—likes, shares, and comments—reshaping what counts as news in digital spaces. In this environment, newsworthiness is increasingly redefined as “shareworthiness,” privileging virality and visibility logics (Crilley and Gillespie, 2018; D’Amico et al., 2023; Dodds et al., 2023; Hurcombe, 2019; Kaiser and Puschmann, 2017; Lischka, 2018; Trilling et al., 2016; Welbers and Opgenhaffen, 2018). This shift incentivizes sensationalism, emotional resonance, and polarizing narratives. Scholars warn that these conditions jeopardize journalistic integrity, as editorial practices adapt to meet algorithmic imperatives (Blassnig et al., 2024). While algorithms also enable positive developments—audience expansion, innovative storytelling, and the diversification of formats—these enabling roles must be weighed carefully against risks of distortion and erosion of trust. Two key implications follow. First, editorial autonomy is compromised. Journalists and editors constantly negotiate between professional ethics and the demands of algorithmically driven performance (Curry and Stroud, 2019; Rahman, 2023; Wintterlin, 2017). Newsrooms increasingly adopt dashboards, audience analytics, and recommender systems, shifting gatekeeping power away from human editorial norms toward data-driven logics (Chua and Westlund, 2022; Cold-Ravnkilde and Nissen, 2020). Second, the proliferation of misinformation and disinformation, amplified by algorithms, represents a defining challenge. Such phenomena weaken public trust in journalism and corrode perceptions of legitimacy (Al-Khazraji et al., 2023; Serrano-Puche, 2021; Wardle et al., 2021). Scholars argue for enhanced transparency, accountability, and oversight of algorithmic processes as prerequisites for restoring confidence in journalism (Aagaard, 2022; Grimmelikhuijsen, 2022; Hellmueller and Berglez, 2022; Wintterlin, 2017). Global variations complicate these trends in North America, algorithmic amplification contributes to ideological polarization and media distrust (Kavtaradze and Kalsnes, 2024). In Europe, global platform logics interact with entrenched journalistic traditions, creating hybrid legitimacy frameworks (Aagaard, 2022; Cornia et al., 2018; Hellmueller and Berglez, 2022). In Asia, state-controlled algorithms constrain Chinese journalism, while Indian journalism reveals adaptive strategies under relatively freer digital conditions (Kim, 2021; Koo, 2024; Rao, 2016; Yin et al., 2024; Zhao et al., 2025). These diverse experiences illustrate the asymmetries of platformization. Still, the review acknowledges limitations, including the underrepresentation of certain geographies (e.g., Oceania) and platforms (e.g., Reddit, LinkedIn), which influence the scope of interpretation. The present review synthesizes empirical research on how algorithms reshape editorial autonomy and redefine media legitimacy. Two research questions guide the inquiry: > RQ1: How does algorithmic curation influence journalistic content, standards, and practices worldwide? > > RQ2: How do platform-specific algorithmic variations shape perceptions of media legitimacy across contexts? These questions address both the micro-level newsroom dynamics and the macro-level democratic implications. Methodologically, the review followed best practices in communication and media studies (Bramer et al., 2018; Libwea et al., 2023). Comprehensive searches were performed in Scopus and Web of Science, finalized on 3 September 2025. Queries combined algorithm- and platform-related keywords (e.g., algorithm, recommendation, ranking, “news feed,” Facebook, X/Twitter, YouTube, TikTok, Instagram) with domain terms (digital journalism, news production, platformization, media legitimacy). Boolean operators were used to ensure precision (Spencer and Eldredge, 2018). The complete search strings are detailed in Table 1 and archived in a publicly accessible repository. Expert consultation further strengthened validity and minimized design bias (Aamodt et al., 2019; Faggion et al., 2016). Table 1. Database-specific search strings (WoS and Scopus; Last Search: 03 September 2025). Eligibility criteria limited inclusion to peer-reviewed empirical studies—qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods—focused on algorithmic influence in journalism. The review excluded essays, commentary, and theoretical papers to maintain empirical rigor. Criteria did not restrict access models or impose arbitrary subject exclusions beyond database definitions. All steps followed PRISMA 2020 standards (Cunha et al., 2023; Haddaway et al., 2022; Moher et al., 2015). Dual-independent reviewers assessed study eligibility, resolving disagreements by consensus. This yielded a final corpus of 78 studies. Quality appraisal was essential. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) guided assessment of qualitative work, while risk-of-bias tools addressed quantitative and observational studies (Shea et al., 2017; Juniardi and Putra, 2024). Independent reviewers conducted evaluations, and inter-rater reliability (e.g., Cohen’s κ) was reported. These appraisals informed sensitivity analyses and the weighting of claims, reinforcing evidence integrity. The article is structured as follows: Section 2 details methodological procedures; Section 3 presents theoretical frameworks emphasizing platformization, algorithmic gatekeeping, and media legitimacy; Section 4 synthesizes findings across four themes—(1) algorithmic influence on news judgment and editorial autonomy, (2) commercialization and business strategies, (3) digital platforms and legitimacy, and (4) algorithmic amplification of polarization, misinformation, and self-censorship. Section 4 also provides an evidence map visualizing methodologies, regions, and outcomes. A Limitations section highlights risks such as coder subjectivity, geographic and platform gaps, and potential biases. The concluding sections outline implications for journalism, platform governance, and policy, and provide access to the full dataset. In conclusion, this introduction underscores the urgency of examining how algorithms are transforming journalism. The decade under review illustrates not only the centrality of algorithmic systems in reshaping content and newsroom practices but also their profound impact on media legitimacy. By synthesizing empirical evidence, this review demonstrates how editorial autonomy, news values, and public trust are being redefined in the digital age. 2 Methods This systematic review rigorously adheres to established guidance for systematic literature reviews within the communication and media studies disciplines. The methodology is designed to ensure transparency, reproducibility, and rigor across all stages of the research process, encompassing the identification of relevant literature, screening and selection of studies, data extraction, quality assessment, and the final synthesis of findings. The overall protocol and reporting structure are aligned with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 recommendations and universally recognized best practices for systematic search design, study screening, and quality appraisal (Haddaway et al., 2022; Moher et al., 2015). All numerical data, including study counts, were harmonized across the Abstract, Methods, Results, and the PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 1), ensuring consistency and methodological integrity. Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram detailing the identification, screening, and selection process of literature (Haddaway et al., 2022). 2.1 Search strategy To ensure a comprehensive and exhaustive capture of the relevant academic literature, our search strategy was systematically implemented across two primary, high-impact academic databases: Scopus and Web of Science (WoS Core Collection). This strategic selection was based on their extensive coverage of communication and media studies journals. The initial search yielded a total of 1,084 records: 893 from Web of Science and 191 from Scopus. The final search was conducted on 03 September 2025. The search queries were meticulously constructed using Boolean operators to combine controlled vocabulary and free-text terms related to “digital journalism,” “news production,” and “media legitimacy,” with platform- and algorithm-specific terms including: “algorithm,” “recommendation,” “ranking,” “news feed,” “Facebook,” “X/Twitter,” “YouTube,” “TikTok,” and “Instagram” (Bramer et al., 2018; Spencer and Eldredge, 2018). and expert consultation. The full search strings are available in Table 1 and the public data repository. To enhance the precision of the search results, filters were applied within each database to exclude non-article document types (e.g., book chapters, conference proceedings), non-English publications, and outdated records outside the 2015–2025 window. Subject areas unrelated to journalism and communication were excluded based on predefined Web of Science categories, and decisions regarding Open Access status were recorded. These filters were set a priori and documented transparently (Table 1). While exclusions based on subject and access type are non-standard, they were justified to focus the review on relevant empirical literature and reduce disciplinary noise. 2.2 Inclusion and exclusion criteria 2.2.1 Inclusion criteria This review included peer-reviewed empirical studies—qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods—published between 2015 and 2025 in English. Eligible studies examined the influence of algorithms or digital platforms on news production, editorial autonomy, and/or media legitimacy. Broad platform and regional diversity were encouraged. 2.2.2 Exclusion criteria Essays, theoretical discussions, commentaries, grey literature, and studies outside the time window or not in English were excluded. Studies excluded based on database subject areas or Open Access status were filtered only for relevance, and decisions were recorded in the PRISMA logs and Table 1. 2.2.3 Exclusion criteria To maintain the empirical focus and academic rigor of the review, several categories of literature were excluded. This included opinion pieces, essays, and purely theoretical papers that lacked empirical data to support their claims. Grey literature, such as reports from non-academic sources or unpublished working papers, was also excluded. Furthermore, studies published outside the defined 2015–2025 time window were excluded. The language of publication was restricted to English. Crucially, the exclusions based on document type, language, and subject categories within the databases were applied as described in the Search Strategy section (Section 2.1) and detailed in Table 1. 2.3 Screening and study selection process The screening and selection of studies followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines. From 1,084 initial records, 9 duplicates, 48 auto-screened, and 9 other ineligible items were removed. Of 392 screened titles/abstracts, 214 were excluded. 178 full-text reports were retrieved and assessed, yielding 78 included studies. Disagreements between the two reviewers were resolved via consensus discussions. Inter-rater reliability was calculated as Cohen’s κ = 0.82, indicating strong agreement. Study counts were harmonized across all manuscript sections and the PRISMA diagram (Figure 1). 