Examining the Decline in Media Credibility

The era when mainstream media served as the public’s primary gateway to understanding various events and issues has passed. Mainstream media, referring to conventional outlets such as television, radio, and newspapers, are no longer the preferred choice for consuming information.

When a political event occurs, for instance, the public now turns first to various social media platforms; watching video clips, listening to podcasts, or following the commentary of trusted influencers or figures. Mainstream media may still report on the event, but they are no longer the primary reference.

This change is not merely about technology. Nor is it solely about shifts in how the public consumes information. Behind this shift lies a far more fundamental problem for mainstream media: trust or credibility. The Reuters Institute, in its ‘Digital News Report 2026’, noted that in Indonesia, the level of trust in media declined from 39 percent in 2021, to 36 percent in 2025, and dropped to 32 percent in 2026. This is considerably below the global average of 37 percent.

These figures should serve as an alarm for mainstream media. Credibility is clearly a crucial aspect for the media industry, especially mainstream media. When the public begins to doubt the information provided by the media, what is at stake is not only the news or the media company, but also the relevance of the press and media as public institutions and their attribution as the fourth pillar of democracy.

The decline in mainstream media credibility certainly did not happen without cause. One of the primary factors is none other than media ownership. The media or press holds an important position in democracy. Law Number 40/1999 on the Press provides a strong foundation for the press to carry out its social control function. But in practice, it is not always easy.

The classic problem is media ownership. Some media outlets are managed by particular groups with various interests, both economic and political. This situation does not necessarily make all the information presented biased and partial. However, doubts still arise. When reporting criticises the government, doubts emerge; whether the criticism is genuinely the result of journalistic work or driven by particular political interests. Conversely, when media are soft on those in power, suspicion arises that the media are mouthpieces of the authorities.

Business Model

The pressure on mainstream media has grown even greater as the media business model has changed drastically following the public’s shift to digital platforms. The change in how the public accesses information has brought the consequence of eroding advertising revenue. To prevent declining income, mainstream media are ‘forced’ to chase traffic, clicks, and public engagement. Consequently, quality journalism that requires time for verification, investigation, and data checking often cannot compete with fast, emotional, and easily clickable news.

Journalistic practice risks turning into what is known as churnalism, the rapid production of news by recycling press releases or social media content without independent reporting, investigation, or adequate fact-checking. Fragments of statements increasingly replace context, as a consequence of speed being valued more than depth. The media risk losing their most important function; providing context. The public may be able to get more news, but not necessarily more understanding. Ironically, the media are losing trust precisely when the public is experiencing a ‘flood’ of information.