A look into the changing consumption of news, and believability
It’s not a new statement to say we’ve shifted the way we consume or engage with news. However, it’s often forgotten that this shift isn’t occurring at a ‘moment in time’, it continues. While whether we click, scroll or turn a page, how we choose to consume our media is also more interesting when considering how this changes the behaviors or trust surrounding this activity.
‘When we are no longer able to change a situation- we are challenged to change ourselves ‘– Viktor E. Frankl
Much like the saying ‘you are what you read’, is our chosen method of consumption a reflection of our identity and which does our level trust in what we read, depend on the format.
While it may be easy to image an older generation still pouring over the news within a double page spread, every generation is playing its part in this shift. Looking at Australia specifically, the younger generation is still driving the most change but is this perhaps only a result of never relying on ‘one’ channel for news.
We look into how the landscape has changed, and what else can be unearthed.
Key findings in the shift of the media landscape
The growth of stories format and the shift to online videos, audios, images and live streams
Digital rival’s TV for news consumption
Social media has replaced ‘serious news’ with the trending, the viral and the buzzworthy
The news cycle is now 24/7
There has been a significant increase in fake news and a shift in the amount of trust people have in news
Australians get their news from the following sources:
Facebook 41%
FB Messenger 11%
WhatsApp 10%
Instagram 9%
Snapchat 5%
6 out of 10 New Zealanders read news content online and audiences spend almost 3 hours per watching broadcast TV
Trending news
With unlimited access to news and a 24/7 news cycle, people have to find a way to process the information. News happens instantaneously now and what happens today is often forgotten tomorrow. In the world of social media, most scroll through their newsfeed and only stop to look at topics and buzzworthy or trending stories that are relevant to their current situation. Not only that, watching short video clips that provide main headlines and brief conclusions are on the rise.
Fake news
A recent study conducted by the News and Media Research Centre revealed that 73% of Australian news consumers have experience a range of fake news including:
Poor journalism (40%).
Politically or commercially fabricated news (25%)
Stories pushing a political agenda (38%);
Advertorial (33%);
Satire (25%); and
The use of the term ‘fake news’ to discredit the media (37%)
Those who mainly use online news as their news source were more susceptible to encountering fake news compared to print and TV and as a result, their trust in the news has diminished.
The number of stories labelled ‘fake news’ seems to be increasing almost as quickly as our concern about it. The term has been used for everything from hoaxes and satire, to contentious articles, and genuinely false information. After a data search was conducted for the number of fake news mentions across broadcast, press and online across ANZ, it was discovered Australia had a significantly higher mention rate over a 6-month period in comparison to New Zealand especially across broadcast. Over November, December and January we saw a large spike in fake news mentions across the ANZ region, especially across online – this could be as a result of Facebook being in the spotlight around fake news stories on their platform and several inquests happening during this time.
With this data it can be assumed that with so much fake news being reported, our trust in news will be affected.
Trust in news
‘Trust in the news is up — but there’s still only a 50-50 chance you’ll trust me on that’, ABC News Online
The trust in news on social media remains low however trust is highest in established news brands, public broadcasters and print newspapers. Consumers seek quality, credibility and reputation when seeking out the news and albeit its use has been declining since 2016, television is still the most popular platform for news consumption. Although there is mistrust, consumption of news on social media is very much on the rise and although there has been a steady hold with the decline in traditional formats, it could be considered ‘a new balancing act’ as it becomes the norm for digital news consumption behaviours to coexist alongside more traditional means.
Shift in demographics
A study conducted by Western Sydney University outlines younger Australians are the ones driving change in terms of news consumption and below are some interesting facts from the study:
YouTube is their preferred social media platform (37 per cent), Facebook (15 per cent) Instagram (10 per cent) and Snapchat (6 per cent)
They do not trust news organisations and are not reading print newspapers
They engage with news stories as it makes them feel happy and motivated and knowledgeable
They think news organisations don’t understand young people’s lives and don’t cover the issues that matter to them.