2.4 Data extraction and coding Data were extracted independently by two reviewers using a predefined template covering bibliographic info, platform(s), methods, sample, geography, findings, and limitations. A 10% pilot ensured clarity. Coding used a hybrid thematic approach: deductive themes based on theory (Section 3) and inductive codes emergent from data. The final codebook is in Appendix Findings Review. A summary of all 78 included studies is provided in Supplementary Findings Review. A 10% pilot extraction was conducted on a subset of the included studies prior to the full data extraction phase. This pilot aimed to refine the template fields and ensure the clarity and consistency of code definitions. The coding process itself employed a hybrid thematic analysis approach. This involved starting with deductive themes that were pre-specified based on the research questions and the theoretical framework (outlined in Section 3). These deductive themes were then complemented by an inductive process of identifying new, emergent sub-codes and patterns directly from the extracted data. The finalized codebook, complete with definitions and examples, is provided in Appendix A (Rodriguez et al., 2022; Tam et al., 2017), ensuring the transparency and reproducibility of the coding process. A comprehensive table summarizing the characteristics of all 78 included studies is also provided separately in Supplementary Table Findings Review. 2.5 Quality assessment Each study was appraised using appropriate tools: CASP for qualitative/mixed-methods, and Risk-of-Bias frameworks for quantitative/observational designs (Juniardi and Putra, 2024; Shea et al., 2017). Two reviewers conducted this independently. Inter-rater reliability was high (κ = 0.82). Per-study ratings appear in Supplementary Table S1. Appraisal scores informed the synthesis process via evidence weighting and sensitivity analysis (e.g., excluding low-quality studies to test robustness). 2.6 Synthesis approach Due to high heterogeneity (platforms, regions, methods), a narrative thematic synthesis was employed. Four themes guided analysis: (1) algorithmic influence on editorial autonomy, (2) commercialization of news production, (3) platform legitimacy, and (4) amplification of polarization and misinformation. To assess evidence distribution and claim strength, an evidence map was generated, cross-tabulating methods, platforms, regions, and outcomes. Access to the synthesis scripts and coded data is provided in the repository. 2.7 Data availability All materials—search strings, PRISMA logs, screening sheets, extractions, codebooks, quality ratings, and synthesis scripts—are publicly available in the linked data repository. This ensures full reproducibility and auditability of the review. Harmonized counts from all sections are included. 2.8 Ethical considerations As a systematic review of published literature, this study did not require ethical approval. This review did not require ethical approval. However, principles of transparency and reflexivity guided all decisions. Potential biases (e.g., language restriction, regional gaps, exclusion rationale) are addressed in Section 5: Limitations. 3 Theoretical framework/background This section delineates the foundational theoretical and conceptual underpinnings This section delineates the foundational theoretical and conceptual underpinnings that guide this systematic review on the algorithmic influence of social media on news production and its subsequent impact on media legitimacy. In addition to framing the inquiry, these theoretical perspectives were explicitly integrated into the review’s analytical procedures. They informed the development of deductive parent codes and sub-codes in the hybrid thematic analysis, shaped the synthesis structure, and supported the interpretation of cross-case patterns. By anchoring our coding and synthesis in theory, we ensured that theoretical integration was not merely conceptual but methodologically embedded throughout the review. 3.1 Platformization and journalism The concept of platformization offers a critical lens through which to examine how digital platforms have become central to journalistic production, distribution, and audience engagement. In the context of a “platform society,” platforms are increasingly understood as overarching infrastructures that shape communication norms and practices (Poell et al., 2020). For journalism, this is acutely evident in the escalating reliance on platforms such as Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, and Twitch for essential functions like content dissemination and audience reach (Al-Zoubi et al., 2023; Burgess and Hurcombe, 2019; Chua and Westlund, 2022; McGregor and Molyneux, 2020; Swart, 2021). This increasing integration signifies a fundamental shift in the journalistic ecosystem, moving from more traditional, structured news flows towards dynamic, interactive, and often real-time environments dictated by platform affordances. Platformization inherently integrates distinct economic, technological, and social logics into newsroom routines and practices. The prevailing commercial imperatives within this model often compel news organizations to drive alignment with platform-specific visibility and engagement metrics (Poell et al., 2020). This necessitates a reframing of professional autonomy, wherein editorial judgments become increasingly calibrated to algorithmic performance indicators rather than solely relying on traditional normative news values (Carlson, 2019; Chiridza and Mare, 2025). These insights are instrumental in the development of the “Commercialization/Platformization” code family used to structure comparisons across different organizational types, audience demographics, and geographical regions throughout this review. Furthermore, platformization carries significant potential to contribute to what has been termed “data colonialism,” a phenomenon wherein journalistic activities become increasingly embedded within extractive datafication economies (Couldry and Mejias, 2019). This concept was operationalized in our coding structure through the “Platformization/Commercialization” category and shaped our interpretation of regional asymmetries (Sections 4.2 and 4.3). It also informed how platform logic was evaluated during the quality appraisal stage (Section 2.5), particularly regarding commercial influences on editorial practices. 3.2 Algorithmic gatekeeping The concept of gatekeeping, traditionally understood as the process by which editors and journalists filter information flows, is undergoing a significant evolution in the contemporary platformed news ecosystem. In our analysis, “Gatekeeping/Algorithmic Gatekeeping” was applied as a key deductive code to classify how algorithmic systems mediate visibility, news values, and editorial control, especially in relation to metric-based decision-making. Algorithmic curation in digital journalism is thus conceptualized through the lens of recommender systems and their underlying visibility logics (Kaiser and Puschmann, 2017). Complementing this understanding, Actor-Network Theory (ANT) offers a valuable framework. These theoretical concepts were translated into the analytical framework through the construction of dedicated code families (e.g., “ANT/Assemblages,” “Metrics/Dashboards”), facilitating a granular examination of empirical variations in newsroom agency and adaptation strategies. The Social Shaping of Technology (SST) theory further enriches this perspective by highlighting how cultural, economic, and political values become embedded within algorithmic designs. In our coding, SST-informed analysis helped to reveal how algorithmic affordances reflect deeper structural biases. This was particularly salient in analyzing commercialization pressures, coded under “SST/Platformization,” and subsequently integrated into the synthesis of Theme 2 (Section 4.2). 3.3 Media legitimacy Traditionally, journalism’s legitimacy has been predicated on foundational principles such as objectivity and public trust. In this review, media legitimacy was not only examined conceptually but also operationalized through a dedicated code family (“Legitimacy/Trust”) used during thematic synthesis. This enabled systematic tracking of how algorithmic systems influence perceived trustworthiness, across both audience and journalistic perspectives. Historically, media legitimacy was anchored in institutional norms. In the current era, algorithmic mediation has reshaped those conditions. Our coding captured both trust-eroding dynamics (e.g., opacity, personalization concerns) and mitigation mechanisms (e.g., transparency features, user controls). These variations were mapped in our evidence synthesis and visualized in the evidence map (Section 4.4). Furthermore, scholarly debates increasingly foreground issues of bias and embedded incentives. In our synthesis, we differentiated between trust erosion due to algorithmic opacity and trust reinforcement due to transparency-oriented innovations, treating each as distinct sub-codes. These distinctions shaped both the interpretive framing of our conclusions and the weighting of evidence in the synthesis (see Table 2). Table 2. Theories and their relevance to journalism. This section provides the theoretical scaffolding necessary to understand how algorithmic influence on news production impacts media legitimacy. Crucially, these theories were not merely reviewed conceptually but were actively operationalized within our analytical framework through code development, theme refinement, and synthesis structuring. This integration ensures that empirical patterns are interpreted through well-established theoretical lenses, enhancing the validity and coherence of the review’s conclusions. 4 Theme/findings review 4.1 Section Theme 1: Algorithmic influence on editorial assessment and autonomy This section synthesizes the evidence summarized in Table 3 (Theme 1) and explicitly maps the findings to the theoretical scaffolding and coding structure introduced in Section 3. Each pattern is connected to specific code families—“Algorithmic Gatekeeping,” “Platformization/Commercialization,” “ANT/Assemblages,” and “SST/Platformization”—ensuring traceability between theory, empirical data, and interpretation. The synthesis was conducted via hybrid thematic analysis, blending deductive themes with inductively surfaced sub-codes. Across the 30 studies inventoried in Table 1, the core pattern is consistent: algorithmic curation and metricization do not merely “pressure” editorial decision-making; they reconfigure it. This reconfiguration is visible in routinized metric work, accelerated temporalities, and recalibrated notions of newsworthiness toward platform-compatible “shareworthiness,” while leaving bounded spaces for professional judgment and strategic resistance. Table 3. Algorithmic influence on editorial judgment and autonomy. First, the studies converge on a redistribution of gatekeeping authority, which was consistently coded under “Algorithmic Gatekeeping” and “Assemblages.” Ethnographic and survey-based work shows that real-time analytics are operationalized as boundary objects in newsrooms, aligning daily choices with performance signals (Conyers, 2025; D’Amico et al., 2023; Sehl et al., 2024). Experimental and platform-analytic evidence reinforces that feed ranking and personalization narrow the editorial “window,” biasing selection toward items expected to perform under algorithmic logics (Dodds et al., 2023; McGregor and Molyneux, 2020). Studies of newspay models and micro-segmentation add that revenue instrumentation can tilt calendars and formats toward calculable, low-risk outputs (Myllylahti, 2020, 2024). Taken together, these results empirically instantiate algorithmic gatekeeping and ANT’s distributed agency: human editors, metrics, interfaces, and business rules co-produce editorial outcomes rather than technology simply “overriding” journalists. Within SST, this co-production reflects embedded commercial values that privilege calculability and control (Çifçi and Ayhan, 2024; Cohen, 2019; Creech and Nadler, 2018). Second, algorithmic visibility logics compress verification windows and accelerate newsroom temporalities—a pattern captured under the “Temporal Compression” sub-code. Evidence from X/Twitter shows wire-like reliance on trending signals