Trust, Truth, and Tweets: The Boar Podcasts investigates student media habits

Over the past five years, the rise in popularity of new media outlets has been significant, to the point that, in 2024, online news sources officially overtook television for the first time in history. However, this is just the beginning of the story. The Boar ran an investigation into how students use media outlets to receive news and lifestyle information, and how a changing world is being shaped by a shifting media landscape. This report will discuss the survey’s findings and include key takeaways on where Warwick students consume media, how they interpret it, and whether they feel represented. The results are concerning for the mainstream media but actively call on students to cross-reference information before sharing.

The Trust Leaderboard: Who do students believe?

The first section of the survey outlined how much students trusted a media source. We asked students to rate their trust in various media sources on a scale of 1 to 5.

To provide a balanced outlook, the survey included a mix of traditional and non-traditional sources, namely:

• X
• BBC
• Other mainstream media channels
• YouTube
• The Boar
• Traditional Broadsheet Newspapers
• Other social media platforms

The Results

Surprisingly, though likely because of student bias, The Boar came in first place with an average of 4.09. Then came the BBC at 3.82 and Broadsheet Newspapers at 3.45. The least trusted source was X (formerly Twitter), with only 2.00, and no respondents gave it a 5/5. The second-lowest was YouTube at 2.45, followed by other social media platforms at 2.55.

It is unsurprising that we place our trust in institutions that have built their reputations on years of journalistic integrity rather than short-term clicks for revenue.

The paradox: We watch what we don’t trust

This contradiction lies at the heart of the modern student experience. It is unsurprising that we place our trust in institutions that have built their reputations on years of journalistic integrity rather than short-term clicks for revenue. Yet despite this scepticism, we cannot turn away. According to a 2024 Ofcom report, UK adults aged 18-24 spend an average of 6 hours and 1 minute online each day, with social media accounting for most of that time.

Why can we not escape the trap of new media despite its untrustworthiness? The answer could lie in incidental consumption. Unlike traditional media, which requires active viewership, such as turning on a TV to the BBC Channel or buying a newspaper from a corner shop, social media interaction is passive. It finds us even when we may be looking for something else, and therefore can inform or misinform us.

This begs an uncomfortable question as to whether we have become addicted to this junk food of information; we know it is no good for us, but we simply cannot avoid it.

Polarisation on social media has been occurring over the last 5 years, but this is likely because mainstream outlets do not cover key issues affecting students, including affordability and employment opportunities.

Mainstream media does not represent the opinions of students

Next, we asked students their opinion on this statement: Mainstream media channels including TV/Broadsheets, accurately represent the views and concerns of students like me”

The results were as follows:

Strongly Agree: 0%

Agree: 27.3%

Disagree: 72.7%

Strongly Disagree: 0%

This may answer the key question of why students are increasingly drawn to social media content from independent creators and podcasters rather than mainstream channels: these platforms simply do not represent the experiences of young people. Polarisation on social media has been occurring over the last 5 years, but this is likely because mainstream outlets do not cover key issues affecting students, including affordability and employment opportunities. Mainstream outlets continue to discuss larger-scale policy, which, whilst still important, leaves a vacuum that social media fills. Content creators are incredibly popular for providing students with the tools to succeed, and career advice often originates on online platforms and is not discussed by mainstream outlets.

In a time where access to news has never been easier, it is more important than ever to check the validity of a story to prevent falling victim to fake news.

Fake news: are we to blame?

The final element of the survey focused on how students responded to seeing the initial news piece. We asked if students saw a shocking headline online, “How likely are you to cross-reference for a second source before sharing?”

Results on a scale of 1 to 10:

Over 80% said they were at least 8/10 likely to cross-reference, with only 9% voting for 3/10 or less. Clearly, we believe in integrity before sharing, but is this the reality?

We then asked what percentage had “shared a story that you later found out was false?” Yes, was over 50%.

This means either students are overestimating how often they cross-reference, or most individuals, including media outlets, fail to recognise a story is fake before it has gone viral; the reality is likely to be a combination of both. With the improvement of AI and Deepfake technology, this issue is only likely to increase and lead to higher-profile cases of misinformation. Additionally, novelty bias means a story is 70% more likely to be shared simply because it is new or emotionally charged. Consumers are simply shocked by the story, not because they are sure of its validity. In a time where access to news has never been easier, it is more important than ever to check the validity of a story to prevent falling victim to fake news.

It should be the responsibility of students to cross-reference stories before sharing, recognise the algorithms exist to monetise clicks, not to promote accuracy, all with the aim of reducing our slide into a post-truth era.

What next? How should students adapt?

This survey has shown that students trust sources they do not use, and I believe there are two directions this trend could take.

1. Students continue to use social media platforms to find news stories, and misinformation risks being amplified
2. Mainstream media recognises its increasing invalidity and adapts by creating a greater presence online, therefore recovering a greater percentage of interaction with a younger demographic.

My take: The likelihood of the latter scenario is slim, given that social media thrives on emotionally charged responses. The truth is often not simple or black-and-white; it comes with nuance and varied takes. This, however, is a fundamental contradiction to the success of social media algorithms and their profitability, and this pattern will be tough to change. It should be the responsibility of students to cross-reference stories before sharing, recognise the algorithms exist to monetise clicks, not to promote accuracy, all with the aim of reducing our slide into a post-truth era.