These are some of the key findings from the latest Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism’s Digital News Report – the ‘bible’ for news about the news.

So far, 2026 has been marked by uncertainty: political instability, economic pressures, changing media habits, and growing questions about where people can get information they trust. That uncertainty is reflected throughout the report.

People around the world describe feeling anxious, cynical, and, frankly, exhausted by the news. However, the report also points to something more complicated: people are not abandoning the news entirely. They are just finding it elsewhere – through social platforms, video, creators, and, increasingly, AI chatbots.

Missed the report? Don’t worry, Clear Europe has you covered. Here are our key takeaways:

Social media and video networks are the most widely used ways of accessing online news

For the first time, social media and video networks – like YouTube and TikTok – have overtaken TV, radio, newspapers, and news websites for media consumption.

According to the report, 54% of audiences globally use social media and video to access news online, compared with 52% for TV and 51% for news websites.

Social media is by far the most popular gateway to online news for under-35s, but also the most widely used means for over-35s. 42% of young people use Instagram to access the news, and 36% use TikTok.

However, this does not mean traditional news organisations are disappearing from the picture. When people consume news on social media and video networks, they are often still seeing content from established news providers, highlighting the importance for news organisations to expand their digital presence.

Trust and interest in news are at historic lows

The drift away from TV, radio and news websites is not only due to changing technology, but also because people are simply less interested in news altogether.

Since 2021, the proportion of people saying they are ‘extremely’ or ‘very’ interested in the news has fallen by 13 percentage points. This is concerning because a less engaged audience is harder to reach, harder to inform and harder to involve in the political process.

Trust is also moving in the wrong direction. In 2026, global trust in news dropped to 37% – the lowest figure since the Reuters Institute began measuring it in 2015.

Many people are simply avoiding the news altogether. 42% of people surveyed said they often or sometimes avoided the news. This is up from 29% in 2017.

For news organisations, these developments reveal a deeper challenge behind the platform shifts. People are not only changing where they get their news. They are also questioning whether they want it – and whether they even believe it.

The rise of AI news chatbots

Another trend worth noting is the growing use of AI chatbots to get news. The institute describes this phenomenon as a “fast increase” rather than a “sharp one,” but the reasons people are using these tools are just as important as the growth itself.

The report shows that AI chatbot users are drawn to the ability to ask follow-up questions, get faster answers, summarise complicated stories and pull together information from different outlets.

This is where the finding becomes especially important for news organisations. People are not just looking for more news. They are looking for news that is easier to understand, quicker to access and more useful in the moment.

The report says that news organisations can respond to some of these needs directly. There is a clear demand for simpler, more digestible writing. Clearer articles, summarised formats, explainers, and newsletters can all help anticipate what time-poor audiences are looking for.

The Reuters Institute also warns that trying to replicate generic AI tools may not be the way to go. Instead, news organisations may be better served by focusing on what makes their own journalism harder to replace: trusted sourcing, original reporting, clear explanations and work that adds value beyond what AI can quickly summarise.

The big picture

The 2026 Digital News Report shows that news organisations must work harder to gain the public’s trust and rekindle their viewers’ interest in news. This means addressing many concerns that the news is dominated by negativity, bias and constant crisis coverage.

At the same time, publishers need to meet people where they actually are. Increasingly, that means social media and video networks. News organisations must work to make journalism clearer, more useful and more trustworthy in the places where people now get their news.

Below, we break down the five key insights from the report – and what they mean for organisations trying to reach younger audiences.

1. Social platforms have overtaken traditional news gateways

A decade ago, young people actively sought out news on websites and apps. Today, news finds them – usually while they’re scrolling for something else.

Young audiences now encounter news more incidentally and less intentionally. They rarely go directly to news websites, and their connection to specific news brands is weaker as a result. This shift means communicators can no longer rely on audiences coming to them. Instead, content must be designed to meet young people where they already are in feeds, not on homepages.

2. Instagram, YouTube and TikTok dominate the news diet

Visual platforms have become the new front page. Instagram, YouTube and TikTok now play a central role in how young people access news, overtaking platforms like Facebook that once dominated their attention. TikTok’s rise is especially striking, reshaping expectations around tone, pace and storytelling.

These platforms reward short, visual, personality-driven content. For communicators, this means thinking in video, not text, and creating content that feels native to each platform rather than repurposed from traditional formats.

3. Video and audio are rising – but reading still matters

Young people consume more video and audio than older groups, but reading hasn’t disappeared. Short-form video is now a core part of how they understand the world, and podcasts have become a regular part of their media routines. Yet reading remains important, especially for depth and context.