that favors speed over depth (Boling and Walsh, 2025; McGregor and Molyneux, 2020). Computational diffusion analyses indicate that negative news and personality-driven stories spread faster, incentivizing timeliness and viral frames (Buhl et al., 2019). Platform-specific studies of YouTube document optimization toward monetization/discovery, with attendant impacts on packaging and cadence (Cheng and Tandoc, 2021). Stimulus-based interviews further reveal how affordances across TikTok, Instagram, and Facebook shape coordination and selection decisions on the desk (Anter, 2025). Regionally, newsroom practices in the Global South incorporate informal metrics and WhatsApp circuits This confirms that algorithmic influence is contextually mediated rather than universally deterministic (Omanga et al., 2023). These patterns substantiate the hypothesis (H1) that algorithmic curation materially reshapes editorial choices by structuring attention, timing, and visibility. Third, the empirical corpus links metricization to normative and epistemic tensions in media legitimacy, categorized under the “Trust/Transparency” code family. Cross-national survey evidence shows that higher perceived use of news recommender systems (NRS) is associated with lower trust in outlets, moderated by perceived benefits/concerns (Blassnig et al., 2024). This dovetails with the review’s broader claim that opacity depresses legitimacy while communicative transparency can mitigate skepticism (see Section 3’s legitimacy discussion). Studies warn against technological determinism, urging nuanced, context-aware explanations of platform effects (Appelgren, 2023; Carlson, 2023). Crowdsourcing research illuminates a concrete trade-off: while open calls enhance knowledge discovery and tip flows, volume can erode verification, yielding blended responsibility between journalists and publics (Aitamurto, 2016). These findings reinforce H2’s moderation logic: transparency, explicability, and user control can soften but not eliminate trust risks arising from opaque curation. Fourth, Table 3 documents organizational adaptation strategies, mapped to the codes “Professional Autonomy,” “Resistance,” and “Coping Mechanisms.” Ethnographies distinguish “metric confirmation” work (low-cost, high-gain) from riskier “journalistic discovery,” indicating how temporalities and incentives sort labor inside the desk (Conyers, 2025). Labour-process and intersectional accounts show intensification, commodification, and precarity, with differentiated burdens for women of color (Cohen, 2015; Cohen, 2019; Cohen and Clarke, 2024). Comparative work underscores newsroom strategies—diversifying content, advocating editorial independence, or selective resistance—to preserve judgment under platform dependence (Chua and Westlund, 2022; Eldridge et al., 2019). Studies also report “strategic ignorance” as a coping practice to manage the opacity and volatility of algorithmic systems (Christin et al., 2024). These results support a “bounded agency” reading that is compatible with ANT and consistent with the framework’s expectation that socio-technical contexts shape, but do not erase, professional autonomy. Fifth, the studies identify design-level and pedagogical responses to algorithmic influence, classified under the “Reconfiguration/Design,” “Identity/Audience,” and “Reskilling” codes. Analyses of identity in news sharing show that political self-presentation structures dissemination practices even when mainstream outlets dominate link sources (Baas et al., 2025). Research quantifying journalistic values via textual indices finds measurable associations between linguistic features and perceived balance, diversity, importance, and factuality—suggesting feasible pathways for auditable quality signals compatible with recommender design (Choi, 2019). Case-based education and skills work indicate that cultivating cognitive flexibility and data-visualization literacy may buffer against the deskilling risks of automation and metricization (Breit, 2020). These strands connect directly to Section 3’s call for governance mechanisms that reward public-interest quality rather than pure engagement. The cumulative implications of Theme 1 reinforce the theoretical coherence and methodological robustness of the review. Conceptually, the studies corroborate the framework Empirically, the synthesis privileges findings from higher-quality studies (as weighted via appraisal scores in Supplementary Table S1), and incorporates variation across geographies, platforms, and journalistic roles. Practically, the results justify three governance levers referenced in the overall framework: (i) routine exposure audits of recommender outcomes; (ii) auditable transparency and communication about NRS use; and (iii) multi-metric portfolios that elevate accuracy, diversity, and civic value alongside reach. Concretely, verification safeguards for crowdsourcing (Aitamurto, 2016), platform-affordance literacy for desk editors(Anter, 2025), and institutional protections for discovery work (Conyers, 2025), are prudent organizational responses. Finally, scope conditions significantly shape the manifestation of algorithmic influence. As documented in Table 3 and visualized in the evidence map, the sample is skewed toward Western/English-language contexts and certain platforms (e.g., Twitter, Facebook), with limited representation of Reddit, LinkedIn, and Oceania (Badr, 2022; Chiridza and Mare, 2025). These disparities were acknowledged in the “Limitations” section and inform the interpretation of generalizability. The review therefore treats enabling effects—audience growth, novel formats—as real but context-bound and typically offset by trade-offs in depth, verification, and trust. Aligning editorial autonomy with legitimacy in a platformed environment requires moving beyond engagement-maximization toward transparent, auditable, and quality-sensitive systems, as theorized in Section 3 and operationalized via the evidence map. 4.2 Section Theme 2: Commercialization and business strategies shaping news production Commercialization operates as a constitutive force in the platformized news ecology, shaping editorial judgment through embedded economic incentives. Reading Table 4—This synthesis follows a hybrid thematic coding strategy (deductive + inductive) and aligns with theory-informed code families—“Platformization/Commercialization,” “Metrics Governance,” and “Organizational Form.” market logics are embedded in interfaces, dashboards, and platform partnerships, thereby co-producing editorial outcomes with journalists and managers. In this framework, platforms do not merely host content; they mediate value by aligning visibility with monetizable engagement, narrowing the space for public-interest work unless counterbalanced by institutional safeguards and diversified revenue. Table 4. Commercialisation and business strategies in news production. 4.2.1 Platform dependence and (un)sustainable monetization Evidence across regions, coded under “Revenue Dependency” and “Platform Risk,” demonstrates that reliance on digital distribution is structurally fragile and unevenly distributed. Interviews with Zimbabwean publishers document heavy reliance on X/Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, WhatsApp, TikTok, and Instagram, yet negligible revenue-sharing, producing economic precarity for mainstream outlets (Chiridza and Mare, 2025). These findings were evaluated using quality-weighted synthesis and were mapped in the evidence matrix to highlight regional and platform-based heterogeneity. The hypothesis that business logics—amplified by platform infrastructures—reshape editorial decision-making is therefore strongly corroborated at the level of business model design (see Table 4). 4.2.2 Metrics governance and editorial autonomy Ethnographies and interviews show metrics acting as governance instruments that realign editorial autonomy, particularly under KPI pressure. These patterns are coded under “Metrics/Control” and “Organizational Governance.” Australian digital newsrooms differentiate “journalistic discovery” (high-cost, uncertain yield) from “metric confirmation” (low-cost, high-yield) work, with the latter favored under KPI pressure (Conyers, 2025). U.S. local news analyses link revenue goals to shifts in selection and packaging (Kosterich and Weber, 2019), while studies of digital start-ups show early metric dependence that narrows editorial latitude over time (Eldridge et al., 2019). Practitioner interviews suggest engagement tooling reframes legitimacy from public-interest criteria to commercial validation (Yu and Atrchian, 2024). ANT clarifies these dynamics as distributed agency: editors, analytics dashboards, A/B testing suites, and ranking systems co-determine what “counts” as a good decision. In parallel, “McDonaldization” frames from Turkey—efficiency, calculability, predictability, and control—map onto standardized content recipes and reduced depth (Çifçi and Ayhan, 2024). Together, these studies demonstrate how metric governance structures editorial choice temporally, hierarchically, and ideologically. 4.2.3 Labor, organizational form, and alternative models Commercialization displaces risk onto precarious labor and structurally shapes organizational resilience. These themes are reflected in the “Labor/Precarity” and “Alternative Models” codes. Labor-process research documents intensification, commodification, and analytics-driven control in digital-first newsrooms (Cohen, 2019; Cohen, 2015). Intersectional analyses show women of color concentrated in more precarious roles within Canadian digital journalism, indicating uneven burdens of market volatility (Cohen and Clarke, 2024). Ethnographies of nonprofit and freelance ecosystems report mission–market tensions as organizations juggle donor responsiveness, membership churn, and platform reach (Holton and Belair-Gagnon, 2018; Kalika and Ferrucci, 2019; Yeste et al., 2025). Latin American comparisons link macroeconomic reforms to editorial recalibration (Powers and Vera-Zambrano, 2018), while South Asian and hybrid regimes illustrate how commercial and political constraints can compound (Ferrucci and Tandoc, 2017; Oelrichs, 2023). Notwithstanding, enabling instances appear: reader membership and niche verticals can buffer investigative work when accompanied by governance that protects editorial independence and allocates dedicated resources to “discovery” (Vázquez-Cano et al., 2020; Waisbord, 2019) (see Table 4). 4.2.4 Audience analytics, distribution, and product development Cross-platform behavioral analytics suggest that highly engaged power-users can dominate engagement distributions, incentivizing product and content tailoring that sidelines broader publics (Nelson and Lei, 2018; Zheng et al., 2021). Studies of emergent AI tooling in newsrooms register a duality: efficiency gains and new predictive capacities are offset by ethical and editorial risks, recentering the need for transparency and auditability in automated decision support (Wu, 2018; Zhang et al., 2024). Within the gatekeeping/SST frame, these findings show non-human actors (dashboards, APIs, recommender hooks) functioning as monetization-sensitive filters that structure discovery, packaging, and release timing. Complementary strands identify constructive uses of analytics—e.g., optimizing discovery of “evergreen” investigations without clickbait—when metric portfolios explicitly reward accuracy, diversity, and civic value (Choi, 2019; Waller and Morieson, 2025). Case-based capacity-building and visualization literacy can mitigate deskilling and support higher-order editorial work under metric pressure (Breit, 2020; R. Cunha, 2020). 