What does it mean for a hospital to offer “trauma-informed care”? How about a hairdresser? Or even a paint colour consultant?

Suddenly, this term is everywhere, but it’s rarely explained.

Behind the buzzword are decades of evidence about what actually helps people who’ve struggled with experiences of trauma to move on, and what sets their recovery back.

So, who is “trauma-informed care” really for? And what does it look like in practice?

Where did the term come from?

The term “trauma-informed” emerged in the early 2000s, building on clinical research about trauma from the 1990s.

Influential psychiatrist Judith Herman found that people recovering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) did better when services prioritised their safety, offered choice, and supported their sense of control.

Around the same time, clinicians and traumatised people themselves began documenting a troubling pattern: health and social services were sometimes making things worse, leaving patients more distressed than when they arrived.

This is known as re-traumatisation – when a professional or service unintentionally recreates the conditions of a traumatic experience, triggering the same distress. Placing an adult who experienced childhood neglect in an isolated seclusion room, for example, can evoke the very feelings the original trauma produced.

In the late 1990s, large-scale research, such as a landmark US study, was also revealing that trauma was far more common than previously thought. Just over half of participants reported at least one traumatic event in childhood, including abuse, neglect or family violence, and these experiences were strongly linked to lasting effects on mental and physical health.

Together, this growing body of work helped name and quantify experiences that had often been invisible in health systems. The central question in health care shifted from “what’s wrong with you?” to “what happened to you?”

Everyone seems to be talking about trauma. Do we know more about it? Or has the meaning changed? In this five-part series, we explore the shifting definition of trauma, why talking about it doesn’t always help, and what else can work.

Care that doesn’t cause further harm

Trauma-informed care is not a specific treatment or set of rules.

While individual practitioners can work in a trauma-informed way, the concept is mainly about how organisations or systems – such as a hospital or school – can work with people who’ve experienced trauma. It’s based on evidence about what they need to feel safe.

The starting point is an assumption: any person using your service may have experienced trauma, whether or not they disclose it, and your organisation’s practices could unintentionally make things worse. So trauma-informed care focuses on how to avoid re-traumatisation.

The most widely used framework organises this into “the four R” principles:

• realising how common trauma is
• recognising its signs in clients and staff
• responding through trauma-aware policies and practices
• resisting re-traumatisation, by fostering safety.

What does this look like in practice?

While experiences of trauma can be diverse, evidence suggests six key elements can help people with PTSD avoid re-traumatisation:

• physical and emotional safety: creating environments where people feel secure and in control. For example, not asking people to disclose sensitive information unnecessarily, and allowing people to choose where they sit in a room

• trustworthiness and transparency: being clear about what is happening and why. For example, explaining what is recorded in case notes and who can access them

• choice and empowerment: supporting independence wherever possible. This could mean offering people the choice of what they disclose, and how fast treatment proceeds

• peer support: connecting patients to people with similar experiences and backgrounds. This may include access to peer workers or to information written by people with lived experience about what to expect and what their rights are

• collaboration: viewing patients as equal partners in their care. For example, involving clients in decisions about their goals and treatment options

• cultural humility: recognising the historical and ongoing trauma faced by marginalised communities, addressing staff biases, and tailoring services accordingly. This could mean offering to arrange a clinician from the same cultural background when requested.

Some different scenarios

In health care, trauma-informed care might mean a clinician explains what will happen in an examination before it begins, asks for consent before any physical contact, and offers choices such as having a support person present.

In social services, it might look like intake processes that don’t ask people to repeat traumatic histories already on file, waiting areas designed to feel welcoming, and staff trained to notice distress without escalating it.

In workplaces, it can mean a culture where people feel safe speaking up, and mental health support that is clearly set out in policy.

The risks of this term’s popularity

Interest in the term “trauma-informed” has soared over the past ten years.

This has been driven in part by advocacy organisations that have long pushed services to recognise trauma and prevent harm.

But some services and non-clinical businesses, such as hairdressers or gyms, may use the term simply to signal awareness that trauma exists, without realising that genuine trauma-informed practice requires active, systemic change.

So popularity has its risks.

The key issue is accountability. There is no internationally recognised standard or certification that health workers and organisations are required to meet, and no regulation of who can use the term. It is easy to claim and hard to verify.

This matters because people with trauma histories are vulnerable. If a service promises to meet their needs and fails to, the consequences are real: delayed recovery, worsening symptoms and health, and lost trust in services that could have helped.

