Pixel-shot/ShutterstockThe days of tuning in to the six o'clock news are long over. News audiences are increasingly fragmented, and more than half of us now get our news from social media. This trend is particularly pronounced for younger people, with three in four coming across news on social platforms. And 57% of children aged 12 to 15 identify TikTok as their most important news source.This means that we come across news incidentally, as part of social media feeds, rather than seeking it out proactively, by visiting a news website or watching the evening news on television. It also means that we are getting our news from a greater variety of creators. Some are trained journalists working for established news brands. Others are building small-scale news outlets based on their persona, charisma and audience reach. We may now be just as likely to get news from a TikTok influencer such as Dylan Page (“Newsdaddy”) as from the BBC website.As Deborah Turness, former CEO of BBC news, recently noted in her Sir David Nicholas memorial lecture, we are witnessing a “revolution that is reshaping news for a new generation of consumers”. It involves a shift from “institutions to individuals, from big media brands to personalities, from public service broadcasters to independent journalists”. The rise of what she describes as “creator journalism” represents a significant challenge to mainstream news organisations, but also a dramatic transformation in what news gets out there and who produces it. My research looks at the consequences of this transformation for producers and audiences. I’m using the term boutique media to describe the emergence of small-scale, personality-driven news creators as a growing part of the news ecosystem. My work focuses on the impact of this shift for audiences’ trust in news. Boutique media producers include news influencers, podcasters, Substack newsletter writers and hyperlocal journalists. For such producers, setting up shop outside mainstream news organisations and using social media platforms allows for greater creative and financial control. Some of the best-established names can make a fortune. For example, leading US podcaster Joe Rogan has an estimated net worth of US$200 million (£149 million), and an annual income of $60 million. In the UK, former highly paid BBC Match of the Day presenter Gary Lineker now has an even more lucrative career as founder of the hugely successful Goalhanger group. Goalhanger hosts some of the world’s most popular podcasts, including The Rest is Politics. It had a total revenue of $50 million in 2025, up 80% on the previous year, reflecting a global trend of continual growth in the podcast sector. Some boutique news producers, like Rogan, become household names. Many others remain at the level of micro-influencers with a much smaller following. Such producers have an increasingly important place in this changing media landscape, challenging the dominance of traditional news organisations.Changing patterns of trustThese changes significantly affect what news gets to us and which sources we trust. Traditional journalism trades in trustworthy knowledge, based on the professional skills of journalists and the faith we have in the major news organisations they work for – what scholars refer to as “epistemic authority”. However, as part of the emergence of boutique media, we have seen the growing importance of what might be called “affective authority” – authority based on emotional connection. Research on social media influencers has shown that coming across as a trustworthy creator on social media is as much about their ability to connect emotionally with the audience as their ability to provide relevant and factual information. When personality becomes more important than professional journalistic skills and experience, it raises serious questions about the trustworthiness of news.The proliferation and growing popularity of small-scale boutique news producers has significant implications for news consumers. For one thing, it means that people are increasingly consuming content tailored to their interests, rather than based on a shared news agenda established by traditional mainstream media. We need to pay attention to the credibility of the variety of news sources we rely on. In an environment where affective authority matters more, and misinformation thrives, it’s important to double-check any information that seems too scandalous, exciting or good to be true. Read more: ‘News influencers’ are racking up billions of views – and not checking their facts The best information diet is a varied one. This means actively seeking out a diversity of views, voices and news, rather than relying on whatever we’re served up by social media algorithms.We also need to recognise that quality news does not come for free – it is an expensive commodity to produce. In the past, news consumers paid for newspapers and magazines, which also made healthy profits from advertisers. But consumers are now much less keen to shell out cash for online news. Across wealthy, industrialised nations, fewer than one in five consumers are willing to pay for news, according to recent research from the Reuters Institute.At the same time, online advertising revenues tend to be hoovered up by social media and search companies such as Google and Meta, with less of the income going to traditional news providers. This makes it a much more challenging environment for both new and established news outlets. As audience members, the onus is on us to pay for the news we value, whether it comes from mainstream news organisations or boutique media producers. There are some indications that people are more willing to pay for boutique news products, as shown by some independent journalists and writers earning a substantial income on platforms such as Substack. At the same time, if we want access to high-quality information, we cannot rely on a small number of audience members’ support for boutique news products. Instead, we need to have a conversation about news as a public good that needs to be valued and supported.Karin Wahl-Jorgensen has received funding from the British Academy and the Economic and Social Research Council for research related to this article.