4.2.5 Synthesis, implications, and hypothesis appraisal Across Table 4, three propositions are supported. First, platformized commercialization is not a backdrop but an active shaper of editorial judgment: business goals are encoded into interfaces and KPIs that act as non-human gatekeepers (Conyers, 2025; Eldridge et al., 2019; Kosterich and Ziek, 2020). Second, organizational form moderates but rarely neutralizes pressure: non-profits, freelancers, legacy, and digital-born outlets encounter distinct profiles of constraint and opportunity (Cornia et al., 2018; Holton and Belair-Gagnon, 2018; Kalika and Ferrucci, 2019; Smith, 2022; Wu, 2018). Third, political economy and geography condition outcomes: where revenue sharing is weak and markets volatile, platform dependence magnifies vulnerability and narrows autonomy (Chiridza and Mare, 2025; Powers, 2016; Valero-Pastor et al., 2021; Wehden and Stoltenberg, 2019). These converging findings substantiate the review’s central hypothesis that commercial imperatives—amplified by platform infrastructures—systematically reshape editorial decision-making and institutional legitimacy. Consistent with Section 3, the implications point to governance levers rather than newsroom heroics: (i) adopt auditable, multi-objective metric portfolios that elevate quality and civic value alongside reach (Choi, 2019); (ii) conduct routine audits of platform partnerships and recommender exposure to detect adverse selection toward sensationalism; (iii) ring-fence resources and time for “journalistic discovery,” insulating it from short-cycle KPI pressures (Conyers, 2025); and (iv) build affordance literacy for desk editors to navigate platform-specific constraints without collapsing standards (Anter, 2025). Finally, the literature on crowdsourcing cautions that commercialization’s drive for scalable participation can undermine verification unless practices of “blended responsibility” are instituted between newsrooms and contributors (Aitamurto, 2016). In sum, Theme 2’s evidence base confirms that commercialization is deeply entangled with the socio-technical architecture of platforms, necessitating institutional designs that align business sustainability with public-interest journalism rather than subordinating the latter to engagement maximization (see Table 4). 4.3 Section Theme 3: Digital platforms and news legitimacy This section synthesizes evidence—coded under “Trust,” “Credibility Signals,” and “Platform Affordances”—to analyze how platform interfaces and ranking systems condition public trust, credibility, and authority claims in journalism. Reading Table 5—The synthesis builds on theory-driven coding and was triangulated across journalist and audience perspectives using a quality-weighted comparative approach. Platforms act as legitimacy infrastructures: their interfaces, metrics, and recommender hooks create cues that audiences use to infer credibility, while also re-framing what counts as legitimate performance inside newsrooms. Table 5. Digital platforms and news legitimacy. 4.3.1 Algorithmic personalization, recommender systems, and conditional trust Cross-national survey evidence indicates that perceived reliance on NRSs—analyzed under the “Algorithmic Trust” and “Transparency Practices” codes—correlates with lower trust in outlets unless communicative affordances are salient (Blassnig et al., 2024). This aligns with platformization accounts in which gatekeeping shifts from editors toward opaque technical systems. These patterns operationalize algorithmic gatekeeping as a legitimacy mechanism—structuring visibility, relevance, and authority signals through opaque logics (see Table 5). Where platforms highlight sources or provide salient authority cues at moments of high uncertainty, perceived expertise can increase, though effects are platform- and context-specific (Lee, 2023). Within the Section 3 framework, these patterns exemplify algorithmic gatekeeping: ranking and personalization do not merely route attention; they establish de facto legitimacy criteria by rewarding relevance, timeliness, and engagement signals that may or may not align with public-interest quality. 4.3.2 Platform cues, influencer logics, and the re-making of credibility Visual virality cues and influencer identity signals—categorized under “Social Signals” and “Gamified Authority”—restructure how audiences perceive credibility across platform types (Baas et al., 2025). Yet gamified engagement and recommendation reverence on YouTube are linked to perceived bias and credibility drops when audiences interpret visibility as manipulation (Lee, 2023). Within ANT, these legitimacy currencies emerge from socio-technical entanglements, not isolated content or journalistic intention (Choi, 2019). Ethnographies and interviews further document how social metrics constitute new “legitimacy currencies,” reorienting newsroom performance toward engagement-validated authority (Eldridge et al., 2019). ANT helps make sense of these reconfigurations: legitimacy emerges from networks that include editors, producers, dashboards, platform interfaces, and audience feedback loops rather than from journalists alone. 4.3.3 Institutional negotiations: legacy, digital-born, and nonprofit fields Legitimacy struggles—coded as “Institutional Trust” and “Recognition Negotiation”—are especially pronounced in digital-born and nonprofit sectors navigating platform dominance and shifting journalistic norms. U.S. cases document sustained efforts by nonprofits to claim mission-based legitimacy while still “struggling for legitimacy” in competitive attention markets (Ferrucci and Tandoc, 2017). Digital-born outlets negotiate recognition vis-à-vis legacy peers under conditions of platform dependence and shifting authority (Carlson, 2017; Cornia et al., 2018). Conceptual syntheses depict digital journalism as at once a symptom, response, and agent within platform systems (Burgess and Hurcombe, 2019). SST helps explain how institutional and commercial logics become materialized in affordance use and reputational strategies. 4.3.4 Comparative and regional contingencies Legitimacy is locally mediated. Nordic studies tie trust dynamics to distinct media-system evolutions (Young and Hermida, 2024). Interviews from the Global South reveal platform-specific negotiations of authority within uneven infrastructures and regulatory (Beckert and Ziegele, 2020). German and broader European evidence shows algorithmic legitimacy as contested inside newsrooms, especially during periods of change (Masullo and Kim, 2021; Mathews et al., 2024). U.S. ethnography traces newsroom-level trust challenges under intensifying platform pressure (Auwal et al., 2025), while journalist surveys register how practitioners themselves conceptualize legitimacy amid (Choi, 2019). Consistent with our Methods and evidence map, coverage skews toward Euro-US contexts and under-samples Reddit, LinkedIn, Twitch, and Oceania, warranting caution in generalization (see Table 5). 4.3.5 Crowdsourcing, participation, and accountability signals Crowdsourcing can improve knowledge discovery and sustained tip flows when transparency and feedback are present, but high volumes strain verification and diffuse responsibility between journalists and publics (Aitamurto, 2016). Platform affordances such as messaging bots and chat interfaces introduce new contact points for authority claims, yet capabilities vary markedly by context and design (Zhang et al., 2024). Mixed-method analyses of audience attention indicate low loyalty and depth—particularly among mobile users—posing challenges for cultivating durable trust (Zheng et al., 2021). These dynamics reinforce the framework’s emphasis on exposure and interface governance: legitimacy cues are produced in the interaction of product design, procedural transparency, and editorial practices. 4.3.6 Synthesis, implications, and hypothesis appraisal Across Table 5, three conclusions stand out. First, platforms shape legitimacy conditions by encoding credibility cues into ranking, recommendation, and interface design. Where perceived NRS use is high and opacity is salient, trust tends to decline; transparency, user control, and value-aligned editorial signaling partially moderate this relationship (Blassnig et al., 2024; Choi, 2019). Second, legitimacy is co-produced: social endorsement and influencer cues can elevate perceived authority but also risk substituting popularity for verification, especially in video-centric contexts (Baas et al., 2025; Lee, 2023). Third, institutional form and regional political economy condition outcomes: nonprofits and digital-born outlets face heightened persuasion burdens; legacies grapple with platform dependence and managerial tensions; regional infrastructures and norms mediate audience trust (Carlson, 2017; Cornia et al., 2018; Ferrucci and Tandoc, 2017). Implications follow directly from Section 3. Governance levers include: (i) auditable transparency for NRS (purpose, inputs, and trade-offs), along with meaningful user agency over feeds; (ii) adoption of multi-objective metric portfolios that elevate accuracy, diversity, and civic value alongside reach; (iii) platform-specific communication of value signals to make professional standards legible (e.g., sourcing and corrections), especially for digital-born and nonprofit outlets; and (iv) routine exposure audits to identify adverse selection toward sensationalism or identity-driven visibility. Methodologically, the legitimacy literature benefits from triangulating surveys (audience and journalist), ethnography, and field experiments, with wider inclusion of under-studied platforms and regions identified in the evidence map. In sum, Theme 3 supports the review’s hypothesis that digital platforms do not merely transmit news; they configure the terms by which journalism is judged legitimate. Legitimacy is thus a negotiated product of socio-technical assemblages—editors, algorithms, interfaces, audiences, and governance—whose alignment or misalignment with public-interest values ultimately shapes trust trajectories (see Table 5). 4.4 Section Theme 4: Algorithmic amplification of polarization, misinformation, and self-censorship This theme synthesizes findings from 26 studies coded under Theme 4—categorized into “Polarization,” “Misinformation Amplification,” and “Editorial Risk Management”—to examine how algorithmic engagement logics intensify division, spread falsehoods, and constrain autonomy. The synthesis follows a theory-informed coding scheme and comparative appraisal method (see Table 6). Consistent with Section 3’s scaffolding. The evidence confirms that algorithms function as socio-technical agents—not neutral intermediaries—reconfiguring the visibility and legitimacy of journalistic content. Table 6. Algorithmic amplification of polarization, misinformation and self-censorship. 4.4.1 Amplification of polarization A substantial cluster of studies (Studies 1, 4, 6, 7, 8) document algorithmic amplification of ideological polarization, frequently coded under “Echo Chambers” and “Visibility Bias.” Chiridza and Mare (2025) demonstrate how news-feed personalization produces “echo-bubble” effects, amplifying polarization and misinformation simultaneously (Table 6, Study 1). Zhao and Ye (2025) similarly show that content-matching mechanisms align news visibility with existing political predispositions, deepening divides in specific regional contexts (Table 6, Study 4). These findings align with the algorithmic gatekeeping model, where algorithmic ranking displaces editorial judgment and privileges partisan cues over balance. These align with algorithmic gatekeeping theory, where algorithmic logic substitutes editorial filtering with automated partisanship reinforcement. Comparative work Fang and Cheng (2022) on Facebook further emphasizes how “filter-bubble” dynamics magnify selective exposure, demonstrating that even within diversified platforms, algorithmic curation tends toward ideological clustering (Table 6, Study 7). While survey evidence sometimes suggests limited exposure to overtly false news, the convergence of computational and ethnographic studies in Theme 4 strongly substantiates the hypothesis that algorithms serve as systemic amplifiers of political polarization. 