Without accountability, the term risks concept drift, diluting what “trauma-informed” actually means and making it harder for people to know whether a service delivers on it.

The bottom line

Greater public awareness of trauma and its long-term effects is a good thing. People with trauma histories don’t only interact with therapists. They navigate welfare systems, workplaces and schools, and reducing re-traumatisation in those settings can make a real difference.

But our concern is that wider use has not consistently translated into improved care or increased clarity for consumers because organisations can use the term without being held to any standard.

For the term to have real value, organisations and practitioners must be able to show – not just claim – how they are meeting trauma-informed principles.

Bronwyn Milkins, Postdoctoral Researcher in Youth Trauma and Dissociation, The Kids Research Institute Australia; Hayley Jackson, Research Fellow in Youth Mental Health, The Kids Research Institute, and Jeneva Ohan, Professor, Healing Kids, Healing Families, The Kids Research Institute Australia

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

You probably know fruit and vegetables are good for you, and most of us don’t eat enough of them.

But amid a cost-of-living crisis, buying more fresh food may not seem like a budget-friendly option.

Enter: canned or frozen fruit and veg.

These are usually cheaper and longer-lasting than fresh produce. But are they as healthy? Let’s unpack the research.

First, how much should we be aiming for?

Fruit and vegetables contain important vitamins, minerals and fibre. These support overall wellbeing and reduce the risk of illnesses, such as heart disease and some cancers.

The Australian Guide to Healthy Eating recommends adults eat at least two serves of fruit and five serves of vegetables every day. This includes frozen and canned options.

For example, ½ a cup of frozen broccoli or ½ a cup of canned beans equals one serve of vegetables. One cup of canned peaches or one cup of diced, frozen mango equals one serve of fruit.

Cheap, quick… and low waste?

Most canned and frozen fruits and vegetables are cheaper than fresh produce.

As they generally come pre-chopped and ready to cook, they also cut down on preparation time.

Produce that is canned or frozen also has a much longer shelf life than fresh options. This means they are available year-round, and are less likely to spoil and have to be thrown out.

What about nutrition?

Frozen and canned fruit or veg generally retains its original nutritional value – sometimes better than fresh produce.

For example, the nutritional value of most frozen and canned products is equivalent to fresh fruit and vegetables that have been in the fridge for a week.

But the process of preserving certain foods may actually increase their nutrient content. Apricots are one example, with frozen apricots having a much higher vitamin C content than fresh apricots. This is because vitamin C is used to help preserve the fruit.

Freezing uses low temperatures to delay food spoilage. Industrial freezing methods are effective at retaining the colour and textural qualities of fruit and vegetables, while also maintaining their nutritional content.

However, freezing may damage the structure of food if it causes ice crystals to develop. This can reduce the nutrient content of fruits and vegetables and make them mushy, especially if you thaw and re-freeze them.

Frozen fruits and vegetables are at risk of being contaminated with the bacteria Listeria monocytogenes, which can cause food poisoning. But cooking fruits or vegetables before eating them reduces this risk.

The canning process involves sterilising foods at high temperatures so they can be safely stored at room temperature for long periods. However, being exposed to high temperatures causes some nutrients in the food to break down, especially water-soluble vitamins such as vitamin C. But advances in canning technology are allowing the process to be done faster and at lower temperatures, meaning less nutrients are lost.

What to keep an eye on

There are some things to look out for when purchasing canned fruit or vegetables.

Canned vegetables can have a high salt content, so it’s best to choose products that say “no added salt”. You can also check the nutrition information panel and look for options with the lowest sodium content. Draining and rinsing canned veggies before eating them can also help reduce the amount of salt you eat.

For baked beans in sauce, the sauce may contain added sugar and salt. If you eat baked beans regularly, it’s worth finding a salt reduced option to help lower your sodium intake.

To help reduce your sugar consumption, choose canned fruit options that are canned in juice rather than syrup. Some may also say “no added sugar” on the package.

How to use them

Canned fruits can be eaten as a snack on their own, or with cereal or yoghurt. In many recipes you can often replace fresh fruit with frozen and canned options.

Frozen veggies are great for whipping up a quick meal. For example, frozen peas and edamame only need a few minutes to cook, so can be added last-minute to a stir-fry or stew.

Adding a tin of lentils, chickpeas or beans can bulk out a stew or pasta sauce, while boosting your fibre and protein intake. Given they are already cooked, you can also toss them into a salad that will keep you fuller for longer. Just remember to rinse them first.