The key insight is that young audiences want choice. They move fluidly between formats depending on time, mood and context. Communicators need to think in multi-format storytelling, not single-channel output.

4. Trust and interest in news are lower among young audiences

This generation is not disengaged, but they are more selective and more sceptical.

Young people express lower trust in news than older groups and show less interest in traditional news topics. Many say the news feels overwhelming, irrelevant or difficult to follow. This isn’t apathy. It’s a signal that traditional news often fails to connect with their lived experiences. Communicators must prioritise clarity, relevance and tone – and avoid assuming that younger audiences will “age into” traditional news habits.

5. Young people are early adopters of AI for news

AI is not a future trend – it’s already part of how young people navigate information.

They use chatbots to simplify complex stories, check sources and make sense of issues that feel inaccessible. They are also far more comfortable with AI-assisted journalism than older audiences. For communicators, this opens new opportunities: AI-ready formats, clearer explanations and content that anticipates the need for simplification.

What this means for communicators

Reaching young audiences requires more than posting on new platforms. It demands a shift in mindset:

• Meet them where they are – on social-first, visual platforms.
• Design for speed and clarity – short videos, clean visuals, jargon-free language.
• Build trust through transparency – explain your process, show your sources, be human.
• Experiment with AI – both as a tool for production and as a format young people already use.
• Think multi-format – video, audio, text and interactive content working together.

Young people aren’t rejecting news, they’re redefining it. Organisations that adapt to their habits and expectations will be best placed to connect with the next generation of informed citizens.

In the past decade, tens of thousands of reporters have lost their jobs. And many more will in coming years as advertising revenues slump, newspapers shut up shop and journalism becomes more automated.

This may be bad news for journalism, but it’s good news for many other professions, which will benefit from the wealth of skills and experience reporters bring to the workplace.

Here are some:

They get to the point

In a world drowning in data and flooded with information, journalists have an almost unique ability to cut through the crap and get to get to the heart of the issue. Give them a 100-page report and within a few hours they’ll be able to find the most important and interesting information and condense it into a 300-word news story or 30-second piece to camera. Enemies of pomposity and long-windedness, they also favour concision to verbosity – making them masters of soundbites and social media posts.

They make the complex clear

Journalists hate ugly jargon, turgid technocratic texts, impenetrable legalese, academic posturing and all forms of writing designed to obfuscate rather than inform. They can explain complicated issues quickly, clearly and succinctly because they know that the only way to overcome the ‘curse of knowledge’ is to “explain, simplify, clarify,” in the immortal words of Daily Mail founder Alfred Harmsworth.

They’re adaptable

Journalists are used to switching beats. One day they’ll be reporting on terrorist attacks in Paris; the next day they’re writing a feature on plummeting foie gras sales. This makes them quick to adapt to new roles in an organisation – whether swapping ministerial briefs in government or switching from speechwriter to spokesman for a big business.

They can handle pressure

Journalists are used to deadlines – and always hit them. They don’t prevaricate and postpone because they know they’d be out of a job if they did.

They ask the hard questions

“They have a great BS detector system so when something is drowned in hyperbole and adjectives (‘This innovative, step-change holistic product will revolutionise…’) they can see straight to the heart of the matter,” says Adrian Hiel, a communication advisor who was previously a journalist. So if you want someone who’s made a career out of asking awkward questions, hire a journalist.

They’re quick learners

Many journalists begin their days like the ones in the cartoon above – not knowing what they’ll report on but knowing they’ll have to bone up on the issue quickly. They do this by being champion speed readers, expert copy-and-pasters and genius Google searchers. But they also know what type of questions to ask – what’s new, why does this matter, what will it change, how much will it cost – that will tease out the most important information as quickly as possible.

They’re natural salespeople

You want someone who can sell? Journalists do it every day. If they are employed, they’re constantly pitching potential stories to editors. And if they’re freelancers, they’re flogging stories for a living in the same way others sell double-glazing or pension plans. Either way, they’re busy building their own journalist ‘brand’ through blogs, tweets and TV appearances.

They’re great storytellers

Is it any coincidence that George Orwell, Ernest Hemingway, Albert Camus and Gabriel García Márquez were all former reporters? Journalists may not realise it but they are natural storytellers. So if your organisation is looking to tell its story in a more engaging way, hire a hack.

They’re persistent

Journalists don’t take no for an answer. If they don’t get the information they need they’ll keep asking. “You can never come back from an assignment empty-handed,” says Jo Gill, deputy Brussels bureau chief for Euronews. “Or in business speak we’re ‘results driven.’”