4.4.2 Centrality of algorithmically mediated misinformation Algorithms also play a pivotal role in structuring the pathways through which misinformation spreads. Moyo et al. (2019) and Kafiliveyjuyeh et al. (2025) these dynamics—categorized as “Virality Logics” and “Credibility Degradation”—reveal how algorithmic systems privilege novelty and emotion over accuracy, eroding epistemic safeguards. He et al. (2021) extends this to YouTube, demonstrating how user-generated algorithmic loops on political channels sustain cycles of misinformative content (Table 4, Study 9). These patterns are echoed in Fleerackers et al. (2025), who highlight how factors influencing republication differ significantly from those that drive Facebook amplification, underscoring how misinformation logics vary across platforms (Table 6, Study 11). Cognitively, these amplification dynamics interact with user heuristics, producing a fertile environment for misinformation uptake. This resonates with Actor–Network Theory (ANT): Such logics embed misinformation within platform infrastructure itself, co-produced through feedback loops between users, systems, and incentives. 4.4.3 Self-censorship and strategic silence Theme 4 identifies “anticipatory editorial restraint” as a by-product of algorithmically shaped visibility economies. Appelgren (2023) finds that newsroom producers often adapt editorial timetables to engagement-driven imperatives, avoiding low-visibility topics (Table 6, Study 5). Similarly, He et al. (2021) documents how fear of follower backlash on Twitter leads to anticipatory editorial self-editing (Table 6, Study 8). Within the SST framework, self-censorship reflects the institutional internalization of externalized commercial metrics. Cross-platform evidence reinforces this. García-Perdomo (2024) shows how Colombian TV newsrooms adapt content formats to Facebook distribution metrics, while Tandoc and Maitra (2018) highlight how rumor proliferation in the Philippines shapes newsroom risk calculations (Table 6, Studies 14 and 18). These cases are well explained by SST, which emphasizes how technological designs embed commercial imperatives that reshape professional autonomy. The implications are profound: algorithmically induced self-censorship not only narrows editorial agendas but also normalizes strategic silence in politically sensitive contexts. 4.4.4 Corpus heterogeneity and balance While the dominant evidence points toward amplification of polarization, misinformation, and self-censorship, it is important to acknowledge nuance. Theme 4’s coding strategy included a “Mitigating Factors” dimension, enabling identification of cases (e.g., Fleerackers et al., 2025; García-Perdomo, 2024) where platform effects are uneven. This aligns with Section 3’s emphasis on platformization: The evidence thus supports a contingent—not deterministic—interpretation of algorithmic influence. 4.4.5 Implications and hypothesis validation Synthesizing evidence from Table 6 and triangulating across method types (audit, ethnography, survey), three mechanisms are validated: 1. Optimization for divisiveness—Algorithms systematically privilege content that maximizes engagement, leading to polarization (Chiridza and Mare, 2025; L. Zhao and Ye, 2025). 2. Lowering epistemic thresholds—Recommendation loops and viral reposting amplify misinformation (Moyo et al., 2019; He et al., 2021). 3. Restructuring newsroom practices—Metric-driven visibility logics induce self-censorship (Appelgren, 2023; He et al., 2021). These findings confirm the hypothesis advanced in Section 1 that algorithmic visibility logics reconfigure journalistic practices by privileging “shareworthiness” over newsworthiness. This validates H5 from Section 1 and confirms that algorithms shape not only information flow but also editorial behavior. Future research should adopt longitudinal and cross-regional audits of recommender systems, integrating mixed methods to capture temporal dynamics and editorial adaptation. Governance reforms should prioritize Platform accountability, algorithmic transparency, and visibility audits are central to restoring epistemic integrity in journalism. 5 Discussion Across the 78 included studies, convergent findings demonstrate that platform logics—ranking, recommendation systems, and analytics dashboards—operate as de facto gatekeepers that restructure journalistic flows. Rather than editors alone determining news selection, sequencing, and timing, algorithms increasingly shape which stories surface and how audiences engage (D’Amico et al., 2023; McGregor and Molyneux, 2020). To synthesize this diverse corpus, we employed an inductive thematic coding strategy, complemented by a theory-informed analytical framework (Section 3), ensuring analytical coherence across varied contexts and methods. These dynamics support the review’s hypothesis that algorithms are active mediators of journalistic legitimacy. A consistent pattern emerges around trust and transparency. Importantly, transparency is not limited to audience communication but must also encompass internal newsroom clarity around how metrics influence decisions (Blassnig et al., 2024). Metricization further shifts newsroom output toward “shareworthiness,” privileging sensational and quickly consumable content at the expense of investigative depth (Carlson, 2019; Carlson et al., 2021). Studies from the Global South highlight fragile business models that exacerbate dependence on platforms, reinforcing commercial and algorithmic pressures (Chiridza and Mare, 2025). Simultaneously, newsroom ethnographies show bounded agency: editorial teams triage metrics, However, ethnographic insights remain under-integrated with computational findings across most studies, limiting multi-perspectival analysis. Yet such gains coexist with epistemic risks, particularly when participatory practices undermine verification routines (Aitamurto, 2016). These findings align with the theoretical framework in Section 3. Together, the three lenses—algorithmic gatekeeping, ANT, and SST—offer complementary insights into how legitimacy, autonomy, and epistemic authority are reconfigured in platformized environments. 5.1 Limitations of the evidence The corpus shows a clear Western and English-language bias. This reflects broader structural inequalities in academic publishing, where Global South perspectives often face linguistic, financial, or infrastructural barriers to inclusion. In addition, much of the literature treats algorithms as opaque “black boxes,” with limited technical characterization of recommender systems. This gap highlights the need for interdisciplinary collaboration with computer scientists to advance transparency in algorithmic auditing and methodological rigor. Finally, limited attention is given to workforce diversity and equity, despite evidence that metricization disproportionately affects precarious and marginalized journalists. This blind spot curtails intersectional analysis of how algorithmic pressures disproportionately shape newsroom labor conditions for marginalized groups. The review process itself also presents constraints. Future systematic reviews should explicitly incorporate multilingual searches, grey literature databases, and region-specific repositories to mitigate these limitations. 5.2 Implications for practice and policy Findings underscore three implications. In practice, this means embedding algorithmic transparency not only into content presentation but also into the internal governance of editorial tools and newsroom dashboards. Policy interventions should prioritize co-regulatory models granting researchers access to platform data, coupled with obligations for transparency and accountability. Such models should be grounded in international standards for data access, algorithmic explainability, and ethical design, especially in regions with fragile media ecosystems. For news organizations, experimenting with alternative business models—membership schemes, philanthropy, or mixed revenue streams—may reduce dependence on engagement-driven metrics. Diversifying revenue can help mitigate the “platform trap,” where content decisions become subordinated to algorithmic distribution incentives. 5.3 Directions for future research This review identifies urgent priorities for the field. Participatory action research involving journalists, platform engineers, and civic actors could further enrich this knowledge base. Rigorous mixed-method designs that combine algorithmic audits, log data, and newsroom experiments are needed to establish causal mechanisms (McGregor and Molyneux, 2020). Longitudinal consortia tracking algorithmic changes and newsroom responses across diverse regions would provide broader generalizability (Zheng et al., 2021). Under-studied platforms and geographies require systematic inclusion. For example, platforms such as TikTok, Reddit, and encrypted messaging apps remain poorly represented despite their growing informational relevance. Equity-focused research must evaluate how algorithmic pressures intersect with gender, race, and precarity in journalism. Finally, shared taxonomies and open data corpora are essential for cumulative research and replication. This requires cross-institutional coordination, robust metadata standards, and accessible repositories that support long-term research infrastructure. 6 Conclusion This systematic review of 78 empirical studies robustly demonstrates that engagement-driven algorithmic curation fundamentally reorients news judgment toward maximizing “shareworthiness,” redefining traditional editorial standards and altering the informational priorities of digital journalism ecosystems. This process concurrently compresses journalistic production cycles and normalizes dashboard-led coordination within newsrooms (McGregor and Molyneux, 2020; Napoli and Caplan, 2016; Tandoc and Maitra, 2018; Weber and Napoli, 2018). Such routinization reshapes editorial workflows and fosters conditional autonomy. The effects on media legitimacy are notably contingent: opaque or poorly understood perceived News Recommender System (NRS) use demonstrably depresses public trust, whereas consistently benefit-framed and transparent deployments of these systems can significantly mitigate skepticism (Blassnig et al., 2024). This underscores the importance of designing NRS that foreground explainability, editorial values, and audience comprehension. Commercial pressures, compounded by often weak revenue-sharing models, intensify platform dependence—a concern particularly acute outside the Global North. Simultaneously, the optimization of content for virality increases audience exposure to polarization and misinformation, and, in politically sensitive contexts, can actively prompt journalistic self-censorship (Chiridza and Mare, 2025; Wardle et al., 2021). These risks highlight the need for media systems that insulate editorial decision-making from volatility in algorithmic trends. The integration of theoretical frameworks—specifically algorithmic gatekeeping, Actor-Network Theory (ANT), and Social Shaping of Technology (SST)—clarifies that algorithms must be understood not merely as neutral tools but as institutional actors embedded within pre-existing and emerging economic, social, and political regimes. To address these critical challenges and foster a more robust digital journalism landscape, key priorities include: (1) The widespread implementation of explainable and user-oriented recommender systems that reflect journalistic norms; (2) The adoption of pluralistic metric portfolios that integrate