Half of U.S. teens think journalists make up quotes and do favors for sources, new report finds

Listen to the audio

Available now on:

Click to Download the
Complete Audio Transcript

Newsrooms have spent years grappling with declining trust, but the latest national study from the News Literacy Project (NLP) suggests the crisis may be deeper — and younger — than anyone imagined. According to Peter Adams, NLP’s senior vice president of research and design, 84% of American teens now describe news media negatively. For Adams, the figure was both alarming and expected. He explained that while he was “disheartened and upset” to see such stark results, he was “not surprised” because many young people “don’t always understand how newsrooms do and don’t operate, and what sets them apart from everyone else.”

The NLP study, titled “Biased, Boring and Bad,” attempts to look beyond broad trust surveys and into how teens form their perceptions of journalism. Adams said the goal was to “get inside some of that data about trust, to understand what’s going on and what’s driving that trust,” and the findings reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of how journalism works at its most basic level.

Skepticism versus cynicism

Access the 2025 Report

Educators have long encouraged students to be skeptical of what they see online, but Adams said the real danger is when skepticism hardens into cynicism. When talking with teens, NLP found that “they tend to view journalism just like any other kind of content,” believing reporters are no more credible or impartial than influencers or anonymous posters. Adams warned that “cynicism points at the idea that all content creators have some sort of secret agenda,” a mindset that “can cause students to be vulnerable to low-quality information sources, conspiratorial sites, [and] extremist rhetoric.” The problem is not simply a lack of trust — it’s a lack of differentiation. Teens are not distinguishing between verified reporting and random online claims, and Adams believes that puts them at direct risk of manipulation.

A stunning misunderstanding of journalistic ethics

One of the most startling findings is that half of teens believe journalists fabricate quotes frequently. Adams described the misconception bluntly: “It’s actually a little bit worse than that… half of them think that journalists make up quotes always, almost always, or often.” He emphasized that while ethical breaches occur, they are “extraordinarily rare,” and when they do happen, “it is certainly job ending and usually career ending.” Yet teens believe otherwise.

NLP tested students’ assumptions by presenting eight common newsroom actions — four ethical and four unethical — and asking how often they believed journalists engaged in them. The results revealed a reversed moral universe. Actions that define journalism, such as “gathering information from multiple sources” or “confirming facts before reporting,” were seen by only about a quarter of teens as routine journalistic practice. Meanwhile, actions such as “giving advertisers special treatment,” “paying sources,” or “making up details such as quotes” were widely assumed to be commonplace. For Adams, the conclusion is clear: while some distrust is earned, “there is a significant portion of it… driven by misperceptions about the way newsrooms operate and how they do what they do.”

Teens recognize Spider-Man before they recognize real journalists

One telling detail in the report highlights how invisible journalists have become to many young people. When asked to name a journalist, most teens struggled. Among those who could, “the ones who did thought of either Spider-Man or Anchorman Ron Burgundy.” Although entertainment portrayals did not appear to be the primary driver of mistrust, Adams said the “ambient effect of negativity and lack of ethics kind of sticks,” especially when combined with the rhetoric in today’s political climate.

This disconnect mirrors what many local publishers experience anecdotally: teens are consuming enormous amounts of information without connecting it to a news source — let alone a local newsroom. Adams noted that this generation grew up with “suggestion algorithms” shaping what they see, making it “hard for an entity like a local paper to break through with young people,” even harder than it was before TikTok and Instagram captured their attention.

Journalism transparency isn’t reaching young audiences

The report also underscores a practical challenge: news organizations are doing little to explain what they do and why. Adams pointed out that teens drastically underestimate how often newsrooms correct errors, even though “virtually any credible news source is going to correct an error of fact when they happen.” When only about 29% of teens believe journalists rely on multiple sources, Adams argues the industry must rethink how it communicates the rigor of its work. Publishers must “show how journalism works,” he said, because “teens are left vulnerable to just a hodgepodge of information that plays on their biases, if they cannot distinguish standards-based reporting from everything else in their feeds.”

News literacy as a civic competency — not just a media skill

Access the 2024 Report

One of the most important ideas in Adams’ interview is NLP’s insistence that news literacy is not merely an educational add-on — it is foundational to democratic participation. He explained that young people must grasp “the role that standards-based verified information… plays in their lives and in the larger information ecosystem,” because “all the decisions they make, the opinions they form and the actions they take are based on some information.” Without tools to judge credibility, students “are left vulnerable” to emotional manipulation and identity-based misinformation campaigns.

Adams stressed that understanding information is a civic competency because the consequences extend beyond the individual. Even if one person stays informed, “people in their community who are being targeted by low-quality information sites or bad actors can have an effect on them as well.” That interconnectedness is why Adams believes news literacy must be taught systematically and assertively.

Reasons for hope — if the education system responds

Despite the troubling data, Adams remains optimistic. He said there is “strong evidence” that media literacy education not only works but is wanted: “94% of teens said they think media literacy should be part of their educations.” Even a single lesson “is associated with more active news habits” and “higher levels of trust.” In fact, lack of exposure is linked to a passive “news finds me” mindset that undermines civic awareness.

Adams believes newsrooms have a critical role to play in supporting this education. Their involvement can strengthen public understanding of journalism’s watchdog role and accountability processes. If done well, he argues, “we can make a significant increase in students’ understanding and appreciation of the watchdog role, their understanding of what comprises credibility, their ability to evaluate evidence, and other key skills.”

As misinformation accelerates in the generative AI era, Adams sees news literacy not as optional but essential: “This is really something that we owe to this generation of students.”

Rebuilding trust by rebuilding understanding

In the end, the study paints a sobering picture of how today’s teens view journalism — and how little they understand it. But Adams believes the solution lies not in retreat but in more active engagement. He argued that news organizations must continue “to engage in self-reflection… and to be really clear-eyed about how the public perceives the work.” At the same time, they must answer misinformation about journalism itself, refusing to “ignore it as noise in the background.”

If trust is to be restored, Adams suggests it must be taught — deliberately, transparently, and repeatedly. And that teaching must begin long before young people become voters, subscribers, or news avoiders. The future of journalism may depend on whether this generation learns what journalism is in the first place.