For more inspiration, here are some recipe collections that revolve around:

• frozen vegetables
• canned beans
• canned fruits and vegetables
• frozen fruits.

What about dried fruit and veg?

Compared to tinned versions, dried beans, chickpeas and lentils – which are all excellent sources of fibre and protein – are even better value and also have a long shelf life. But they can take longer to prepare.

Depending on the product, dried beans, chickpeas and lentils may need soaking prior to cooking or may be ready to add straight to the pot. If in doubt, check the instructions on the back of the packet.

Dried fruits are not recommended as an everyday alternative to fresh, frozen or canned fruit. This is because drying makes them more highly concentrated in sugar. But you can enjoy them as an occasional snack.

Margaret Murray, Senior Lecturer, Nutrition, Swinburne University of Technology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The first half of 2026 has been marked by three different disease outbreaks: Ebola, hantavirus and, in Australia, diphtheria. Each has exposed vulnerabilities in how we detect, communicate and respond to infectious disease outbreaks.

Each of these outbreaks has its unique challenges. But a common thread has been distrust in health care or a lack of information where misinformation has filled the vacuum.

We’ve seen this play out in different ways across the globe, with devastating results.

So how do we address this distrust so we can better respond to future outbreaks?

Ebola

Distrust, rumours and misinformation have repeatedly emerged as major barriers to controlling Ebola. This includes in the current outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).

For example, past surveys of community members have identified misunderstandings about Ebola (including believing it’s not real), about how people are diagnosed, and revealed low levels of trust in health care.

These issues have hampered how cases of Ebola are identified, discouraged people to seek timely health care or to hide cases, and have undermined public health interventions.

For example, in late May, we heard how some DRC residents set fire to a tent set up by the humanitarian group Médecins Sans Frontières for suspected and confirmed Ebola cases. This led to 18 people suspected of having Ebola leaving the facility.

The trigger for this and similar examples was the announcement of a ban on large funeral wakes and gatherings. Authorities, rather than families, would now also start to manage the burials of suspected victims due to the infection risk associated with infected bodies, body fluids, contaminated clothing, and other personal items.

In 2014 the World Health Organization developed a safe and dignified burial protocol for local health authorities, in response to past clusters. This stressed the handling of human remains should be kept to a minimum and that cultural and religious concerns must be considered. It also stressed no burial should begin until the family agreed.

For families to accept the safe burial practice, they must both trust the health-care providers implementing the protocols and the institutions directing the response.

This was clearly not the case where the unrest occurred at the Ebola treatment centre, and at another centre where family members tried to retrieve the body of a man suspected of dying of Ebola.

Hantavirus

Misinformation often thrives and spreads where trust is weak and communication is absent. For instance, when transparent public health messaging is delayed, rumours and speculation can quickly fill information vacuums. We’ve seen an example play out with the recent cruise ship hantavirus outbreak.

Several public health experts based in the United States have argued the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) was less visible, slower to communicate publicly and less internationally prominent than in previous outbreaks.

At the start of the outbreak top CDC officials didn’t appear on TV shows or give interviews about the risk to the US public. In the past, the agency would often take the lead in coordinating responses to such events.

Instead, others have filled the vacuum, including influencers and others spreading misinformation via social media about the virus’ pandemic potential, unproven treatments, and false links to vaccination.

Diphtheria

The recent diphtheria outbreak in Australia is another example of how information vacuums can undermine an outbreak response.

Warlpiri man Eugene Penhall told Guardian Australia locals were frustrated with the lack of information about diphtheria – including what caused it and how to prevent it. In particular, they wanted information that applied to daily life in a community where housing is overcrowded and living standards are poor.

Here, the challenges are complex, including inequitable access to health care in remote communities, and dealing with a disease many health workers and communities had not encountered for decades.

But unlike an outbreak of hantavirus, diphtheria can be prevented by vaccination. So, if vaccination is to succeed, health authorities need to better target communication about the vaccine and explore ways to enhance local delivery to build and maintain trust.

What can we do to restore trust?

Transparency in a complex outbreak response should acknowledge what is known. That is, it should provide clear explanations for the reasons behind certain decisions. It should also acknowledge what is unknown. That means recognising policy drawbacks or scientific uncertainties.

When we learn more about a disease, public health messages can change and this should be communicated transparently and honestly. It’s not a back-flip. Science evolves and so should public health advice.

From the lessons learnt during past events, such as the COVID pandemic, frequent press conferences, social media updates and direct engagement with the public helps build trust. Different messengers and tailored formats are required for different target audiences.

