Nearly two-thirds of digital content creators surveyed by UNESCO did not systematically check information before sharing it.3 As audiences turn to creators to understand the news, the agency is encouraging cooperation with journalists and fact-checkers.4 A useful partnership would combine accessible storytelling with reliable evidence, while giving audiences a way to see where claims come from and how mistakes are corrected.
What UNESCO found about fact-checking
UNESCO’s Behind the Screens study surveyed 500 creators in 45 countries. In that 2024 survey, 62 per cent did not systematically verify information before sharing it, while 42 per cent used likes and views to judge credibility. Nearly three-quarters wanted media and information literacy training.3
The findings concern the creators surveyed, rather than everyone publishing online. They identify a weakness in checking habits, not proof that every unchecked post is false. A claim can be widely shared because it is compelling, familiar or entertaining, without anyone having established that it is accurate.
For an audience, the missing link is often the evidence. A creator can explain a complicated subject clearly while leaving viewers unable to identify the original reporting, distinguish a fact from an opinion or judge whether an important qualification has been left out.
Why people get news from creators
The Reuters Institute’s Digital News Report found that 27 per cent of respondents across 48 markets received news from creators focused on news. Including other types of creators brought the figure to 46 per cent. Most used creators alongside traditional media; only 3 per cent relied solely on them.1
Respondents valued creators’ accessible, entertaining and relatable presentation. Across the wider sample, traditional outlets were generally considered stronger on trustworthiness and impartiality.1
Creators can therefore play a useful role in explaining reporting that audiences might otherwise miss. The case for cooperation is not that journalists should simply borrow a larger following. It is that an engaging explanation should preserve the evidence and uncertainty behind the story.
Creators want more training
UNESCO’s research in South Africa offers a more specific example. A survey of 48 creators, supported by interviews with 11, found that only 10.4 per cent had received media and information literacy training. Some 36 per cent did not systematically verify information before sharing it, while 87 per cent wanted training on ethics and freedom of expression.2
The small South African sample cannot describe creators worldwide, and its percentages cannot be compared directly with the broader UNESCO survey to claim improvement. Its relevance is the demand for help: expecting creators to inform audiences responsibly should also mean making training and expertise accessible.
How journalists can help creators check facts
At a UNESCO discussion in Amman, Nigerian fact-checker and media trainer Hannah Ajakaiye argued for helping audiences recognise misleading narratives before those narratives spread. Lebanese creator Rayan Hayek emphasised respect for an audience’s intelligence.4
A practical partnership could bring those priorities together. A journalist could explain the evidence behind an investigation; a creator could identify which questions their audience needs answered and how to make the explanation understandable. Both would need room to challenge a claim, including one made by an organisation funding the work.
For a UN agency or civil society organisation working with creators, that would require more than choosing an account by follower count. A partnership budget could include time for checking sources and consulting specialists. An agreement should identify who reviews factual claims, how sponsorship is disclosed and how corrections reach the original audience.
What to agree before publishing together
Readers should be able to see how a claim was checked, rather than rely on an institution’s logo or a creator’s reputation. Before publishing together, partners should establish:
- Sources: where the main factual claims come from and how viewers can consult them.
- Uncertainty: what remains unknown, disputed or dependent on context.
- Independence: who funded the work and who controls editorial decisions.
- Corrections: who will fix an error and how the audience will be told.