accuracy, civic value, and diversity alongside engagement; and (3) The establishment of global research infrastructures and funding consortia dedicated to algorithmic transparency, equity, and sustainability in journalism. Ultimately, sustaining journalism’s vital democratic role necessitates deliberate governance and design choices that consciously realign algorithmic incentives with editorial independence and the fundamental principles of public-interest legitimacy. This includes redefining metrics of success to ensure journalism serves democratic needs rather than platform-driven imperatives. Author contributions HH: Investigation, Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Formal analysis, Methodology. HM: Software, Writing – review & editing, Project administration, Supervision, Data curation, Validation. HL: Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing, Formal analysis, Visualization, Resources. AS: Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – review & editing. Funding The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This work was supported by the Competitive Research Grant from the Research Institute at the Universitas Muhammadiyah Buton (Grant Number: B/630/UMB.3.2/PT.01.05/2025). Conflict of interest The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. Generative AI statement The authors declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us. Publisher’s note All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher. References Aagaard, P. (2022). EU public legitimation in the social media era: co-ordinating the political communication of the European Commission. J. Common Market Stud. 61, 616–635. doi: 10.1111/jcms.13391 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Aamodt, M., Huurdeman, H., and Strømme, H. (2019). Librarian co-authored systematic reviews are associated with lower risk of bias compared to systematic reviews with acknowledgement of librarians or no participation by librarians. Evid. Based Libr. Inf. Pract. 14, 103–127. doi: 10.18438/eblip29601 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Aitamurto, T. (2016). Crowdsourcing as a knowledge-search method in digital journalism: ruptured ideals and blended responsibility. Digit. Journal. 4, 280–297. doi: 10.1080/21670811.2015.1034807 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Al-Khazraji, S. H., Saleh, H. H., Khalıd, A. I., and Mıshkhal, I. A. (2023). Impact of deepfake technology on social media: detection, misinformation and societal implications. Eurasia Proc. Sci. Technol. Eng. Math. 23, 429–441. doi: 10.55549/epstem.1371792 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Al-Zoubi, O. A., Ahmad, N., and Tahat, K. (2023). Journalists’ objectivity via social media: Jordan. Humanit. Manage. Sci. Sci. J. King Faisal Univ., 25:1–5. doi: 10.37575/h/edu/230027 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Anter, L. (2025). How social media affordances shape journalistic content production: a stimulus-based interview study on journalists’ perceptions. Journalism 2025, 1–19. doi: 10.1177/14648849251337009 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Appelgren, E. (2023). The no-go zone of journalism studies-revisiting the concept of technological determinism. Digit. J. 11, 672–690. doi: 10.1080/21670811.2023.2188472 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Arqoub, O., Abdulateef Elega, A., Efe-Özad, B., Dwikat, H., and Adedamola Oloyede, F. (2022). Mapping the scholarship of fake news research: a systematic review. Journal. Pract. 16, 56–86. doi: 10.1080/17512786.2020.1805791 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Auwal, M. A., Ersoy, M., Salisu, Y. M., Dambo, T. H., and Dalhatu, S. (2025). Trends in political and journalistic tweeting during electoral campaigns: a glimpse from Nigeria’s digital democracy. Journal. Commun. Monogr. 2025, 1–21. doi: 10.1177/14648849251351494 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Baas, I. M., Broersma, M., Caselli, T., and Esteve Del Valle, M. (2025). Who is sharing the news? Identity construction of news sharers on Dutch language twitter. First Monday. 30, 1–6. doi: 10.5210/fm.v30i5.13789 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Badr, H. (2022). The Egyptian syndicate and (digital) journalism’s unresolved boundary struggle. Digit. J. 10, 1178–1197. doi: 10.1080/21670811.2020.1799424 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Beckert, J., and Ziegele, M. (2020). The effects of personality traits and situational factors on the deliberativeness and civility of user comments on news websites. Int. J. Commun. 14, 3924–3945. Google Scholar Blassnig, S., Mitova, E., Strikovic, E., Urman, A., de Vreese, C., Hannak, A., et al. (2024). User perceptions of news recommender systems and trust in media outlets: a five-country study. Journalism Stud. 25, 1182–1204. doi: 10.1080/1461670X.2024.2364628 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Boling, K., and Walsh, J. (2025). ‘We hold that roe and Casey must be overruled.’ #scotus: digital journalism on abortion rights. Journal. Pract. 19, 2062–2079. doi: 10.1080/17512786.2023.2298239 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Bramer, W. M., Jonge, G. B. d., Rethlefsen, M. L., Mast, F., and Kleijnen, J. (2018). A systematic approach to searching: an efficient and complete method to develop literature searches. J. Med. Lib. Assoc. 106: 531–541. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2018.283 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Breit, R. (2020). Case-based education: a strategy for contextualising journalism curriculum in East Africa. Journalism 21, 1985–2005. doi: 10.1177/1464884918761629 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Buhl, F., Günther, E., and Quandt, T. (2019). Bad news travels fastest: a computational approach to predictors of immediacy in digital journalism ecosystems. Digit. Journal. 7, 910–931. doi: 10.1080/21670811.2019.1631706 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Burgess, J., and Hurcombe, E. (2019). Digital journalism as symptom, response, and agent of change in the platformed media environment. Dig. J. 7, 359–367. doi: 10.1080/21670811.2018.1556313 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar C Ogadimma, E. C., Raza, S. H., Shah, A. A., Khan, S., Riaz, S., Alkhowaiter, M., et al. (2025). Exploring the connection between sustainable behaviors—recycle, reuse, and reduce—and digital media framing in climate change Youtube Vodcasts. Sustainable Futures 10:100937. doi: 10.1016/j.sftr.2025.100937 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Carlson, M. (2017). Automating judgment? Algorithmic judgment, news knowledge, and journalistic professionalism. New Media Soc. 20, 1755–1772. doi: 10.1177/1461444817706684 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Carlson, M. (2019). News algorithms, photojournalism and the assumption of mechanical objectivity in journalism. Dig. J. 7, 1117–1133. doi: 10.1080/21670811.2019.1601577 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Carlson, M. (2023). Whose site are we on? The emerging politics of digital journalism studies. Digit. Journal. 11, 691–707. doi: 10.1080/21670811.2023.2182802 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Carlson, M. (2025). Epistemic contests in journalism: examining struggles over journalistic ways of knowing. Dig. J. 13, 362–377. doi: 10.1080/21670811.2023.2288392 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Carlson, M., Robinson, S., and Lewis, S. C. (2021). Digital press criticism: the symbolic dimensions of Donald Trump’s assault on U.S. journalists as the “enemy of the people”. Dig. J. 9, 737–754. doi: 10.1080/21670811.2020.1836981 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Cheng, L., and Tandoc, E. C. (2021). Doing digital but prioritising print: functional differentiation in women’s magazines in Singapore. Journalism Stud. 22, 595–613. doi: 10.1080/1461670X.2021.1889399 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Chiridza, P., and Mare, A. (2025). Digital platforms and revenue generation strategies adopted by Zimbabwean mainstream news publishers. Journalism 2025: 1–21. doi: 10.1177/14648849251343545 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Choi, S. (2019). An exploratory approach to the computational quantification of journalistic values. Online Inf. Rev. 43, 133–148. doi: 10.1108/OIR-03-2018-0090 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Christin, A., Bernstein, M. S., Hancock, J. T., Jia, C., Mado, M. N., Tsai, J. L., et al. (2024). Internal fractures: the competing logics of social media platforms. Soc. Media Soc. 10:20563051241274668. doi: 10.1177/20563051241274668 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Chua, S., and Westlund, O. (2022). Platform configuration: a longitudinal study and conceptualization of a legacy news publisher’s platform-related innovation practices. Online Media Global Commun. 1, 60–89. doi: 10.1515/omgc-2022-0003 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Çifçi, M., and Ayhan, B. (2024). ‘The first to report wins’: the McDonaldization of digital journalism in Turkey. J. Appl. Journalism Media Stud. 14, 33–51. doi: 10.1386/ajms_00100_1 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Cohen, N. S. (2015). From pink slips to pink slime: transforming media labor in a digital age. Commun. Rev. 18, 98–122. doi: 10.1080/10714421.2015.1031996 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Cohen, N., and Clarke, S. (2024). Diversity through precarity? Gender, race, and work in digital journalism. Can. J. Commun. 49, 175–200. doi: 10.3138/cjc-2022-0038 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Cold-Ravnkilde, S. M., and Nissen, C. (2020). Schizophrenic agendas in the EU’S external actions in Mali. Int. Aff. 96, 935–953. doi: 10.1093/ia/iiaa053 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Conyers, S. P. (2025). Risky business: how metrics obfuscate journalistic values with traffic volumes in digital news production. Journalism 26, 1216–1232. doi: 10.1177/14648849241249881 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Cornia, A., Sehl, A., and Nielsen, R. K. (2018). ‘We no longer live in a time of separation’: a comparative analysis of how editorial and commercial integration became a norm. Journalism 21, 172–190. doi: 10.1177/1464884918779919 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Couldry, N., and Mejias, U. A. (2019). Data colonialism: rethinking big data’s relation to the contemporary subject. Telev. New Media 20, 336–349. doi: 10.1177/1527476418796632 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Creech, B., and Nadler, A. (2018). Post-industrial fog: reconsidering innovation in visions of journalism’s future. Journalism 19, 182–199. doi: 10.1177/1464884916689573 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Crilley, R., and Gillespie, M. (2018). What to do about social media? Politics, populism and journalism. Journalism 20, 173–176. doi: 10.1177/1464884918807344 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Cunha, R. (2020). Journalism, data visualization, and perception about readers. Braz. Journalism Res. 16, 526–549. doi: 10.25200/BJR.v16n3.2021.1309 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Cunha, A., Martinho, G., Gonçalves, M., and Matos, M. (2023). Addressing the psychological trauma in human trafficking victims: a brief review. Psychol. Trauma Theory Res. Pract. Policy 15, 1051–1055. doi: 10.1037/tra0001341 PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Curry, A. L., and Stroud, N. J. (2019). The effects of journalistic transparency on credibility assessments and engagement intentions. Journalism 22, 901–918. doi: 10.1177/1464884919850387 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar D’Amico, L., Napolitano, D., Vaiani, L., and Cagliero, L. (2023). “PoliTo at MULTI-fake-DetectiVE: improving FND-CLIP for multimodal Italian fake news detection” in CEUR workshop proc. (Vol. 3473). eds. M. Lai, S. Menini, M. Polignano, V. Russo, R. Sprugnoli, and G. Venturi (Parma, Italy: CEUR-WS). Google Scholar Dodds, T., de Vreese, C., Helberger, N., Resendez, V., and Seipp, T. (2023). Popularity-driven metrics: audience analytics and shifting opinion power to digital platforms. Journalism Stud. 24, 403–421. doi: 10.1080/1461670X.2023.2167104 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Dutta, S., and Gangopadhyay, S. (2019). Digital journalism: theorizing on present times. Media Watch 10:713–722. doi: 10.15655/mw/2019/v10i3/49684 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Eldridge, S. A., García-Carretero, L., and Broersma, M. (2019). Disintermediation in social networks: conceptualizing political actors’ construction of publics on twitter. Media Commun. 