They’re natural communicators

You can’t do a live 20-second piece to camera unless you can think on your feet. You can’t ask a question to a president in front of unsparing colleagues if you’re a shrinking violet. And you can’t tease out answers from hard-nosed interviewees unless you’re a natural people-person. Little wonder then that many former hacks become spokespeople and spin-doctors.

They can write fluently, quickly and accurately

Not all reporters are great writers, but most are. They don’t try to show off by using the longest words and sentences possible, they loathe off-putting jargon and awkward acronyms and rarely make mistakes. “They don’t make stupid typos. They can write a header that people want to read. They proofread like no one else,” says Kathryn Sheridan, a former journalist-turned-entrepreneur.

They’re good fun to be around

It’s easy to hire people with multiple degrees and bags of experience. But do you really want to spend eight hours a day with them? If you’re looking for a colleague who is curious, gossipy and self-deprecating, has oodles of anecdotes and is usually up for an after-work pint, a journalist is unlikely to disappoint.

Of course, journalists aren’t perfect. “They are statistically more likely to run off with your married daughter, drink too much and smoke when everyone else has given up,” writes BBC Foreign Editor John Simpson in ‘News from No Man’s Land.’ They are itchy, impatient and tend to have inflated egos. They are often highly opinionated, take a perverse pride in being irresponsible and sometimes play hard and fast with the truth. No wonder they languish near the bottom of most league tables of trusted professions along with politicians and second-hand car salesmen.

Journalists know they’re not angels and are often the first to disparage the trade they practice. British broadcaster Andrew Marr called it a “strange apology for a proper job,” while former Sunday Times correspondent Nicholas Tomalin once said the only qualities needed to be a successful journalist are “ratlike cunning, a plausible manner and a little literary ability.”

Both were being far too modest. In reality, most journalists are highly educated, are great storytellers and communicators and have the sort of skills that are essential in the 21st century workplace.

So the next time you see a headline about journalists getting laid off, don’t feel too sorry for them. Instead, make them a job offer they can’t refuse.

If you want to know what happens when you talk to a journalist unprepared, listen to this car-crash interview with former Green Party leader Nathalie Bennett.

Painful, right?

To avoid this happening to you, always ask: Am I ready to do this interview? Is it in my interests? And am I fully prepared for the questions.

If the answer to any of these questions is ‘no,’ don’t do the interview.

If the answer is ‘yes’ the next thing to do is to prepare your messages. That may sound obvious, but when I asked several high-placed UN officials to prepare their messages for a media training, several asked: “What are messages?”

Messaging 101

Your messages are the key points you want to make. And they should be:

• Few: Three is the magic number
• Clear: Know exactly what you want to say and say it as simply as possible
• Strong: If you’ve got something to say, say it directly
• Distinctive: What makes your message stand out?
• Relevant: Why should people care or listen?
• Sticky: What’s memorable about your message?

If you are not sure what your position is or what your key messages on an issue are, you will get eaten alive by journalists – like Labour’s mayoral candidate for North Tyne Jamie Driscoll last week when asked to explain Labour’s Brexit position.

Where’s the proof?

Once you’ve worked out your key messages, your job is half done. But you still need to be able to back them up. This is where your proof points come in.

Journalists are wary of your agenda and audiences wary of your spin. You can’t just make assertions and expect people to believe them. You have to substantiate with proof points, which are more persuasive than hype or hyperbole.

Proof points are the evidence needed to back up your messages. It can be hard evidence – facts, figures and statistics. Or it can be soft evidence – anecdotes, stories and examples.

If you have no evidence to shore up the claims you’re making, you’ll end up looking as foolish as the former candidate for the Mayor of London Zac Goldsmith. Having expressed his love of all things Bollywood, the journalist asks him a simple and obvious question: “Do you have a favourite Bollywood actor or film?” There is a very awkward silence while Goldsmith attempts to remember one, followed by the arrogant “I’m not going to give you one.”

Zooming in and out

So how do you wriggle out of trouble when you’re put on the spot by journalists?

Honesty is the best policy, of course. In an ideal world, former Green leader Nathalie Bennett should have known the cost of her party’s house-building programme. But as she didn’t, the best reply would have been “I don’t have the exact figure at hand, but what I do know is that Britain’s housing policy is a shambles. What we propose is…”

This technique is called ‘zooming out’ – when you’re asked a specific question, go general. You can also ‘zoom in’ – when asked a general question go specific. So when mayoral candidate Jamie Driscoll was called to explain Labour’s Brexit policy he could have honed in on the effects of Brexit on the people of the north of Tyne rather than flail around looking for the party’s fudged position.

