This research provides further detailed evidence that impartiality – along with accuracy – remains a bedrock of trust in the news media.

• We find that audiences really value what impartiality stands for, despite the complexity of the concept. Most people want to be exposed to a range of views, especially around politics and other serious and important topics. They recognise the risk of giving exposure to extreme views or one side in the name of balance. However, evidence from this group of engaged users is that they are even more concerned about the suppression and silencing of viewpoints.

• There are some differences across countries, especially in expectations of traditional sources between countries like the US on the one hand and the UK and Germany on the other. And younger people, who have grown up using more informal and digital sources, also tend to have different expectations, although their underlying attitudes and desires are remarkably similar to older people’s.

• News – where balance and fairness within a story is particularly important – and analysis – which people also value but recognise carries greater risk – is distinguished from opinion, which people also want as part of the mix but which is partial by definition. Audiences have very different expectations of these layers of news.

• In the analogue world, differences between news, analysis and opinion were much clearer, with special labelling and clear sections, but in digital the divisions have blurred. For journalists, dilemmas around impartiality have also been tested by more informal formats such as social media, especially where news has become more emotive or controversial. Many fear that opinion and advocacy have become increasingly entwined with the news itself in a way that is often not transparent.