Social media is a popular news source, but they are not confident about spotting fake news online
Paywalls
Trust leads to payment for news and those who pay for print newspapers or online news sources are much more likely to trust news than people who don’t pay for it. Australians remain overwhelmingly reluctant to pay for online news as there is so much information readily available for free. But when they do pay, they expect more than just the headlines – with trust in the brand and in-depth news analysis being the primary reasons that they would be willing to pay. Interestingly, although print runs are decreasing, their overall readership is not. The combined print and online readership of newspapers has been growing steadily over the past few years. One of the main reasons for the increased discussions around paywalls are due to businesses having a loss in net profit. As a result of this, businesses are introducing an online paywall, to “win back” their lost net profit. After some analysis, we found mentions around paywall to be increasing month on month in New Zealand as it is becoming more of a topical conversation in the land of the long white cloud. Comparatively, Australia are also discussing paywall however the more prominent conversations were earlier this year (February and March) and have been declining since. Could paywalls and digital subscription services be the future of receiving online content and news?
Loren is an experienced marketing professional who translates data and insights using Isentia solutions into trends and research, bringing clients closer to the benefits of audience intelligence. Loren thrives on introducing the groundbreaking ways in which data and insights can help a brand or organisation, enabling them to exceed their strategic objectives and goals.
This report aims provides insight into the Banking Industry in Vietnam. We look into people's preferences into their customer experience; using either traditional or digital banks, we deep dive into the topics driving social conversations about the banking industry, and the top mentioned brands related to the banking industry in Vietnam.
We have explored the latest trends and unpacked the current situation faced by the digital banking industry in Vietnam.
There are many common misconceptions about media monitoring that need to be cleared up sooner rather than later to give your brand the best chance of positive PR. Rather than letting your company succumb to the myths and misinformation being spread around, here are three of the most prevalent misunderstandings and the fact behind the fiction:
There's more to media monitoring than the digital platforms.
Myth #1 - You only need digital
While digital platforms are becoming more important to media monitoring, this is by no means the only area you need to be covering. Tweets, online newspapers and blogs are of course crucial, but so too are traditional media options, like local newspapers, talkback radio and other offline sources.
In fact, the best way to approach your media monitoring strategy is to accept that digital and traditional media are commonly connected, rather than separate features. For instance, social is often used as an extension to broadcast offerings, according to a study from Nielsen.
Here at Isentia, we understand that all platforms are important. No matter how small.
Myth #2 - Only the big publications matter
For many companies, getting the brand name or products mentioned on a national radio show or published in a country-wide newspaper can mean a big break. Alternatively, a negative story across these major platforms could result in a significant blow to your reputation and profitability.
It is clear, then, that keeping tabs on the big media players is crucial. However, while some media monitoring providers will focus on national newspapers, big brand radio shows and other major publications, these strategies could be missing an important element.
National publications can give you a clear picture of what millions of consumers are reading, thinking and discussing, but this is unlikely to give you much information on what the local people believe.
If your business operates in a rural or remote location, you need to be tracking the local publications.
If your business operates in a rural or remote location, you need to be tracking the local publications - no matter how small. Similarly, even newspapers circulating in smaller parts of big cities can provide a significant level of insight, if only you are aware of their readership and content.
Myth #3 - Listening is the most important part
While media monitoring is critical for business success, listening to the conversations about your brand and industry is far from the be-all and end-all to your strategies.
Once you have uncovered a relevant story or discussion, it's not enough to simply stand idly by and learn from the experience. Taking the next step involves getting an insightful and useable report, deciding on relevant and effective action and getting involved in the discussions.
Of course, this is all easier said than done, but with the right media monitoring tools, you can get started with your best foot forward. Click here to check out some of our services so that you can be on the right track!