Of course, there’s a danger that this ‘bridging’ technique can sound evasive and annoy both journalists and listeners. So it should only be used when you really want to avoid answering a question or appearing foolish – both of which can be averted by doing your homework beforehand.

This means deciding whether the interview is really in your interest, preparing thoroughly by researching your audience, working out your key messages and backing them up with proof points and then rehearsing with colleagues. Follow these steps and you won’t go viral for all the wrong reasons.

To avoid falling into the pitfalls above, sign up for a media training course with us. Practicing in a safe environment with plenty of constructive feedback is the only way to get better at interviews.

Powered by StoryChief

Martens, who has covered the EU for 11 years for the German public broadcaster, said TV news was “completely different” to print because of the speed at which it operates. “On TV, time really, really matters,” said the French-German journalist, who previously worked for France Télévisions in Paris and Lille.

Martens was speaking at ‘News and Booze’ – a monthly meeting of NGO communicators hosted by Clear Europe, Conscience Consulting and Julia Ravenscroft from the European Network on Debt and Development. She said reporters needed NGOs to provide expert opinions but offered a number of tips to help then work better with TV journalists:

1. Don’t sell stories

“Journalists don’t like when others tell us which stories to pick,” said Martens, upending conventional PR wisdom about the importance of pitching to reporters. “It’s a waste of time to sell us stories. We do our homework before we reach out to you.”

2. Don’t call

“It’s not because we’re impolite. It’s just that we’re very busy.” Global surveys also stress journalists prefer to be contacted by email rather than phone.

3. Keep it short

“The most important thing is to be short and precise,” said Martens. A classic TV news report is 90 seconds long. So she urged NGO communicators not to waffle, speak in vague generalities or utter meaningless platitudes.

 4. Keep it simple

“How would you explain this to a 5-year old?” is a question all experts should ask before trying to explain a complex issue to the general public.

5. Flag in advance…

State what issues your spokesperson is an expert on and provide background information in FAQs and Q&As.

6…But be prepared to react quickly

“It’s possible you send an email at 6am and you’re on TV at 12,” said Martens. “It’s a very fast business.” During an event, she said journalists will search for key players on Twitter and follow them immediately to get a reaction or do an interview. So spokespeople have to be prepared to speak about issues at very short notice.

7. Be available

“If you don’t call back fast we’ll get someone else,” was the blunt message to experts failing to hit deadlines. If you’re not available or are not an expert on the issue, say so, Martens added. She also said it was essential to provide mobile numbers (“We don’t call landlines”) and SMS (“TV people love text messages.”)

8. Know your audience

Be aware which journalist from which media you’re talking to. “Every TV channel has its own culture. ARD won’t cover Africa stories but Deutsche Welle or BBC World will,” said Martens, who extensively covered the refugee crisis in the Balkans in 2015.

9. Know your subject

“Don’t ask for the questions before the interview,” Martens advised. “You are the experts.”

10. Don’t expect journalists to follow-up

“TV journalists are like doctors – after the operation, they don’t go back to ask how it was.”

11. No conferences, please

“Man getting out of the car walking into a building, a man walking out of building getting into a car,” is how former BBC correspondent Chris Morris described covering the EU for television. The way to avoid making the EU even duller on screen than it is in reality, according to Martens, is to avoid images of men in suits talking around tables. “We do stories where they happen, not where they’re being talked about.”

12. Get training

“It’s very important you train your experts. Some people are brilliant on the phone but put them in front of a camera and we can’t use them.” Martens offered the following on-camera tips:

• It doesn’t matter how you look (except if you’re an anchor)
• Use clear language, not technical jargon
• Be lively

Of course, we couldn’t agree more with tip 12 at Clear Europe – which is why we run a series of tailored one-day courses on mastering media interviews, working with journalists, influencing the EU media and shooting and editing video. Please contact us for more information about our customised coaching.

At our next News and Booze meeting on 24 April, US consultant George Perlov will draw from his recent global study to explain why some campaigns work and some don’t. More details here.

Fake news is a scourge spread with lightning speed thanks to social media. In this guest article, Ethical Journalism Network Director Aidan White explains how journalists – and others who use social media platforms to share information – can avoid spreading lies, misinformation and dubious claims.

Since the American election two of the world’s biggest internet companies have decided to crack down on fake news. Google says it will ban from its online advertising service websites that peddle it and Facebook says it has added fake news to its policy regarding advertising on sites that show misleading or illegal content. Taken together, these decisions are a clear signal that internet publishers are waking up to the dangers of misinformation online.

Journalists know that there’s nothing new about the problem of fake news. Deceptive, unverified, and error-filled reporting has always been with us, but the scourge has grown in the wake of technology that has helped shape a new world of clickbait, viral communications and confirmation bias.