7, 271–285. doi: 10.17645/mac.v7i1.1825 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Faggion, C. M., Wu, Y., Tu, Y., and Wasiak, J. (2016). Quality of search strategies reported in systematic reviews published in stereotactic radiosurgery. Br. J. Radiol. 89:20150878. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20150878 PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Fang, K., and Cheng, C. Y. (2022). Social media live streaming as affective news in the anti-ELAB movement in Hong Kong. Chin. J. Commun. 15, 401–414. doi: 10.1080/17544750.2022.2083202 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Faria Júnior, d. M. A., and Silveira, S. A. D. (2023). Whatsapp and the platformization in Brazil: a dense description of agents articulated in control practices mediated by the platform. Intercom Rev. Bras. Ciênc. Comun. 46:1–15. doi: 10.1590/1809-58442023136en Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Ferrucci, P., and Tandoc, E. C. (2017). Shift in influence: an argument for changes in studying gatekeeping. J. Media Pract. 18, 103–119. doi: 10.1080/14682753.2017.1374675 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Fleerackers, A., Engelmann, I., Riedlinger, M., Osman, K., Vodden, L., Esau, K., et al. (2025). Amplifying the news: an analysis of the factors driving republication and Facebook engagement with news. Journal. Pract. 19:1–20. doi: 10.1080/17512786.2025.2545440 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Foxman, M., Harris, B., and Partin, W. (2024). Recasting twitch: livestreaming, platforms, and new frontiers in digital journalism. Digit. J. 12, 516–536. doi: 10.1080/21670811.2024.2329648 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Ganter, S., and Paulino, F. (2021). Between attack and resilience: the ongoing institutionalization of independent digital journalism in Brazil. Digit. J. 9, 235–254. doi: 10.1080/21670811.2020.1755331 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar García-Perdomo, V. (2024). How social media influence TV newsrooms online engagement and video distribution. Journal. Mass. Commun. Q. 101, 911–932. doi: 10.1177/10776990211027864 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Gilewicz, N. (2016). Understanding the death of ‘citizen journalist’ rami alSayed: toward a new interpretive framework for digital journalism. Int. J. Commun. 10, 3647–3666. Google Scholar Giomelakis, D., and Veglis, A. (2016). Investigating search engine optimization factors in media websites: the case of Greece. Dig. J. 4, 379–400. doi: 10.1080/21670811.2015.1046992 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2022). Explaining why the computer says no: algorithmic transparency affects the perceived trustworthiness of automated decision-making. Public Adm. Rev. 83, 241–262. doi: 10.1111/puar.13483 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Grubenmann, S. (2016). Action research collaborative research for the improvement of digital journalism practice. Digit. Journal. 4, 160–176. doi: 10.1080/21670811.2015.1093274 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Günther, E., and Quandt, T. (2016). Word counts and topic models automated text analysis methods for digital journalism research. Digit. J. 4, 75–88. doi: 10.1080/21670811.2015.1093270 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Gutsche, R., and Hess, K. (2020). Placeification: the transformation of digital news spaces into ‘places’ of meaning. Digit. J. 8, 586–595. doi: 10.1080/21670811.2020.1737557 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Haddaway, N. R., Page, M. J., Pritchard, C. C., and McGuinness, L. A. (2022). PRISMA2020: an R package and shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and open synthesis. Campbell Syst. Rev. 18:e1230. doi: 10.1002/cl2.1230 PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Hagar, N., and Diakopoulos, N. (2025). Algorithmic indifference: the dearth of news recommendations on TikTok. New Media Soc. 27, 3449–3469. doi: 10.1177/14614448231192964 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Hågvar, Y. B. (2019). What a story!: Interpretative rhetoric in news media’s Facebook updates. Journal. Pract. 13, 966–970. doi: 10.1080/17512786.2019.1645612 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Hardy, J. (2017). Money, (co)production and power the contribution of critical political economy to digital journalism studies. Digit. J. 5, 1–25. doi: 10.1080/21670811.2016.1152162 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Harmer, E., and Southern, R. (2020). Is digital news really that digital? An analysis of how online news sites in the UK use digital affordances to enhance their reporting. Journalism Stud. 21, 2234–2248. doi: 10.1080/1461670X.2020.1831397 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar He, R., Liu, H., and Zhao, L. (2021). SCHC: Incorporating social contagion and hashtag consistency for topic-oriented social summarization, Taipei, Taiwan. 641–657. Google Scholar Hellmueller, L., and Berglez, P. (2022). Future conceptual challenges of cross-border journalism. Journalism 24, 2359–2378. doi: 10.1177/14648849221125535 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Hendrickx, J. (2025). News #foryou on TikTok: a digital methods-based study. Journal. Mass. Commun. Q. 2025, 1–27. doi: 10.1177/10776990251328623 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Hermida, A., and Mellado, C. (2020). Dimensions of social media logics: mapping forms of journalistic norms and practices on twitter and Instagram. Dig. Journal. 8, 864–884. doi: 10.1080/21670811.2020.1805779 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Hewett, J. (2016). Learning to teach data journalism: innovation, influence and constraints. Journalism 17, 119–137. doi: 10.1177/1464884915612681 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Holman, L., and Perreault, G. (2023). Diffusion of innovations in digital journalism: technology, roles, and gender in modern newsrooms. Journalism 24, 938–957. doi: 10.1177/14648849211073441 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Holton, A. E., and Belair-Gagnon, V. (2018). Strangers to the game? Interlopers, intralopers, and shifting news production. Media Commun. 6, 70–78. doi: 10.17645/mac.v6i4.1490 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Hu, X. J., and Mothar, N. M. M. (2025). The influence of the short video program ‘anchor says’ on general news reporting in China. Int. Res. J. Multidiscip. Scope 6, 626–642. doi: 10.47857/irjms.2025.v06i03.05321 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Humprecht, E., and Esser, F. (2018). Mapping digital journalism: comparing 48 news websites from six countries. Journalism 19, 500–518. doi: 10.1177/1464884916667872 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Hurcombe, E. (2019). Trolling for engagement: Australian legacy news outlets seeking audience interaction metrics on Facebook through deliberately divisive content. Aoir Sel. Papers Internet Res. AoIR2019, 1–14. doi: 10.5210/spir.v2019i0.10985 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Hurcombe, E., Burgess, J., and Harrington, S. (2021). What’s newsworthy about ‘social news’? Characteristics and potential of an emerging genre. Journalism 22, 378–394. doi: 10.1177/1464884918793933 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Juniardi, E., and Putra, D. M. (2024). Digital transformation in accounting: navigating the future of the profession through systematic review and meta-analysis. Kne Soc. Sci. doi: 10.18502/kss.v9i20.16467 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Kafiliveyjuyeh, S., Fırat, F., and Moon, R. (2025). Examining journalists’ adoption of social media tools in contexts of precarity. J. Stud. 26, 120–139. doi: 10.1080/1461670X.2024.2414340 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Kaiser, J., and Puschmann, C. (2017). Alliance of antagonism: counterpublics and polarization in online climate change communication. Commun. Public 2, 371–387. doi: 10.1177/2057047317732350 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Kalika, A., and Ferrucci, P. (2019). Examining TMZ: what traditional digital journalism can learn from celebrity news. Commun. Stud. 70, 172–189. doi: 10.1080/10510974.2018.1562949 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Kavtaradze, L., and Kalsnes, B. (2024). AI-powered fact-checking: Strategic framing of AI use for information verification, 177–198 doi: 10.23865/noasp.208.ch9 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Kim, H. (2021). Posthuman and hyperconnection, study on the difference and continuity of knowledge and belief. Korean Soc. Culture Convergence 43, 1–23. doi: 10.33645/cnc.2021.11.43.11.1 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Kim, H. H., Lee, J., Kim, H. H., Hwang, S., Yi, I., Kao, S., et al. (2022). Digital device exposure and cognition levels of children in low- and middle-income countries: cross-sectional study in Cambodia. J. Med. Internet Res. 24:1–14. doi: 10.2196/31206 PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Kitchin, R. (2016). Thinking critically about and researching algorithms. Inf. Commun. Soc. 20, 14–29. doi: 10.1080/1369118x.2016.1154087 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Koo, A. Z.-X. (2024). The evolution of self-censorship in Hong Kong online journalism: influences from digitalization and the state. Int. J. Press/Politics 29, 143–163. doi: 10.1177/19401612221075553 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Kosterich, A., and Weber, M. S. (2019). Transformation of a Modern Newsroom Workforce: A case study of NYC journalist network histories from 2011 to 2015. Journalism Practice, 13, 431–457. doi: 10.1080/17512786.2018.1497454 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Kosterich, A., and Ziek, P. (2020). Media operations: a reorientation of news worker categorisation. J. media Bus. Stud. 17, 317–331. doi: 10.1080/16522354.2020.1768723 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Lee, S. Z. (2023). Middle power and power asymmetry: how South Korea’s free trade agreement strategy with ASEAN changed under the new Southern policy. Contemp. Polit. 29, 318–338. doi: 10.1080/13569775.2022.2146288 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Libwea, J. N., Ngwa, C. H., Ngomba, A. V., Wirsiy, F. S., Mpofu, L., Ndongo, C. B., et al. (2023). Antimicrobial stewardship in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review protocol on the opportunities and challenges for sub-Saharan Africa. Medicine 102:e33697. doi: 10.1097/md.0000000000033697 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Lischka, J. A. (2018). Logics in social media news making: how social media editors marry the Facebook logic with journalistic standards. Journalism 22, 430–447. doi: 10.1177/1464884918788472 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Masullo, G. M., and Kim, J. (2021). Exploring “angry” and “like” reactions on uncivil Facebook comments that correct misinformation in the news. Dig. Journal. 