A breaking
story appears on your social media feed. Someone has shared a screenshot, a
video clip, or a dramatic headline. Before forwarding it, you pause to check
the source. You look for a familiar logo, a known broadcaster’s watermark, or a
recognised byline. You ask, almost instinctively: who is saying this?
The pause,
brief but deliberate, is not hesitation. It is judgment. And in Kenya’s rapidly
shifting media landscape, it may be the most important behaviour a news
consumer exercises. Because while social media has transformed how we consume
news, it has not changed the question every news consumer eventually asks: Can
I trust this?
Platforms
have changed, but trust hasn’t
The numbers
are unambiguous. The Media Council of Kenya’s State of the Media 2025 Survey is
clear. Social media is now the primary source of news for Kenyans at 39 per
cent, ahead of television at 31 per cent, radio at 21 per cent and newspapers
at just 13 per cent —a figure that stood at 29 per cent as recently as 2022. The
migration from traditional to digital is no longer a trend. It is the settled
reality.
Yet another
finding in the same survey complicates the narrative. Despite this shift, when
Kenyans were asked which media outlet they trust most, the overwhelming
majority named a traditional broadcast group. Meanwhile, the most visited news
websites are platforms built on brand recognition cultivated through
conventional media.
Kenyans
have changed where they consume news, but they have not changed who they trust.
Social media is where audiences encounter information first, but established
credibility remains where they go to decide whether it is true.
Scepticism
is the new default
This
behaviour is not a passive habit. It is a rational response to a deeply
unreliable information environment.
Anyone can
post news online, claim to be a source, or produce content that looks and
sounds authoritative. In response, audiences have developed a self-regulation
instinct. They are seeking attribution from recognisable sources and
interrogating what lands in their feed before sharing it further.
The 2025
survey confirms this vigilance is widespread. The spread of false and
misleading information is cited by 28 per cent of Kenyans as their single biggest media
concern today, tied with inadequate coverage of key issues. These are not
passive consumers. As active sceptics, they understand that the abundance of
information has made trustworthiness the defining challenge of the digital age.
For
communicators, this creates both a warning and an opportunity. Audiences are
not simply watching who publishes first. They are watching who publishes correctly.
AI is
making credibility harder to verify
The
verification instinct is now under a more sophisticated threat than simple
misinformation.
The survey
reveals that while 59 per cent of Kenyans are aware artificial intelligence is
being used in media production, 63 per cent cannot identify AI-generated
content when they encounter it. Audiences have historically judged credibility
by recognising a journalist’s voice, a broadcaster’s identity, or a
publication’s tone. AI can now replicate all of these with no editorial
standards and no accountability attached.
The scale
of exposure amplifies the risk. Nearly half of Kenya is now online, and 91 per
cent access digital media through mobile phones. In this environment,
fabricated content can reach millions of people within hours. Speed and emotion
drive sharing, and here’s where misinformation is most dangerous. In this
context, a communicator’s established reputation for accuracy is no longer a
professional virtue. It is the only reliable filter many audiences have left.
Trust is
recovering, but must be earned in new spaces
Public
debate often assumes that trust in the media is declining. The data points in a
different direction.
Up to 79 per
cent of Kenyans now express some or a lot of trust in the media, up from 74.5 per
cent the previous survey. The proportion who believe media coverage of
government is unfair has dropped from 73.6 per cent to 46 per cent, a
significant credibility recovery in a calendar year. Growing awareness of
misinformation appears to be making audiences more deliberate about who they
trust, and more loyal to the sources consistently earning it.
But let’s
look at what is driving this recovery. Content relevance leads at 45 per cent,
timeliness follows at 33 per cent and credibility and reputation come in at 29 per
cent. These are the operating expectations of digital audiences as much as they
are traditional journalism values.
The message
is direct: credibility cannot be inherited from a broadcast or print legacy.
Credibility must be demonstrated where audiences now live on the same social platforms,
they use daily. This means sourcing captions, correcting mistakes publicly, and
choosing accuracy over engagement in every headline.
Credibility is the competitive advantage
Kenya’s
social media audience is sceptical, fast-moving and actively searching for
sources they can rely on in an environment saturated with content they cannot
fully verify.
The
communicators who will earn lasting trust are not necessarily those with the
largest following. They are those willing to be accurate when speed is
tempting, transparent when opacity is easier and consistent when the algorithm
rewards sensation over substance. Audiences today evaluate communicators not
only by what they publish, but by how they handle errors and whether they
maintain standards under pressure.
Attention
can be won through trends and viral content. Trust is won through accuracy,
integrity and the discipline to maintain both when neither is convenient. In
Kenya’s social media age, credibility is not a soft value or a professional
courtesy. Building it takes years, while it can be lost in mere seconds.
The author
is a communications consultant and a senior partner at AM Communications