Upskilling local health staff, working with community-based or civil society organisations, outreach workers, and local leaders can also support successful communication. These groups are likely to be met with less scepticism than “outsiders” such as international public health agencies.

We also need community-driven action, as we’ve seen with the Social Mobilisation Action Consortium in Sierra Leone. This engaged communities to take ownership over preventing Ebola. It resulted in behaviour change around safe burials, early treatment, and social acceptance of Ebola survivors. There were thousands of community mobilisers and trained religious leaders, partnering with more than 30 radio stations. There have not been any Ebola cases in the country since its 2014 outbreak.

But trust can be difficult to establish during a crisis, when emotional and financial stresses are high.

So we also need to proactively build rapport and shared understanding between health-care workers, stakeholders, community organisations and the community before an outbreak.

That way we can identify and address concerns and allow better design, uptake of, and trust in measures to control the next outbreak.

Holly Seale, Professor, School of Population Health, UNSW Sydney; Bianca Middleton, Senior Research Fellow, Global and Tropical Health Division, Menzies School of Health Research, and Md Saiful Islam, Lecturer, School of Population Health, UNSW Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

On June 12, artificial intelligence (AI) lab Anthropic suspended access to its latest Claude models, Fable 5 and Mythos 5, which had been released three days earlier.

The move came in response to an “export control directive” from the US government prohibiting use of the models by anyone who is not a US national.

Mythos is Anthropic’s most powerful, or “frontier”, model. When first announcing the model in April, the company said it was too good at hacking to release immediately. Instead, Mythos was made available to a handful of organisations (mostly US tech corporations) to use to patch weaknesses in essential digital systems.

Fable is the same basic model, but with added safeguards meant to stop it being used for cybersecurity purposes. This is what was released to the public last week – and almost immediately shut down.

Anthropic and the Trump administration at loggerheads

Since early 2025, Anthropic and the Trump administration have been in escalating conflict. The administration has accused Anthropic of making “woke AI” and called chief executive Dario Amodei an “ideological lunatic”.

Early disagreements concerned AI regulation and semiconductor export policy. The dispute sharpened when Anthropic declined to let the Pentagon use its models for domestic surveillance and fully autonomous weapons systems.

The Department of Defense responded by threatening to designate Anthropic a “supply chain risk”, a classification that would have required military contractors to sever ties.

Jailbreaks

The US government has not yet publicly stated the reason for last week’s directive, but Anthropic it says it believes the government became aware of a jailbreak: a method for circumventing the safeguards in Fable that prevent using its most powerful features for nefarious purposes.

These safeguards classify user requests as safe or unsafe before passing them to the AI model. When triggered, the safeguards redirect the request to a less powerful model.

The government’s concern, according to Anthropic, was that the safeguards could be bypassed to extract information useful for cyberattacks.

Guardrails for large language models aren’t bulletproof. They mostly depend on the model’s own capacity to interpret the user’s intentions in making a request.

Beyond the inherent difficulty of this task, a large online community (which my colleagues and I call the Undersphere) is working hard to circumvent AI guardrails. Anthropic acknowledges that “perfect jailbreak resistance is not achievable for any current model provider”.

Anthropic says the research behind the government directive appears to have been produced by engineers at Amazon, which is both a rival to Anthropic and a significant investor.

But this was not the only relevant jailbreak. Within 48 hours of Fable’s release, a researcher using the pseudonym “Pliny the Liberator” published what they identified as Fable 5’s full system prompt to X and GitHub repository.

The system prompt is a hidden set of instructions that helps determine an AI model’s behaviour. It’s unclear exactly how knowledge of Fable’s system prompt could be used in practice, but it has drawn attention in the Undersphere.

A surprise – and an ongoing mystery

The deepest problem of making large language models such as Fable secure is that we don’t fully know how they work. According to Oxford University economist and machine learning expert Maximilian Kasy, they work much better than they “should”.

Large language models have billions of internal parameters and are trained on unimaginably vast piles of data using machine learning methods. According to Kasy, we would expect such systems to be “overfitted”: good at reproducing patterns in their training data, but bad at generalising to new situations.

However, modern systems such as Claude and ChatGPT do seem to be able to generalise. Kasy likens modern AI development to alchemy: successful through trial and error, not yet grounded in systematic theory.

As a result, the behaviour of AI models is partly opaque even to their builders.

Hard to regulate

The opacity of the technology is one key reason it’s so hard to regulate. Governments lack independent access to the data, infrastructure and expertise they would need to evaluate proprietary frontier models.