Journalists should follow some simple ground rules to make sure they don’t become victims of slippery stories published online. Here are some starter tips:

• Use fact-checking web sites. Most reputable media already double-check everything that arrives in their inboxes but now freelance journalists and small-scale media can get help from a rapidly-expanding community of online fact-checkers. Sites such as factcheck.org in the United States or the UK’s fullfact.org, for instance.
• Watch out for websites with odd names. Strange domain names or sites that end in “.com.co” for instance are often fake versions of real news sources.
• Check the “About Us” box on the website. Worry if there isn’t one and check the provider with Wikipedia.
  Beware of stories not being reported elsewhere. A shocking, outrageous or surprising event will have another source. If it doesn’t, be suspicious.
• Be wary if there is no attribution for an author or source. That’s sometimes justified, but should be explained and, if not, don’t trust it.
  Check the date. One favourite trick of news fakers is to repackage old stories. They may have been accurate but used out of time and out of context they may become malicious falsehoods.
• Finally, remember that there’s such a thing as satire. Not all fakery is malicious. It can even be entertaining and may come from reputable sources of journalism. Private Eye, Britain’s leading satirical news magazine, for instance, has done some great fact-based investigative journalism alongside occasionally amusing spoof editorial content, but found itself on a list of “fake-news” sites circulated when the misinformation panic set in after the Trump election.

A full version of this article can be found in Ethics in the News – a recent report from the Ethical Journalism Network on challenges for journalists in the post-truth era.

Cartoon: credits to Jack Ohman for Sunshine Week, The Associated Press.

Instead of telling the truth, Trump has lied with such shameless abandon that a whole new lexicon has had to be invented to describe the parallel universe the president lives in. Post-truth has elevated baloney to the level of the possible, alternative facts are wheeled out to disprove demonstrable evidence and fake news is used as an insult against anyone who dares question the president’s policies.

Instead of courting the electorate, as most strategists would advise, Trump has gone out of his way to insult large chunks of it. Women, Mexicans, Muslims, the media, the disabled and even Swedes have all been on the receiving end of his vitriol, upending the belief that you don’t win clients or votes by haranguing your audience.

Finally, instead of currying favour with the press, as most media advisors would counsel, Trump has waged war on it. He has called venerable outlets like the New York Times and CNN ‘failing media’ and railed against the ‘fake news’ churned out by trusted sources like the Washington Post and NBC. Breaking a tradition dating back to Thomas Jefferson – who once declared “were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter” – he has lambasted the very idea of a free press holding truth to power, slamming journalists as ‘the enemy.’

So what do Trump’s tactics mean for media relations practitioners?

It is too early to say with any certitude, but a few things are already clear from his victory and that of the Leave campaign in Britain’s June 2016 referendum.

Firstly, established media hold less sway than they once did. A year after his election as Labour leader in 1994, Tony Blair flew to Sydney to win over Rupert Murdoch, publisher of the Sun, Britain’s best-selling daily. It is difficult to imagine that happening today with newspaper circulation in freefall and social media providing politicians like Trump with a powerful publishing platform. Indeed, November’s election in the United States proved that the opinions of newspapers are almost completely irrelevant, with only a dozen out of over 600 newspapers backing electoral college winner Trump.

Secondly – and unfortunately – shooting the messenger appears to work. With trust in the media hovering around 20% – the lowest since records began – blaming the press and railing against journalists is the equivalent of battering a boxer punch-drunk on the ropes. Journalists will only be able to defend themselves better if they regain the trust of the public they are supposed to serve.

Thirdly, rebutting lies reinforces them. Despite the fact that Trump is a serial fibber, telling whoppers at the rate of roughly 20 a day between September 15 and election day according to Toronto Star reporter Daniel Dale, the small army of fact-checkers employed to disprove these lies had no discernible influence on public opinion. Instead, the more outrageous Trump’s claims and the more strident his views the more his messages have been amplified by fans and foes on Twitter and the more he has set the daily news agenda.

Trump’s win – and the victory of the Leave camp in Britain – raises some thorny questions for communication advisers, media trainers and political strategists:

• If rebutting lies reinforces them, what is the best way to challenge the fibbers and champion the truth?
• Does fact-checking make any difference when research shows emotion trumps fact and appeals to the heart are more powerful than those to the head?
• In a world of filter bubbles should communicators aim to challenge their audience’s beliefs or reinforce them?
• Does it still make sense to spend so much time courting the media when Trump’s win proves they can be bypassed?
• Is the type of raw, unfiltered communication preferred by Trump’s tweets and Farage’s provocations more effective than the focus group-tested messaging matrixes of slick-suited PR advisers?