"
["post_title"]=>
string(43) "Common Misconceptions With Media Monitoring"
["post_excerpt"]=>
string(163) "There are many common misconceptions about media monitoring that need to be cleared up sooner rather than later to give your brand the best chance of positive PR. "
["post_status"]=>
string(7) "publish"
["comment_status"]=>
string(4) "open"
["ping_status"]=>
string(4) "open"
["post_password"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_name"]=>
string(43) "common-misconceptions-with-media-monitoring"
["to_ping"]=>
string(0) ""
["pinged"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_modified"]=>
string(19) "2019-09-24 09:26:54"
["post_modified_gmt"]=>
string(19) "2019-09-24 09:26:54"
["post_content_filtered"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_parent"]=>
int(0)
["guid"]=>
string(43) "https://isentiastaging.wpengine.com/?p=1871"
["menu_order"]=>
int(0)
["post_type"]=>
string(4) "post"
["post_mime_type"]=>
string(0) ""
["comment_count"]=>
string(1) "0"
["filter"]=>
string(3) "raw"
}
Blog
Common Misconceptions With Media Monitoring
There are many common misconceptions about media monitoring that need to be cleared up sooner rather than later to give your brand the best chance of positive PR.
I crowd-sourced some opinions on ‘how PR has evolved’ via Facebook before this article was penned, and ‘chaotically’, ‘always-on’, ‘unpredictably’ and ‘intense’ were among some of the top keywords surfaced. Exactly how fast is the news-making cycle today? I’ve experienced it first-hand a couple of weeks ago.
By 11 am on the same day, three interview requests had arrived via Facebook Messenger from three different publications. By 2 pm, all interviews were completed on WhatsApp and my name appeared in the papers on the very next day. The whole event took place in less than 24 hours.
This is a glimpse of how news is made in this day and age. Journalists today are online and on social media; they are following key opinion leaders (KOLs) to get opinions. Gone are the days when they relied solely on press releases and spokesperson soundbites to write news and when public opinion was easier to gauge as people were only accessing a handful of mediums to receive information.
The convergence of digital, social and mobile has added layers of complexity in PR and clearly disrupted the practice, as news today becomes 24×7 and travels across the globe at the speed of the internet. The infamous United Airline incident for example, although happened in Chicago, created an uproar and boycott in China and trended in the top news on Weibo, all because of the power of social media.
The rise of digital and social certainly has benefited PR by creating the direct relationships with people, rather than requiring a media filter. To fully unleash its benefits, the best PR talents should strike the balance between creating content that people actually want to read, listen to or watch, and providing what traditional journalism would consider “news.”
With a good piece of content and story at the core, PR professionals are required to have the ability to navigate an increasingly complex media environment and to embrace the beauty of digital and social to enhance storytelling.
Instead of issuing a formal corporate announcement, why not consider tapping on Facebook Live for product launches and public activations? OCBC Bank recently launched its Stay True campaign via Facebook Live, where the bank’s Head of Consumer Financial Services was put through a lie detector test. The video garnered over 200,000 view to date.
Another example of leveraging digital to innovate traditional PR approach is a revamp of online corporate newsrooms. Dynamic Newsroom is a mash-up of PR, content and digital, which is designed to drive engagement, not simply overload information. It takes the best of everything we know about media relations and hosting content online, to more effectively connect brands with journalists.
Having talked about the benefits and opportunities, I also would like to caution that this trend of digital and social convergence also poses certain threats.
As social media increasingly becomes a main source of news and information and due to the fact that most social media content is user-generated, in order to boost visibility and garner likes and shares, brands and citizen journalists have been noticed to use unethical techniques to make their content exciting or ‘viral’. Such fake news and clickbait headlines are detrimental to brand reputation and consumer trust.
With great power comes great responsibility. The ability to earn credibility becomes even more important in an era of round-the-clock marketing messages. PR is becoming even more important and relevant than ever as the most reliable voice.
"
["post_title"]=>
string(70) "The relevance of PR in the age of digital, social & citizen journalism"
["post_excerpt"]=>
string(331) "I crowd-sourced some opinions on ‘how PR has evolved’ via Facebook before this article was penned, and ‘chaotically’, ‘always-on’, ‘unpredictably’ and ‘intense’ were among some of the top keywords surfaced. Exactly how fast is the news-making cycle today? I’ve experienced it first-hand a couple of weeks ago."
