Nearly three-quarters of Americans say press freedom is vital to society, but majorities also support government restrictions on reporting involving national security risks or false information, according to a new Pew Research Center study.
The national findings intersect with protections written into New York law, including the state’s shield law for journalists and its recognition of the public’s right to record law enforcement activity. They also arrive as state lawmakers consider whether to explicitly extend source protections to journalists affiliated with blogs.
Pew found that 73% of U.S. adults consider press freedom extremely or very important to society. When forced to choose between competing priorities, however, 53% said preventing inaccurate reporting was more important even if it limited press freedom, while 45% favored allowing the press to report freely even if some coverage was inaccurate.
Sixty percent said the federal government should be able to require removal of a news story that poses a national security risk. About half, 51%, supported that authority when a story contains false information.
Support dropped sharply when political speech was involved. Just 14% said the government should be able to force removal of a story that clearly favors one political side, and 10% supported that power when a story criticizes the government.
New York law protects sources, but a proposed expansion remains pending
The study found no broad consensus about when the government should be able to force journalists to identify confidential sources. Thirty-five percent said doing so is never acceptable, while 45% considered it acceptable at least in limited circumstances. Another 15% were unsure, and 5% said it is always acceptable.
New York’s journalist shield law provides absolute protection for confidential news and confidential sources obtained by qualifying professional journalists and newscasters. The law also provides qualified protection for unpublished, nonconfidential material unless the party seeking it makes a specific showing that it is highly relevant, necessary to a case and unavailable elsewhere.
The statute defines a professional journalist as someone who gathers or prepares news for a living through a newspaper, magazine, news agency, press association, wire service or another professional news medium. It also bars fines or imprisonment for refusing to disclose information protected by the law.
A bill pending in the state Senate Codes Committee would explicitly add “web log” to the list of media covered by the shield law. The proposal, sponsored by Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal, would define a web log as a website or webpage containing an online journal with news, commentary and hyperlinks provided by a professional journalist or newscaster.
The bill was introduced in January 2025 but has not advanced beyond committee. Its sponsor’s memo argues that New York’s law should more clearly reflect how digital journalists gather and publish news. Similar proposals have been introduced repeatedly since 2008 without becoming law.
That debate parallels Pew’s focus-group findings. Some participants viewed the press narrowly as trained or credentialed journalists working for established organizations. Others said independent reporters, digital publishers and ordinary people documenting public events should receive the same protections.
Most say recording public arrests is acceptable
New York law also addresses another activity included in the survey: recording police.
Pew found that 42% of Americans consider it always acceptable for a news organization to record law enforcement officers making an arrest in public, while 22% said it is usually acceptable. Democrats were more likely than Republicans to say it is always acceptable, 55% to 30%.
Under New York Civil Rights Law Section 79-p, a person who is not under arrest or in police custody has the right to record law enforcement activity and retain control of the recording and recording equipment. The law does not permit someone to physically interfere with police activity or otherwise commit obstruction.
It also allows people to bring civil claims when an officer unlawfully prevents recording, orders someone to stop, retaliates against the person, seizes equipment or destroys or copies a recording without consent or court approval. Available remedies can include damages, injunctive relief and attorney fees.
Support for press freedom coexists with limited knowledge
Only 51% of adults correctly identified freedom of the press as a right guaranteed by the First Amendment. About a quarter incorrectly selected “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” language found in the Declaration of Independence, while 9% chose the right to bear arms.
Americans were more likely to understand who receives First Amendment protections than how those protections apply to private companies. About seven in 10 knew the amendment protects expression by both news organizations and ordinary people.
By contrast, 37% correctly answered that the government cannot legally force social media companies to remove false information, and 33% knew that the First Amendment does not protect the press against interference by private companies.
The surveys measured public opinion about what institutions should be allowed to do, not necessarily what existing law permits. The First Amendment restricts government action, while private businesses generally operate under a different legal framework.
Partisan views shift with control of government
Pew found that 46% of adults are extremely or very concerned about potential restrictions on press freedom, up from 41% in 2024. Twenty-eight percent said the media is completely free to report the news, down from 33% last year. Another 48% said the press is somewhat free, while 23% said it is not very free or not free at all.
Those views differed sharply by party. Sixty-four percent of Democrats expressed high concern about restrictions on the press, compared with 29% of Republicans. Democrats were also less likely to say the media is completely free, 18% to 41%.
The pattern was the reverse in 2024, when Joe Biden was president. Pew said the shift reflects a broader tendency for people aligned with the party controlling the White House to express more confidence in the federal government.
Forty-four percent of adults said the press has become less free during President Donald Trump’s second administration. Twelve percent said it has become more free, 26% saw no change and 17% were unsure.
The partisan gap was substantial: 72% of Democrats said the press has become less free, compared with 15% of Republicans. At the same time, 71% of Americans — including similar shares in both parties — described the relationship between the Trump administration and the news media as bad.
Distrust reaches government, media and technology companies
Suspicion extended across major institutions. At least three-quarters said the federal government, news organizations and social media companies intentionally keep important news from reaching the public at least some of the time.
Fifty-nine percent said the federal government does so extremely often or often. Republicans were more likely to say news organizations and individual journalists suppress important information, while Democrats were more likely to direct that concern toward the federal government.
About half said news organizations are influenced a great deal by corporations and financial interests, and 49% said the same about government and political interests. Large majorities said those pressures affect which stories receive coverage, the political balance of reporting and its accuracy.
Pew based the report on two nationally representative American Trends Panel surveys. The March survey included 3,507 adults and had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 1.9 percentage points. The June survey included 3,488 adults and had a margin of error of plus or minus 1.8 points.
Researchers also conducted 10 online focus groups with 74 adults. Pew cautioned that those discussions were not nationally representative and used them to illustrate how people reason about press freedom, accuracy, censorship and the changing definition of the press.
FingerLakes1.com is the region’s leading all-digital news publication. The company was founded in 1998 and has been keeping residents informed for more than two decades. Have a lead? Send it to news@fingerlakes1.com.