The US administration’s recent executive order on AI security, published two weeks ago, reflects this realisation. As the administration has realised the power of frontier AI models, it has moved from an initial hands-off posture to asking developers to share their models for review before release.

That demand is an implicit admission that the administration does not trust the companies to evaluate, fully and comprehensively, what their own models can do and how they might be misused. The public sees even less, and the consequence is measurable: a survey taken across 25 countries last year found people are, on balance, more than twice as concerned about AI as they are excited about it.

The future of AI safety

AI is a hugely hyped technology. But there is no doubt it is also extremely powerful and unpredictable. Understandably, this combination is very dangerous.

We cannot rely on regulations, as technology will develop more quickly than they can adapt. Nor can we rely on guardrails, as they will be bypassed.

We need a governance framework built for that eventuality: one that can predict and address the consequences of failure.

Such a framework must be global, participatory, and founded on reciprocal trust. These are things the current US administration has shown little capacity to generate.

Francesco Bailo, Senior Lecturer in Data Analytics in the Social Sciences, Deputy Director of the Centre for AI, Trust and Governance, University of Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Sleep can be one of the trickiest things for families with little kids. It’s not just important for parental sanity or a child’s grumpiness levels the next day.

Sleep is crucial for brain development, especially in the early years. We also know getting enough sleep is important for learning and maintaining a healthy weight.

Screen use has been shown to impact the quality and quantity of sleep in adolescents and adults. Our new research closely examines the relationship between sleep and screen-use in young children.

Here’s what we found and what it means for screens in your home.

Our research

We surveyed 3,324 families with children aged six months to six years from across Australia. Caregivers were recruited through social media, flyers and newsletters.

This data is from the first year of a five-year longitudinal study by the Australian Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child.

Caregivers told us about children’s typical sleep patterns (their bed time, how long they slept, and naps) and any problems.

They also reported on how much time their children spent on screens and on what type of devices (were they handheld like a phone or tablet? Or static like a TV?), and if screens were used in the bedroom. We also asked how often children used screens in the two hours before bed.

What we found

The children in our study were exposed to digital technologies early and often.

Our findings suggest there may be different effects on their sleep, depending on their age, the type of device they use, and when they use it.

For example, fewer than half (between 27% and 44%) of children aged two to five met the national guidelines of less than two hours of screens per day.

This is similar to other studies, showing many parents struggle to limit screen use in everyday family life.

We found use of devices in bedrooms, particularly handheld devices, was occurring from infancy and increased across each age. By age five, almost 40% of children were using handheld devices in their bedrooms.

What about sleep?

For infants (6-12 months), we did not find any significant associations between screen use and sleep. This means screen use may not have as strong of an influence on infant sleep, as other social or biological factors.

However, we suspect passive exposure may be going unmeasured in this age group. For example, if a screen is being used around them by a parent or older sibling.

But things change as children get older:

• for every hour of handheld device use per day, two-year-olds went to bed almost 30 minutes later.

• for every hour of handheld device use per day, three-year-olds not only went to bed later but then slept less overall and showed greater difficulties functioning the following day.

We also found static screens had similar patterns of effects. However, handheld device use was typically stronger and more consistent across each of the ages. But this means both handheld (phones, tablet) and static (TV) devices were associated with less sleep and later sleep timing across most ages.

Evening screen use told a similar story. Children who more frequently used any type of screen in the two hours before bed had shorter sleep, later bedtimes, and more sleep problems across most age groups from one to five years. This is compared with children who had limited or no screen use in the two hours before bed.

What does this tell us?

This study provides unique insights into screen use and sleep in a large sample of Australian children. However, this is what researchers call “cross-sectional” data. It’s only taken at one time-point. So this means we can’t be sure about the cause of these relationships.

For example, this data shows screen use is associated with poor sleep, but it could also be that children who are awake longer have more opportunity to use screens than those who sleep longer.

We will continue to look at this as part of a broader, long-term study of this group. This will help us understand these relationships more clearly across time.

What this means for your family

The good news is these findings point to specific, achievable changes for families that may help their kids’ sleep.

Current screen-use guidelines focus on how much screen time children have. Our findings suggest that where, when, and on what device may also matter. So here are some concrete steps you can take.

1. Remove screens from bedrooms as much as possible. Having screens in bedrooms may lead to longer use times and using screens closer to bedtime. If there are no screens in bedrooms, this may reduce children thinking of their bedrooms as a place for exciting activities. It can also potentially reduce points of friction (for example, taking a device away) in the lead up to bedtime.