["post_status"]=>
string(7) "publish"
["comment_status"]=>
string(4) "open"
["ping_status"]=>
string(4) "open"
["post_password"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_name"]=>
string(67) "the-relevance-of-pr-in-the-age-of-digital-social-citizen-journalism"
["to_ping"]=>
string(0) ""
["pinged"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_modified"]=>
string(19) "2019-06-26 04:20:45"
["post_modified_gmt"]=>
string(19) "2019-06-26 04:20:45"
["post_content_filtered"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_parent"]=>
int(0)
["guid"]=>
string(36) "https://isentia.wpengine.com/?p=1592"
["menu_order"]=>
int(0)
["post_type"]=>
string(4) "post"
["post_mime_type"]=>
string(0) ""
["comment_count"]=>
string(1) "0"
["filter"]=>
string(3) "raw"
}
Blog
The relevance of PR in the age of digital, social & citizen journalism
I crowd-sourced some opinions on ‘how PR has evolved’ via Facebook before this article was penned, and ‘chaotically’, ‘always-on’, ‘unpredictably’ and ‘intense’ were among some of the top keywords surfaced. Exactly how fast is the news-making cycle today? I’ve experienced it first-hand a couple of weeks ago.
The advent of LLMs and AI search means that there has been a colossal shift in how audiences are consuming information today, and a reciprocal shift in how all types of organisations, from government agencies to brands are responding . But while discussion amongst PR and comms pros tends to fall disproportionately on how brands are impacted, the needs of the former are just as keenly felt, and often quite distinctive.
So how can government agencies respond, especially in a time of global flux, when major policy changes need to be communicated and important stakeholders need to be managed? After all, government organisations do care about reputation, much as brands do, but have quite distinctive goals when it comes to ensuring accurate information reaches the right audiences.
There is a new entry point for stakeholders
The era of "Let me Google that" is rapidly fading. Instead of clicking through to official websites, people are asking chatbots for direct answers. What’s striking is that government agencies often have no visibility on how they’re being talked about in the LLM space, even as it becomes a central channel for messaging and reputation.
When AI models become the primary gatekeeper, audiences bypass official portals entirely — driving down site traffic and leaving agencies vulnerable to misinformation, negative sentiment, or worse, being left out of the conversation altogether.
Therefore, the entry point is different. For commercial brands, this shift is profound but in some ways mediated – an FMCG brand, for instance, often discovered through third-party platforms in any case. But for government entities, the stakes are entirely different. As the sole, authoritative source for public information, they need citizens on their websites to get accurate details. Government agencies, especially if they are the authority or regulator in a particular industry or sector, need to make sure audiences know where to go to get the right information.
Different types of government agencies have different considerations
Not all government agencies are alike, and they all have different parameters that are quite non-negotiable for them, just by the way they function.
Service delivery agencies - these rely heavily on content freshness. They can’t risk outdated sources impacting eligibility or process changes not reaching audiences.
Regulators - these need to transmit authority and trust. Regulators have to make it a priority that they’re amongst the first place audiences go to for information and that the industry they’re regulating does not put them in the shade on the channels stakeholders are actually using
Policy departments - did the AI's account of a policy match what was actually announced? They want to be able to make sure the accuracy of a policy (and ideally, its effectiveness) is translated when audiences search through LLMs.
Local and state authorities want to make sure the services they carry out on behalf of locals are visible too. Much like service providers, there is a question around access and awareness of programmes and regulations, but also an added consideration: not appearing on LLMs discontent amongst those wishing to see a return on taxation and electoral mandates, and give credence to bad actors.
What do government agencies want to get out of this new LLM-mediated landscape?
Reputation is important, but that exists downstream from maintaining a flow of accurate information. It’s useful for communications teams in government organisations to self reflect and ask themselves the following questions:
Where are citizens going to find information about your services if not your website — and do you know what they're being told?
If there was a significant policy change or incident in the last twelve months, do you know how it's currently being characterised when someone asks an Al tool about your agency?
When you communicate a major service change or policy update, do you have any way of measuring whether it’s surfacing in searches about you?
How do you currently understand the gap between what your agency publishes and what citizens actually receive when they search for information?
Are there community groups, advocacy organisations, or media outlets shaping perception of your agency - and do you know if that's feeding into what Al models say?
These are gaps they already realise, but they don’t actually know what to do about it – how to manage or measure them. They need a tool that allows them to know this critical piece of information and make informed decisions.