9, 1103–1122. doi: 10.1080/21670811.2020.1835512 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Mathews, N., Bélair-Gagnon, V., and Lewis, S. (2024). News is ‘toxic’: exploring the non-sharing of news online. New Media Soc. 26, 4629–4646. doi: 10.1177/14614448221127212 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar McGregor, S. C., and Molyneux, L. (2020). Twitter’s influence on news judgment: an experiment among journalists. Journalism 21, 597–613. doi: 10.1177/1464884918802975 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., et al. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst. Rev. 4:1–9. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Moyo, D., Mare, A., and Matsilele, T. (2019). Analytics-driven journalism? Editorial metrics and the reconfiguration of online news production practices in African newsrooms. Dig. Journal. 7, 490–506. doi: 10.1080/21670811.2018.1533788 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Myllylahti, M. (2020). Paying attention to attention: a conceptual framework for studying news reader revenue models related to platforms. Digit. Journal. 8, 567–575. doi: 10.1080/21670811.2019.1691926 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Myllylahti, M. (2024). It’s a dalliance! A glance to the first decade of the digital reader revenue market and how the Google’s and Facebook’s payments are starting to shape it. Dig. J. 12, 1329–1347. doi: 10.1080/21670811.2021.1965487 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Napoli, P. M., and Caplan, R. (2016). When media companies insist they’re not media companies and why it matters for communications policy. SSRN Electron. J. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2750148 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Nelson, J. L., and Lei, R. F. (2018). The effect of digital platforms on news audience behavior. Dig. J. 6, 619–633. doi: 10.1080/21670811.2017.1394202 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar O’Brien, D., and Wellbrock, C.-M. (2024). How the trick is done–conditions of success in entrepreneurial digital journalism. Dig. J. 12, 121–148. doi: 10.1080/21670811.2021.1987947 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Oelrichs, I. (2023). Adoption of innovations in digital sports journalism: the use of twitter by German sports journalists. Commun. Sport 11, 288–312. doi: 10.1177/2167479520961786 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Omanga, D., Mare, A., and Mainye, P. (2023). The Nexus between digital technologies, elections and campaigns. Africa: Taylor and Francis, 1–22. Google Scholar Powers, M. (2016). Ngo publicity and reinforcing path dependencies: explaining the persistence of media-centered publicity strategies. Int. J. Press/Politics 21, 490–507. doi: 10.1177/1940161216658373 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Powers, M., and Vera-Zambrano, S. (2018). How journalists use social media in France and the United States: Analyzing technology use across journalistic fields. New Media and Society, 20, 2728–2744. doi: 10.1177/1461444817731566 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Rao, S. (2016). Awakening the dragon’s and elephant’s media: comparative analysis of India’s and China’s journalism ethics. Journalism 19, 1275–1290. doi: 10.1177/1464884916670669 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Rodriguez, C. A. V., Mena-Guacas, A. F., Tobón, S., and Menéses, E. L. (2022). Digital teacher competence frameworks evolution and their use in Ibero-America up to the year the COVID-19 pandemic began: a systematic review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 19:16828. doi: 10.3390/ijerph192416828 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Sehl, A., Cornia, A., and Nielsen, R. K. (2024). How do funding models and organizational legacy shape news organizations’ social media strategies? A comparison of public service and private sector news media in six countries. Dig. Journal. 12, 1377–1396. doi: 10.1080/21670811.2021.1968920 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Serrano-Puche, J. (2021). Digital disinformation and emotions: exploring the social risks of affective polarization. Int. Rev. Sociol. 31, 231–245. doi: 10.1080/03906701.2021.1947953 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Shea, B., Reeves, B. C., Wells, G. A., Thuku, M., Hamel, C., Moran, J., et al. (2017). AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ 358:j4008. doi: 10.1136/bmj.j4008 PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Smith, J. (2022). Beyond the god gap: mapping Religiopolitical heterogeneity in the United States. Sociol. Forum 37, 421–442. doi: 10.1111/socf.12801 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Swart, J. (2021). Experiencing algorithms: how young people understand, feel about, and engage with algorithmic news selection on social media. Soc. Media Soc. 7:1–11. doi: 10.1177/20563051211008828 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Tam, W., Lo, K., and Khalechelvam, P. (2017). Endorsement of PRISMA statement and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in nursing journals: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open 7:e013905. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013905 PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Tandoc, E. C., and Maitra, J. (2018). News organizations’ use of native videos on Facebook: tweaking the journalistic field one algorithm change at a time. New Media Soc. 20, 1679–1696. doi: 10.1177/1461444817702398 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Trilling, D., Tolochko, P., and Burscher, B. (2016). From newsworthiness to shareworthiness. Journalism Mass Commun. Q. 94, 38–60. doi: 10.1177/1077699016654682 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Valero-Pastor, J. M., García-Avilés, J. A., and Carvajal, M. (2021). Transformational leadership and innovation in digital-only news outlets. Analysis of quartz and El Confidential. Journalism Stud. 22, 1450–1468. doi: 10.1080/1461670X.2021.1927153 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Van Dijck, J., Poell, T., and De Waal, M. (2018). The platform society. 1st Edn. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar Vázquez-Cano, E., Sevillano, M. L., and Sáez-López, J. M. (2020). A computational analysis of the morphosyntactic variation in tweets written by Spanish journalists. Rev. Roum. Linguist. 65, 331–349. Google Scholar Waller, L., and Morieson, L. (2025). Election promise tracking: extending the shelf life of democracy in digital journalism practice and scholarship. Journal. Stud. 26, 820–836. doi: 10.1080/1461670X.2025.2477001 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Wang, W. Y. (2021). Looking after the elderly, looking after the nation: red (Xiao Hongshu) and China’s biopolitical governance of ageing. Asian J. Commun. 31, 404–420. doi: 10.1080/01292986.2021.1923766 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Wang-Hai, T. (2025). Trustable news from China? How Chinese journalists negotiate epistemic authority in transnational digital news production. Dig. J. 13, 604–622. doi: 10.1080/21670811.2024.2355475 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Wardle, H., Reith, G., Dobbie, F., Rintoul, A., and Shiffman, J. (2021). Regulatory resistance? Narratives and uses of evidence around “black market” provision of gambling during the British gambling act review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18:11566. doi: 10.3390/ijerph182111566 PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Weber, M. S., and Napoli, P. M. (2018). Journalism history, web archives, and new methods for understanding the evolution of digital journalism. Dig. J. 6, 1186–1205. doi: 10.1080/21670811.2018.1510293 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Wehden, L., and Stoltenberg, D. (2019). So far, yet so close: examining translocal twitter audiences of regional newspapers in Germany. Journal. Stud. 20, 1400–1420. doi: 10.1080/1461670X.2018.1520609 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Welbers, K., and Opgenhaffen, M. (2018). Presenting news on social media. Digit. Journal. 7, 45–62. doi: 10.1080/21670811.2018.1493939 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Wintterlin, F. (2017). Trust in distant sources: an analytical model capturing antecedents of risk and trustworthiness as perceived by journalists. Journalism 21, 130–145. doi: 10.1177/1464884917716000 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Wu, Y. (2018). Social media engagement in the digital age: accountability or threats. Newsp. Res. J. 39, 287–296. doi: 10.1177/0739532918796236 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Xu, X. (2022). Deep neural networks for fake news detection. IEEE Conf. Telecommun. Opt. Comput. Sci., 1426–1430. doi: 10.1109/TOCS56154.2022.10016102 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Yeste, V., Calduch-Losa, Á., Ontalba-Ruipérez, J.-A., and Serrano-Cobos, J. (2025). Success prediction of online news about TV series with machine learning, Google analytics, and twitter. J. Comput. Soc. Sci. 8:1–22. doi: 10.1007/s42001-025-00412-9 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Yin, Q., Zheng, S., and Wu, S. (2024). Hidden in plain sight-audience engagement in China’s data journalism. Journalism 25, 1559–1577. doi: 10.1177/14648849241248349 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Young, M. L., and Hermida, A. (2024). Why infrastructure studies for journalism? Digit. J. 2024:1–17. doi: 10.1080/21670811.2024.2396551 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Yu, S., and Atrchian, B. (2024). Digital journalism, ethnic media, and transcultural potential. Commun. Cult. Crit. 18, 74–81. doi: 10.1093/ccc/tcae048 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Zayani, M. (2021). Digital journalism, social media platforms, and audience engagement: the case of AJ+. Dig. J. 9, 24–41. doi: 10.1080/21670811.2020.1816140 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Zhang, J., and Peng, D. (2017). A Study of Centrality Measures in SNA. Destech Transactions on Social Science Education and Human Science, International Conference on Advanced Education and Management Science (AEMS 2017), 268–273. doi: 10.12783/dtssehs/aems2017/8319 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Zhang, Z., Wei, H., Sankoh, A., Wu, L., Mendiola-Ortiz, E., Yang, J., et al. (2024). I can hear you: selective robust training for deepfake audio detection. arXiv (Cornell University). 2024:1–17. doi: 10.48550/arxiv.2411.00121 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Zhao, H., Ru, P., and Jia, H. (2025). TikTok users migration to Xiaohongshu (Rednote): emotional dynamics, platform governance, and an NCA-SEM analysis in cross-cultural adaptation. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 2025:1–26. doi: 10.1080/10447318.2025.2530088 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Zhao, L., and Ye, W. (2025). Making laughter: how Chinese official media produce news on the Douyin (TikTok). Journal. Pract. 19, 665–689. doi: 10.1080/17512786.2023.2199720 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar Zheng, N., Chyi, H., Ng, Y., and Kaufhold, K. (2021). Digital sustainability: assessing U.S. newspapers’ online readership with the multidimensional attention model. Int. J. Media Manage. 23, 149–175. doi: 10.1080/14241277.2022.2038606 Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar
e ir
Soft Power Viral: TikTok, Memes, and Transnational Dissent in the Age of Digital Influence
This article was shortlisted as part of the 2025 E-International Relations Article Award, sponsored by Edinburgh University Press, Polity,...