2. Create a relaxing pre-bed routine. If you think screens may be interfering with your child’s sleep, consider reducing or replacing screens before bed with activities like play, movement, reading and bath time. Families and children are all different and needs change. But when possible, having a predictable nighttime routine for young children is great for getting children ready to sleep.

3. Limit bright, handheld screens, held close to the face, especially before bed. Light emitted from screens and even our environment can interfere with our sleep promoting hormone, melatonin.

Young children’s sleep is important – for kids and parents. The screens in our homes are not going away, but with some simple adjustments to where and when they are used, families can protect the sleep their children need.

Cassandra Pattinson, Senior Research Fellow, Child Health Research Centre, The University of Queensland

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Young audiences are engaging with news in growing numbers, and for the first time, Australians under the age of 35 report greater interest in politics than older generations.

The Digital News Report: Australia, a longitudinal study that has been tracking news consumption for more than a decade, shows a shift in how younger generations are accessing and making sense of news.

However, it is not mainstream media they are turning to. Traditional news sources are being bypassed: 60% of people under 25 have never read a newspaper, and more than half (53%) have never listened to news on the radio.

Instead, they encounter news in digital and mobile environments, often incidentally: 71% of under 25s access news on social media and nearly half (48%) of them get news on TikTok. An overwhelming 89% watch news videos via online and social media platforms.

This generational shift is not just about platform choice. It is redefining what news is, who delivers it, and why they are paying for it. News is no longer something people deliberately seek out at set times. It is embedded within everyday scrolling, sharing and entertainment.

This creates a more fluid relationship with news that is driven by algorithms, social networks, and personal interests rather than routines established by mainstream news outlets.

More sources and greater willingness to pay for news

Young Australians under 25 use more news sources than older Australians – and are significantly more likely to pay for it. Around 27% of 18- to 24-year-olds and 41% of those aged 25–34 pay for news, compared with just 16% of 65+.

Again, it is not just traditional media. This younger cohort is driving Australia’s globally highest rate of paying for digital-only news brands.

What motivates this willingness to pay is also different for young people. They are not purchasing content simply for personal use. They are twice as likely as older groups to say they pay for news so others can access news for free, suggesting they see journalism as a social good.

At the same time, they are more likely to subscribe to outlets that align with their views. This reflects a broader shift toward personalised media ecosystems, where individuals curate their own mix of sources that align with their identities and values.

The rise of news influencers

Perhaps the most striking shift is the rise of creators and influencers as a source of news. In Australia, 43% of people say they get news from creators or influencers, slightly above the global average. For 18- to 24-year-olds, this figure jumps to 70%.

People who get news from influencers say influencer-led news is more entertaining (59%), more relatable (55%) and easier to understand (56%) compared to mainstream news. These perceptions are particularly strong among younger audiences.

The growth of influencer-led news is closely tied to questions of trust. Audiences who distrust mainstream media are more likely to turn to influencers. People who distrust news in general are much more likely to perceive influencers as trustworthy (40%) than those who trust mainstream news (32%). Distrusters of news also think influencer-led news is more authentic (61%).

Young people want news to be accessible, flexible and personally relevant. They expect news to meet them where they are – on mobile devices, social media feeds and through voices they trust and relate to.

At the same time, they are wary of the online environment where misinformation proliferates, and seek news sources that are trustworthy. In fact, the proportion of under 35s saying that they trust the news they choose to consume has risen 14 percentage points since 2024 to reach 60%, well above the Australian average of 54%.

This duality presents both opportunities and challenges for the news industry. To remain relevant, legacy news organisations must adapt to new formats and distribution channels without compromising quality.

For media organisations, the task is not simply to attract younger users, but also to understand how their expectations differ.

This means embracing video-first storytelling and recognising the growing role of influencers in the news ecosystem. And, more importantly, acknowledging the significant role that digital platforms such as search, social media and generative AI are playing in the discovery and consumption of news.

Digital News Report: Australia is produced by the News & Media Research Centre (N&MRC) at the University of Canberra and is part of a global annual survey of digital news consumption in 48 countries, commissioned by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford. The survey was conducted by YouGov at the end of January/beginning of February 2026.

Sora Park, Professor of Communication, News & Media Research Centre, University of Canberra; Janet Fulton, Research Fellow, News & Media Research Centre, University of Canberra; Jee Young Lee, Lecturer, News & Media Research Centre, University of Canberra, and Kieran McGuinness, Postdoctoral Fellow, News & Media Research Centre, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.