Ngaire Crawford, Pulsar Group’s Executive Director for AI Strategy says, “It’s easy to disregard LLM reputation as part of a difficult AI landscape or something that is only really relevant to more product-based communication or marketing. Government communications is about social licence, and ensuring the public have access to up to date and accurate information about things that matter to them, the role that Generative AI plays in how a community understand an issue will only continue to grow, and knowing the impact that you can have in that through small shifts in channel strategies or more consistent messaging is a crucial part of the communications toolkit.”
Lumina AI View: AI visibility for PR & Comms
Lumina AI view is built for communicators who want to understand how their organisation and their competitors are being talked about by various AI models – including ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude. AI View users get an insight into which sources are being cited, and how they would need to respond as a way of protecting their reputation or making sure correct information about them is being disseminated.
The tool provides an AI view score — a composite metric ranging from zero to 100, designed to help track brand performance over time and facilitate comparisons against competitors. It is calculated using five weighted factors — sentiment, visibility, authority, dominance and freshness. Beyond the overall score, the platform provides a summary of a brand's AI narrative based on four distinct reputation pillars — direction, performance, integrity and innovation.
These pillars help users identify exactly which dimension of a brand's reputation is under pressure, offering specific, actionable insights for board presentations or reviews. Ultimately, while the AI view platform provides the necessary intelligence, the strategic decisions regarding how to respond to these insights remain with the organisation.
Spotlight: An Australian Council
This progressive local government council is located in Australia’s leading center for culture and sports.
The council earned an AI view score of 74 reflected by strong reach and authority. Publications like CBD News and its own website are the most cited by LLMs — interestingly, most of them being cited by Claude.
Content freshness scored lower at 48. Their website still carries error pages and annual reports from a few years ago. If a report — one that is seen as an organisation’s most comprehensive and authoritative content, is still being cited even if it’s older, might potentially be in the way of the organisation’s own perception. Which means more work is needed to prevent outdated content from still appearing.
What type of content is showing up?
Most citations for the council originate from government sources, followed by news outlets, reports, and blogs. The domain is evenly split between owned content and content earned from external sources media articles and independent authorities.
While most are recent, some older articles from major outlets such as The BBC remain visible and may significantly influence how LLMs perceive the council. Owned content typically addresses last year’s budget plans and the council’s latest vision for the city, which LLMs are referencing. Government sources are the major content type, however, external sources have a greater impact on the council’s overall LLM score.
The stakes are higher for government agencies
When brands track LLM visibility, they often ask, "Are we shown in a positive light?" or "Are we cited accurately?" For the government, additional questions arise: "Is this information accurate enough for someone to act on?" and "Are we still viewed as more authoritative than what we oversee?" Mistakes can have serious consequences, such as individuals applying for ineligible programs or missing critical deadlines for new initiatives or elections. This can quickly lead to public frustration. It is essential for government communicators to recognize these risks.
If you would like to know more about our Lumina suite, please reach out here and our team will get in touch with for you a quick demo.
"
["post_title"]=>
string(77) "Why is tracking government visibility on LLMs different from tracking brands?"
["post_excerpt"]=>
string(121) "Government agencies often can't see how AI chatbots describe them. Here's why LLM visibility matters and how to track it."
["post_status"]=>
string(7) "publish"
["comment_status"]=>
string(4) "open"
["ping_status"]=>
string(4) "open"
["post_password"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_name"]=>
string(46) "latest-reads-ai-visibility-government-agencies"
["to_ping"]=>
string(0) ""
["pinged"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_modified"]=>
string(19) "2026-08-11 02:14:19"
["post_modified_gmt"]=>
string(19) "2026-08-11 02:14:19"
["post_content_filtered"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_parent"]=>
int(0)
["guid"]=>
string(32) "https://www.isentia.com/?p=49040"
["menu_order"]=>
int(0)
["post_type"]=>
string(4) "post"
["post_mime_type"]=>
string(0) ""
["comment_count"]=>
string(1) "0"
["filter"]=>
string(3) "raw"
}
Blog
Why is tracking government visibility on LLMs different from tracking brands?
Government agencies often can’t see how AI chatbots describe them. Here’s why LLM visibility matters and how to track it.