Michelle A. Amazeen

The media world faced big challenges in 2025. Social media platforms like Meta cut back on independent fact-checking, citing concerns about free speech. Yet, polls show most Americans across political lines want information verified, especially on health topics.

 

At the same time, misinformation spreads quickly, political divisions grow deeper, and new technology like AI-generated deepfakes makes it harder to tell what's true. These changes have created what I call content confusion—a flood of information mixed with misleading or false messages that makes trusting what we read difficult.

 

The problem isn't just that there's too much information. It's also about growing distrust caused by how news is made and funded. Many news organizations now produce sponsored or advertorial-style content that looks like news but is actually marketing. Some even use journalists to create this content, which can contradict their own reporting. This blurs the line between news and ads, leading to confusion and lost trust.

 

Adding to these problems, a few corporations or wealthy owners control many news outlets. This limits the variety of voices and perspectives in the media and can put pressure on newsrooms to avoid tough stories. These economic and political forces make it harder for legacy news sources to fight misinformation and provide reliable facts.

 

Why 2026 Matters

 

Despite these obstacles, Americans clearly want trustworthy and accurate news. Polls show strong support for fact-checking and protections against AI-driven fake videos and audio. Many people are even willing to donate money to support these efforts, showing there is real public interest in good journalism.

 

Communication research plays a vital role here: it helps us understand how misinformation spreads, which fact-checking and labeling approaches work, and how people evaluate sources. Insights from research can guide newsroom practices and public policy—helping news organizations target interventions, design clearer disclosures, and measure what actually rebuilds trust.

 

Legacy news organizations have experienced journalists trained to check facts and follow ethics, which new social media platforms often lack. But many newsrooms struggle with balancing commercial interests and editorial fairness. They also face pressure from falling budgets and fast-changing technology.

 

If these newsrooms want to meet the moment in 2026, they need to make real changes. First, they must clearly separate paid promotional content from news articles to avoid confusing readers. They should also support efforts—both within their organizations and through industry and public policies—that foster a diversity of fact-based viewpoints and ownership structures, helping ensure communities receive independent, credible news.

 

Technology is both a risk and a tool. While AI can spread falsehoods, it can also help newsrooms verify information if used carefully and openly. Partnerships among newsrooms, communication researchers, educators, nonprofits, and technology experts will be critical for developing effective strategies to combat misinformation and strengthen public trust in the media.

 

Engaging Younger Readers

 

Much depends on connecting with younger people, who often get news through social media or influencer content. Many young Americans feel disconnected or discouraged by today's divided media world. But history shows that young people have always played a key role in bringing social change.

 

Legacy media can play a supportive role in advancing media literacy by creating accessible educational content and partnering with schools and community groups. Communication research can help tailor these initiatives to be more effective, showing what kinds of lessons, formats, and partnerships actually improve critical evaluation skills. Such efforts help equip younger generations to spot misinformation and think critically about sources, preparing them to be informed, responsible citizens.

 

Supporting Local and Independent Journalism

 

Strong journalism needs new funding ideas. Public money for local and independent news, limits on media monopolies, and ongoing support for fact-checking all help build a healthier information environment.

 

Some states like New Jersey and Pennsylvania already fund local news in innovative ways. Others should follow. Recent budget cuts and the shrinking of public media funding make this even more urgent. Public investment ensures that communities get reliable information without too much influence from advertisers or political groups.

 

Why It Matters to You

 

Trustworthy news is not just a luxury. It affects your daily life—from health decisions to voting choices, to understanding important local and national issues. When we can rely on accurate information, we can better participate in decisions that shape our communities and country.

 

If confusion and misleading content keep growing unchecked, it weakens our ability to understand the world and work together. But if news organizations renew their commitment to truth and fairness – and collaborate with researchers, technologists, and educators – they can help rebuild trust and strengthen democracy.

 

A Time for Leadership

 

The challenge is big. It requires courage from news leaders, innovation in funding and technology, and a willingness to engage with all communities. Legacy media must step up this year to show they remain the trusted source for facts and fair reporting.

 

As we move through 2026, rebuilding a media system that serves everyone is urgent and possible. In a world that can feel noisy and confusing, strong journalism – guided by evidence from communication research – is a foundation we all need.