As the answers to these questions will determine how politics and communication is conducted in much of the world for the years to come, we’d be interested in your feedback below, on our X or Facebook feeds or via email.

We followed that up with a piece on ‘10 Things You Need to Know About the Brussels Press Corps’ that contained such sparking nuggets of information as: almost half the correspondents based in the EU capital work alone, Chinese news agency Xinhua has 23 accredited correspondents and French reporter Jean Quatremer has the most followers on Twitter (still true.)

Since May 2012 the European Commission has stopped publishing its highly-prized list of accredited journalists to the EU, making reliable figures hard to come by. However, Clear Europe has obtained a treasure trove of up-to-date statistics from well-placed EU sources – who requested anonymity. Here are the highlights:

1.     There has been a spectacular rise in the number of freelance journalists. A decade ago there were just 11 freelancers covering the EU. In 2012 there were 64. Now there are 159 – more than double that of three years ago.

2.     More journalists are accredited to Belgium-based media than any other country – 143. This is largely because of the arrival of POLITICO Europe, which is based in Brussels and is already the largest non-Belgian media outlet in town with 40 accredited reporters. Germany, the biggest in 2012, supplies 110, France 95 and the UK 87. Again, these raw figures are slightly deceptive – the British numbers are skewed by the fact that media such as MLex and Euractiv are registered in London. The figure has also raised eyebrows among French journalists, with the French Permanent Representation to the EU noting a much lower figure. Part of the reason might be a massive jump in the number of journalists working for Euronews, which has its headquarters in Lyon.

3.     The total number of journalists accredited to the EU institutions was 955 as of late October 2015. This is marginally higher than 2012, when there were 931 reporters, and almost the same as after the big-bang enlargement of 2004.

4.     Of these 955 reporters, 599 are men and 356 are women. In percentage terms, 63% are male and 37% female, a slight rise in parity compared to the 2012 figures when 65% were men and 35% women.

5.     In addition to the 955 journalists accredited to the EU, there are 358 technicians – cameramen, photographers, producers etc – bringing the total number of accreditation badges to 1313. Belgium supplies by far the largest share of technicians – 376, with Germany on 143 and France on 105.

6.     The 1313 accredited journalists and technicians represent 487 different media companies. Reporters working for written press make up just over a quarter of the total number, with news agencies and television just under a quarter each.

Finally, a word or two about the figures, which will no doubt be hotly contested by some overworked Brussels correspondents wondering where their phantom colleagues are:

·      They are official numbers from the EU institutions, not ours.

·      They are from 30/10/15. The advantage of figures collected later in the year is that all journalists have picked up their badges by then. The disadvantage is that reporters who have left may not have been struck off the list. The total number of journalists accredited on 01/05/16 was 839.

·      The numbers are inflated by the fact that some journalists based in capitals outside Brussels – often editors and commentators – have permanent accreditation.

·      Some journalists work for several media organisations from different countries.

Despite these caveats, we hope you find the figures useful and that they give you a better understanding of the pressures journalists in Brussels face.

It speaks volumes about the current state of journalism in the United States that it takes a 38-year-old British comedian to draw attention to topics much of the mainstream media has chosen to ignore, using investigative reporting methods many of these organisations have long abandoned.

Take Donald Trump. A lot has been written and aired about the bombastic billionaire Republican presidential candidate. But when John Oliver – the host of HBO’s Last Week Tonight – turned his fire on Trump Sunday, he touched a nerve that even other presidential contenders had failed to. After trashing Trump’s business record and denouncing the property magnate turned reality TV star as a “serial liar,” Oliver launched a campaign for the Donald to be referred to by his ancestral German name ‘Drumpf.’ By March 2, the #MakeDonaldDrumpfAgain campaign was trending on Twitter and the episode had been viewed by more than 50 million people on YouTube.

This is the kind of crowd-pleasing trouble-making that has helped make Oliver one of the hottest tickets on American TV. Since April 2014, the British stand-up has used his satirical show to deal with some of the thorniest issues on the planet. Among the topics tackled: Net neutrality, the rise of Islamic State, Europe’s refugee crisis and corruption at the governing body of world football FIFA. Along the way he has interviewed luminaries and heavyweights such as whistleblower Edward Snowden and scientist Stephen Hawking.

“It is undeniable that the British stand-up is guilty of committing ‘acts of journalism’ in the service of comedy.”

