Creators now reach audiences that rival traditional news brands, yet little research has asked how they decide what is true enough to share. This article sets out what UNESCO’s global survey of creators and its 2026 Kenya study report, with dates, and where those findings stop.
Why does creator fact-checking matter?
Creators sit between sources and audiences. A post that repeats a claim, a statistic or a rumour can travel far, and the person sharing it is often not a journalist. UNESCO’s 2026 report on creators in Kenya puts a number on the audience side: according to that report, as of its publication in August 2026, 58% of consumers regularly pay attention to creators and influencers, compared with 34% who regularly follow traditional news brands and journalists.
That figure comes from one country and should not be read as a global ratio. It does explain why UNESCO, the United Nations body for education, science and culture, has made creators a subject of its media and information literacy work. The question is not whether creators should behave like newsrooms, which is a matter of debate, but what the evidence says about their practices.
What did UNESCO’s “Behind the Screens” survey cover?
UNESCO published the findings on 26 November 2024. It describes the survey as the first global analysis of digital content creators’ motivations, practices and challenges. The sample was 500 influencers in 45 countries, with research carried out by a dedicated team at Bowling Green State University in the United States.
Two features of that design matter. First, 500 respondents across 45 countries is a small number per country, so the results describe the surveyed group, not creators everywhere. Second, the survey measures what creators reported about themselves. Self-reports can differ from behaviour, and UNESCO’s release does not claim otherwise.
What do the headline numbers say?
The release reports the following, as of its November 2024 publication:
| Finding | Share of respondents |
|---|---|
| Do not carry out thorough, systematic fact-checking before sharing | 62% |
| Want training to fact-check information | 73% |
| Said likes and shares were the main indicator of a post’s credibility | 42% |
| Would share content that trusted friends had shared with them | 21% |
| Relied on the reputation of the original author or publisher | 19% |
| Cited mainstream news media as a source | 36.9% |
| Unfamiliar with, or only aware of, regulatory frameworks and standards for digital communications | 59% |
The 36.9% figure for mainstream news media ranked third among sources, after creators’ own experience and their own research and interviews, according to the release.
Illustrative arithmetic
Applying the percentages to the sample of 500 gives a sense of scale. 62% of 500 is 310 creators; 73% of 500 is 365; and 42% of 500 is 210. These are the article’s own conversions for illustration and assume the percentages apply to all 500 respondents, which the release does not spell out for every item. The statistical margin of error is not stated in the pages read for this article.
Is “no systematic checking” the same as “no checking”?
No, and the wording matters. UNESCO’s release describes 62% as not carrying out “thorough, systematic” fact-checking. UNESCO’s creator hub phrases it as not systematically verifying information before sharing. That is different from saying these creators never check anything or knowingly share falsehoods.
The release also shows what creators use in place of a systematic process. Their own experience and research ranked ahead of mainstream news, and 42% pointed to likes and shares as the main credibility signal. That last finding is notable because engagement is also what recommendation systems tend to reward, a theme covered in the guide to how recommendation algorithms decide what you see. Whether the two reinforce each other is the article’s reading, not UNESCO’s finding.
What do creators say they want?
The survey’s most actionable number may be the 73% who want training. The release adds that 56.4% were aware of training programmes aimed at them, and that 13.9% of those aware of such programmes had taken part. The release does not say what share of all 500 that represents, so it is not calculated here.
It also reports that links between creators and journalists are still rare, even though journalists could help creators verify information.
What is UNESCO’s response?
UNESCO and the Knight Center for Journalism in the Americas developed an online course for creators. At launch in November 2024, UNESCO described it as the first global month-long course for creators, lasting four weeks, with more than 9,000 people from 160 countries registered or enrolled. The release lists learning goals including sourcing information from diverse sources, assessing and verifying quality, disclosing the sources behind content, and reporting misinformation, disinformation and hate speech.
UNESCO’s creator hub, as read in October 2026, names the course “How to Be a Trusted Voice Online”, says it is available in English, French and Portuguese, and says certificates are no longer issued. The hub also lists a #PostWithCare campaign launched during Global Media and Information Literacy Week 2024, and country work in places including South Africa, Kenya, Latin America, the Caribbean and Jordan.
What did the 2026 Kenya study add?
UNESCO published a report on digital content creation in Kenya on 13 August 2026 and updated the page on 17 August 2026. It involved 426 stakeholders, including a survey of 380 creators and 46 people in interviews and focus groups. Selected findings, as UNESCO reports them for Kenya only:
- 37.1% of creators do not systematically fact-check their posts.
- Among those producing sponsored content, 46.1% do not disclose paid advertising and 36.8% do not disclose their use of generative AI.
- 87.1% have never received media and information literacy training, and 56.3% have no journalism background.
- 91.6% believe ethical codes build audience trust, and 95.0% are eager to join training on ethics and freedom of expression.
- 76.6% are unaware of the responsibilities and limits to freedom of expression, and 68.9% are unaware of national legislation on defamation and copyright.
A rough check: 37.1% of 380 is about 141 creators. The Kenya figure for not fact-checking (37.1%) is lower than the global survey’s 62%, but the two studies use different samples, countries and possibly different wording, so they should not be treated as a trend or a direct comparison.
Why does this matter beyond Kenya and UNESCO?
Both studies describe creators in the countries they sampled. The UNESCO pages do not describe UK law, and nothing here shows how UK creators would answer. UK readers should therefore treat the numbers as international evidence about a global profession, not a UK statistic.
The ideas still connect to rules covered elsewhere in the magazine. Disclosure of paid content is a legal and regulatory matter that differs by country, as the influencer disclosure rules explainer sets out for the UK, US and EU. The Kenya finding on undisclosed advertising shows why regulators keep returning to it. Ofcom’s role in promoting audience skills is described in the guide to what media literacy is. For brands, how brands choose influencers beyond follower counts discusses signals other than reach, and a creator’s sourcing habits are one more such signal, in this article’s view.
What are the limits of the evidence?
Several cautions apply:
- Small, self-selected samples. The pages read do not explain how respondents were recruited.
- Self-reporting. The studies record what creators say they do.
- Definitions. “Creator” and “systematic fact-checking” can mean different things in different places.
- Different countries. Kenyan findings are not global ones, and the global survey does not break results down by country in the pages read.
- Age. The global survey is from 2024, so practices may have changed.
What the data suggests about trust in creator content
The UNESCO surveys point to a gap between audience attention and formal verification habits, and to a clear appetite among creators for training. They do not show that creators are less accurate than newsrooms, and they do not measure the accuracy of any particular post. For audiences, that suggests treating likes and shares as a measure of popularity rather than proof. For creators and brands, the findings point to sourcing, disclosure and training as areas where published guidance and courses already exist.
This article is general information based on published UNESCO material. Survey findings describe the samples studied, and programmes, rules and platform policies change.
Sources: UNESCO (2/3 of digital content creators do not check their facts before sharing, but want to learn how to do so: UNESCO survey); UNESCO (Empowering Digital Content Creators as Trusted Information Relays); UNESCO (UNESCO releases new report on the context and challenges of digital content creation in Kenya)
