The next speaker in this session at the 2026 Association of Internet Researchers conference in Mexico City is Destiny Hopkins, whose focus is on the terminology and identity of news influencers who have no formal journalism background or education. Such influencers have become increasingly prominent in US politics, and news influencers were invited to the Democratic National Congress alongside legitimate journalists, for instance.
This was seen critically by journalists and news organisations, of course, resulting in pushback from the influencers themselves; they pointed out the boundary work done by journalists to distinguish themselves from influencers, in particular. This is an old theme: social media enabled the rise of influencers, and encouraged an influencer creep into journalism that also led to a gigification of the profession.
Such changes on both the professional and non-professional side of journalism have led to a range of terms trying to define what news influencers are; broadly, they are individuals who regularly post about current events and civic issues on social media and have amassed a substantial of followers on social media platforms through these activities. Here, the focus is on non-affiliated news influencers without formal journalistic experience; these are especially subjected to questions of journalistic legitimacy, even though there are no formal qualifications required for working as a journalist.
There are now various organisations supporting influencer journalism, too; some of these are especially focussed on helping professional journalists work as news influencers; at the same time, substantial critiques of news influencers as disrupting and cheapening the work of journalism also continue to be made.
Destiny explored this through interviews with six influencers in Canada and the US; these are not representative for the broader influencer workforce, but their insights are nonetheless valuable for understanding such activities. These largely rejected the term news influencer (and especially the ‘influencer’ part), as it sounds shallow and as something which might be used by their political enemies to attack them. They also questioned the focus on news, as opposed to politics or culture.
At the same time, they also rejected an identification as journalists, in part because of their critical perspective on journalism itself; instead, they preferred terms like communicator, commentator, or educator, since much of their work is in explaining the news. Several acknowledged the tension coming from the news industry, and to some extent understood this as a form of envy.
These influencers were also asked about their personal codes of ethics, their sourcing practices, and other aspects of their work that signal legitimacy and transparency; these were seen as creating audience trust and a sense of authenticity, and audiences were even seen as a kind of regulatory body overseeing the quality of their work. This is also a form of self-branding, of course, and appeals to platform logics. In doing so, they are able to create a community with their audiences – and that means they still operate as influencers even if they don’t like the term.