By devoting 15-20 minute chunks of prime TV airtime to complex issues in a thoughtful, provocative manner and digging deeper into stories usually glossed over in 40-second bites by mainstream channels like Fox News and CNN, Oliver has won the plaudits of journalists and media commentators across the globe.

“More and more often, the HBO newcomer looks, sounds, and feels like real news,” wrote Asawin Suwebsae in a profile of Oliver’s show in The Daily Beast. David Carr, the late New York Times media critic, suggested Oliver was pursuing a “kind of new journalism.”

These are accusations Oliver, who cut his comedic chops as a reporter on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, strenuously rejects. In an interview with reporter Jorge Ramos in May 2015, Oliver stressed: “I am not a journalist. I am a comedian. I make jokes about the news.”

Despite Oliver’s protestations, however, it is undeniable that the British stand-up is guilty of committing ‘acts of journalism’ in the service of comedy.

Here’s why:

Firstly, Last Week Tonight focuses on a complex subject and attempts to simplify this for audiences – as journalists have been doing for centuries. The fact that he uses comedy as a tool to grab the attention of viewers does not make the journalism less credible, but keeps the viewer engaged and makes political points without sounding angry or preachy. In this respect, Oliver is firmly in the tradition of the strain of humorous American journalism that started with Mark Twain and James Thurber and has continued with the Daily Show, The Colbert Report, The Onion and even Buzzfeed. It also surfs the current wave of ‘explainer journalism’ by focusing less on the ‘who, what, where, whens’ of the world and more on the ‘whys and hows.’

For example, Oliver’s shows have focused on the privatisation of America’s prison system, the implementation of Shariah law in the sultanate of Brunei and political corruption in Ecuador – which sparked the fury of President Rafael Correa, who took to Twitter to insult him. In so doing, Oliver has upended many of the lazy assumptions made by mainstream American media that today’s hyper-distracted audiences cannot handle complex subjects, have little patience for analysis and no interest in far-flung places that do not affect their lives.

Secondly, Oliver’s assertions are backed up by evidence. “We have very aggressive fact-checkers and researchers, so that we are not wrong. If you make a joke about something that is factually inaccurate, the joke collapses,” he told Ramos. An example of this was the September 2014 segment of the show about Miss America. When the organisation behind the beauty pageant claimed it made $45 million in college scholarships available to contestants every year, Oliver questioned the figure. “That is an unbelievable amount of money—as in, I literally did not believe that,” he said. So his team of researchers, which includes many former journalists, investigated the tax forms of every state in the country and discovered that the Miss America Organisation spent closer to $4 million on scholarships. No wonder Robert Thompson, director of Syracuse University’s Bleier Center for Television and Popular Culture, has called the show “investigative comedy.”

Thirdly, Oliver’s show follows the classic journalist tradition of holding power to account by probing authorities, investigating wrongdoings and questioning received wisdom. For example, Last Week Tonight was one of the first to dig into allegations of corruption at FIFA and is widely credited with drawing attention to the empire of sleaze presided over by Sepp Blater.

Finally, in the words of Ramos, the British comedian’s show helps “spark a national dialogue.” In other words, it creates a conversation about important issues in interesting ways – one of journalism’s oft-held claims. A case in point is his segment about net neutrality – “the only two words promising more boredom in the English language are ‘featuring Sting’” as he quipped on his show. The public disagreed, with the clip attracting over 10 million viewers and stoking so much indignation that when Oliver urged fans to flood the Federal Communications Commission with comments about proposed changes to net neutrality, so many did that the FCC website crashed.

So is Oliver an activist? “That’s not the goal,” he told the Financial Times in a recent interview. “That is a completely unintended byproduct. All we are focused on is trying to make really the best comedy show that we can and make it interesting and immediate.”

After Oliver denied being a journalist in his interview with Ramos, the Mexican TV anchor protested that he had “more credibility than most journalists in the United States and many other countries.” Oliver’s reply sums up why it is so difficult to pigeonhole this bespectacled Birmingham native: “But that is more of an insult to the current state of journalism than a compliment to the state of comedy.”

However, you define what he is doing – alternative journalism, investigative comedy, stand-up reporting – it seems Oliver, who was included in Time’s 100 most influential people of the year in 2014, is having the last laugh.

EUobserver article by Clear Europe CEO Gareth Harding explaining how needlessly complicated the EU is.

With over 20 years’ experience describing how the European Union works, what it does and what challenges it faces in speeches, articles, lectures and trainings, I thought I could explain what the EU is all about in terms that anybody could understand. How wrong I was.

In the last month I have given half a dozen ‘EU in an hour’ talks to visiting groups of American politics, journalism and international relations students – who are all extremely keen, bright and willing to ask questions. But almost invariably, the students leave the classroom flabbergasted at how needlessly complicated the EU is and suspecting that I have made up some of the Byzantine decision-making procedures just to mess with them.

