DE FACTO Study Reveals How French Citizens Navigate News and Misinformation
In a media environment that has become increasingly fragmented by digital platforms, social networks, streaming services and artificial intelligence, one might expect the public to be drifting away from traditional news. Yet a new study published by DE FACTO, one of the fifteen European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO) hubs working to strengthen information integrity across Europe, tells a different and more encouraging story. Based on a representative panel of 4,000 people aged 16 and over, the DE FACTO survey set out to understand how French people inform themselves about the current situation, and how they are confronted with misinformation. The results, despite the complexity of the modern information landscape, reveal that the French are far from indifferent to public affairs. Indeed, 70.3% of respondents say they are very or fairly interested in the news, while 83.6% say they consult it at least several times a week. These figures are striking, particularly in an age of growing concerns about disinformation, polarisation and political cynicism. They suggest that citizens are not withdrawing from current events, but rather are actively seeking knowledge and understanding of the world around them. The high level of interest may reflect recent crises, geopolitical instability and social debates that have pushed many to stay informed. For researchers, however, this enthusiasm also poses a new challenge: how well can an interested and engaged public distinguish between reliable information and false or misleading content?
The most significant finding of the DE FACTO study concerns the continued dominance of traditional media as an information source. Despite the growing presence of digital platforms in daily life, 81% of French people say they regularly use traditional media, a category that includes television news, radio journalism and the written press, along with their official digital versions. This makes traditional media by far the most widely used source of information in France. By comparison, only 43.4% of respondents say they regularly use social networks for news, while 39.9% consult so-called alternative media and just 12.5% use artificial intelligence tools. The gap between traditional media and social platforms is substantial, and it contradicts the assumption that established journalism is being rapidly replaced by influencers, algorithms and unverified online content. There are several reasons for this continued reliance on traditional media. Institutional outlets are generally bound by editorial standards, legal frameworks and internal verification processes that provide a degree of accountability rarely present on social networks or obscure websites. They also employ professional journalists with training, sources and the ability to contextualise complex stories. In a climate of widespread concern about fake news, many citizens may be turning to familiar and trusted brands as a refuge from the chaotic exchange of claims and counterclaims online. This is not to say that traditional media are immune from mistakes or bias, but they nonetheless continue to play a foundational role in the French information ecosystem.
Still, the study’s figures for social media and alternative media should not be underestimated. More than four in ten French people, 43.4%, regularly use social networks to keep up with the news. For many younger citizens, platforms such as Instagram, TikTok, X and YouTube have become primary gateways to public information, even if they are also used for entertainment and social connection. This creates a particularly volatile information environment, because social media posts are not subject to the same editorial scrutiny as a newspaper article or a broadcast segment. Algorithms reward engagement, and content that is emotionally charged, sensational or deliberately provocative is more likely to be amplified and shared. Misleading headlines, out-of-context clips, manipulated images and conspiracy theories can circulate quickly, often before any form of correction is published. The results become even more worrying when the use of alternative media is taken into account. Although the term “alternative media” covers a broad variety of outlets, some of which are credible independent publications, it also encompasses sites that spread distrust of science, institutions and traditional journalism itself. The fact that 39.9% of respondents regularly use such sources suggests that many French people are deliberately stepping outside mainstream news to find perspectives that challenge official narratives. This behaviour can be healthy in a pluralistic democracy, but it can also create closed information loops where misinformation is repeated and reinforced within like-minded communities, making it all the more difficult to counter.
Perhaps the most forward-looking detail in the DE FACTO study is the use of artificial intelligence as an information source. Although only 12.5% of respondents say they regularly use AI tools to stay informed, that figure already represents millions of people, and it is certain to grow as generative technologies become more integrated into search engines, messaging apps and social media. AI tools such as chatbots and automated assistants can answer questions, summarise news and even produce articles on demand. But they are not journalists. They do not have the ability to verify facts with sources, to weigh conflicting evidence or to exercise editorial judgment. Instead, they generate plausible language based on patterns in their training data, and these patterns sometimes include falsehoods, biases or simplifications. In some cases, AI can produce entirely fabricated stories, inventing quotes and events that never occurred. It can also create highly realistic images and videos, commonly known as deepfakes, that make it difficult for ordinary readers to know whether they are seeing a real event or a synthetic construction. The emergence of AI as a news tool therefore represents a major challenge for media literacy and public trust. Unlike a website that can be identified and fact-checked, an AI-generated answer may appear generic and neutral, giving it an unintended but dangerous sense of authority. Regulators, educators and technology companies must respond quickly to ensure that citizens understand how these tools work, what their limits are, and how to cross-check whatever information they receive from automated systems.
The DE FACTO study does more than simply list the channels people use; it places those choices in the context of misinformation and the public’s ability to cope with it. Concerns about misinformation have grown sharply in recent years, fuelled by the pandemic, the war in Ukraine, climate change debates and political polarisation. A person who is very interested in the news, as 70.3% of respondents are, may actually be more exposed to misleading content than someone who pays little attention to current events. High levels of interest mean high levels of consumption, and the more content a person sees, the greater the likelihood of encountering a false claim that has been carefully designed to resemble professional journalism. The study’s figures demonstrate that many French people do not rely on a single source. They may begin the day listening to the radio, follow breaking news on social media during work, watch the evening television news, and later ask an AI tool to explain a particular topic. Each of those encounters contributes to their understanding of the world, but each also introduces a new set of risks. Traditional media may be responsible and fact-checked, but a video shared on social media can present the same story entirely differently, with one crucial detail removed or an inflammatory headline added. Alternative media may ignore nuance or rely on anonymous sources, while AI can seamlessly mix facts with fiction. The result is an information environment in which even motivated citizens can find it difficult to navigate, and where honesty and verifiability are no longer automatically associated with the most visible or popular content.
The DE FACTO study is not intended merely to describe the situation; it is meant to support efforts to build resilience against disinformation. As one of the fifteen EDMO hubs, DE FACTO is part of a European network that collaborates with fact-checkers, researchers and media educators to monitor and expose false information. The findings of this survey will likely inform future campaigns aimed at helping the public identify reliable sources and think critically about what they encounter online. Several lessons stand out. First, traditional media remain the backbone of public information in France, and they must be defended not only as businesses but as public goods that uphold standards of accuracy and fairness. Second, social networks and alternative media cannot be ignored; they are thriving ecosystems where a large portion of the population receives news, and any serious effort against disinformation must be present there. Third, the growing use of artificial intelligence requires a new generation of media education, focused not only on detecting falsehoods but on understanding the nature and limitations of automated systems. Most importantly, the study reminds us that the French public is engaged and attentive. The demand for information is high, and the desire to understand the current situation is real. That is a powerful starting point. By building on this interest and providing people with tools to distinguish between reliable reporting and misleading claims, journalists, educators, fact-checkers and policymakers can help ensure that an informed public remains the strongest defence against the corrosive effects of disinformation.