 

 

 

As the world wrestles with an accelerating climate crisis, hope rests on collective action from governments, corporations, and citizens. Yet the conclusion of COP30 produced an agreement largely seen as "incremental at best" and far less than what the planet urgently needs. One climate reporter called the final agreement "a document that shows no commitment whatsoever to truth," highlighting the growing disconnect between political rhetoric and reality.

 

In this climate of skepticism, public trust in corporate environmental promises is plummeting. The latest Media & Technology Survey from Boston University's College of Communication found that only 48% of Americans today believe corporate initiatives will truly make a difference on climate change, down sharply from 60% in 2022, a statistically significant drop. Even more damning, 57% agree that "corporate promises to address climate change are mostly empty promises," while only 9% disagree.

 

The public is becoming more aware of the disconnect — often called the "credibility gap" — between corporations' public claims about their sustainability efforts and their actual practices. While companies loudly promote green initiatives, most of their investments still fund environmentally harmful activities. This gap between words and actions undermines trust and underscores the urgent need for greater transparency and accountability in corporate environmental claims.

 

This widening credibility gap stems not only from corporate inaction but also from how content from these companies is handled by leading news media, institutions supposedly dedicated to truth and public enlightenment. Yet, many prestigious outlets blur the lines between editorial reporting and sponsored advertising, a practice known as native advertising, which often serves corporate interests more than the public's.

 

As I chronicle in my latest book, Content Confusion, in May 2023, the New York Times publicly called out Google for pledging to defund climate disinformation while YouTube continued serving ads funding climate lies. Yet the Times itself engaged in a similar duality: producing and hosting native advertising campaigns for ExxonMobil that promote "green" initiatives while distracting from or obscuring the fossil fuel giant's broader environmental harm.

In reporting on the 2022 US House Oversight hearings on fossil fuel companies misleading the public about climate change, a Times article noted ExxonMobil's algae biofuel ad campaign created by BBDO Worldwide and published in the New York Times. However, it omitted that the Times' own T Brand Studio produced a closely related native advertising campaign promoting algae-based fuels. This campaign, now part of a Massachusetts Attorney General lawsuit alleging false advertising, remains live on the Times' website-even though ExxonMobil ended its algae biofuel efforts in late 2022.

 

The Times was paid $5 million to produce this 2018 campaign, which was driven by the client's belief that public perceptions had been distorted by a "volatile news cycle" that misrepresented ExxonMobil's climate commitments. The campaign intentionally leveraged the Times' trusted voice–a "Timesian" tone–to reach audiences, making the ads feel like part of the publication's editorial content.

 

This represents a fundamental breach of journalistic integrity. When a news organization creates and amplifies branded content to compete against its own news coverage, it becomes complicit in muddying public understanding of critical issues. The very platform meant to reveal truth instead facilitates "content confusion" — the blurring of news and promotional messaging that obscures reality.

 

The New York Times is far from unique. The Washington Post's WP Creative Studio has produced many climate-related native advertising campaigns for fossil fuel and petrochemical interests, as have Bloomberg, The Economist, the Financial Times, Politico, Reuters, the Wall Street Journal and other leading news outlets. Several of these campaigns have been implicated in lawsuits alleging deceptive advertising practices.

 

Such practices indicate how once-clear editorial boundaries have eroded in today's market-driven media landscape, opening doors for corporate actors to insert themselves into the flow of "trusted" information. In a time when rapid, reliable information is paramount, this commercial influence contributes to a broader disinformation epidemic.

 

With the public growing increasingly cynical about corporate climate commitments, journalists and news organizations must choose sides unequivocally. The false equivalence created by mixing advertising and editorial content betrays the societal role of the press and jeopardizes democratic discourse. Disclosures alone cannot mitigate the risk when sponsored content is crafted to emulate unbiased news and exploit institutional credibility.

 

As the fragile COP30 deal shows, our climate challenges are immense. If media organizations continue allowing their platforms to be used for greenwashing and corporate doublespeak, they not only fail their ethical obligations, but they also impair the public's ability to discern fact from fiction in a crisis where truth is critical.

 

Until clear, enforceable separation between advertising and editorial content is restored, readers and policymakers must navigate a landscape of "Content Confusion," where the line between genuine news and corporate spin becomes increasingly invisible, and where democracy and climate action suffer as a result.