This is how the average talk goes:

Me: So basically, you have three main institutions: The European Commission, Parliament and Council.

Q: I thought there were four?

A: Well, yes, if you include the European Council.

Q: Wasn’t that one of the three you just mentioned?

A: No, that’s the Council of the European Union. Which is different from the Council of Europe, which is a non-EU body that meets in Strasbourg.

Q: Doesn’t the European Parliament meet in Strasbourg?

A: It does. But so does the Council of Europe. And to be precise, the Parliament also meets in Brussels.

Q: So, just to be clear, the Parliament has offices in both Brussels and Strasbourg?

A: Yes, and Luxembourg, where a lot of the support staff are based. But anyway, let’s go back to the institutions I mentioned before. Firstly, the European Commission. This is often called the EU executive body.

Q: So, like the U.S. President?

A: Not really. The Commission can’t declare war or veto laws. But it can do trade deals. So, it has some executive functions, but also some legislative.

Q: But my textbook says the parliament and EU Council are the two law-making bodies?

A: Correct, but the Commission proposes all draft laws.

Q: Wait. What? How can an unelected body propose laws? Shouldn’t that be the Parliament?

A: No, the Commission has what they call the ‘sole right of initiative’ because it is supposed to represent the European interest and be free from national prejudices.

“The EU has not been made according to a grand design like a Gothic cathedral.”

Q: But don’t EU member states propose Commissioners?

A: Yes, they do. But when they arrive in Brussels, they have their national hard drives erased. In theory. Unlike the Council of the EU, which represents the naked national interests of the 28 states.

Q: So the Council is a bit like our Senate? One member per state, regardless of size?

A: Yes, except big states like Germany have many more votes than small states like Malta.

Q: So it’s not really like our Senate?

A: Er…no. Anyway, the Council makes laws, along with the Parliament. It also adopts the EU budget, which is about €140 billion a year.

Q: That’s not much. I thought the EU was the world’s biggest economy?

A: Ah, yes, the total GDP of the 28 member states is the biggest in the world, but Brussels is only responsible for about 1% of that.

Q: The Council meets in Brussels, right?

A: Yes, except in April, June and October, when it meets in Luxembourg.

Q: You’re kidding?

A: I wish I was.

Q: So who’s in charge of the EU?

A: Ah, the Kissinger question. In one word – nobody. In reality, there are three presidents – of the European Council, Commission and Parliament. The first two are basically chosen by EU leaders and the third by MEPs. None are directly elected to the post by voters. Oh, and there’s also a presidency of the Council of Ministers.

Q: Wait, what?

A: Well, every six months a different EU state is in charge of chairing ministerial meetings. At present, that is Latvia, but on July 1 that changes to Luxembourg. However, meetings of foreign ministers are presided over by EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, who is also vice-president of the European Commission. And Eurogroup meetings are chaired by Dutch Finance Minister Jeroen Dijsselbloem..

Q: Hang on, what’s the Eurogroup?

A: Well, that’s the meeting of EU finance ministers from the 19 EU states that use the euro?

Q: What? I thought the EU had a single currency?

A: It does, but not for all its states. Britain, Denmark and Sweden decided to keep their own currencies and some central European countries are not ready to join the Eurozone yet.

Q: You’re making this up, aren’t you? The EU can’t possibly be that complicated.

A Belgian townhouse

Unfortunately, it is. Part of the reason is that the EU has not been made according to a grand design like a Gothic cathedral. Instead, its structure more resembles the back-end of a Belgian townhouse: always messy, often ugly and sometimes decidedly dodgy.

It also doesn’t help that the EU is a moving target, constantly changing its name, membership, treaties and even fundamental aims. No wonder over three-quarters of EU citizens don’t know how the Union works.

So what can the EU do to make it simpler to understand?

Firstly, it could be a tad more inventive in labelling its main institutions. Renaming either the European Council or the Council of the EU would be a start. The difference between presidents and presidencies could also be spelled out better.

Secondly, that whole double-hatted Commission VP/Council High Representative thing? That has to go.

Thirdly, stop the travelling circus to Strasbourg. Obviously.

Finally, naming things based on reality rather than wishful thinking would help. The EU doesn’t have a common foreign and defence policy and certainly doesn’t have a single currency, so why pretend it does?

Of course, none of this would make the European Union more popular or prosperous. But it would make it easier to understand – which is surely one policy both supporters and opponents of the EU project should be able to rally around.

This article was originally published in EUobserver on June 18.