Where Young People Get Information and Who They Actually Trust: Examining "Raketa" (Rocket) Foundation's National Survey

If you work with young people - whether in a corporate program, an NGO, or an educational context - you have probably noticed something paradoxical: they spend hours on social media, yet when it comes to making an important decision, they turn to parents, teachers, or specialists.

The national survey by Raketa Foundation of over 1,000 young people aged 13-19 puts numbers behind this sense - and they confirm a structural problem in the generation's information environment: the channels with the greatest reach do not match the sources with the highest authority.

Social media dominates, but it is not trusted

81% of young people name social media as their main source of information, and this share is even higher among 13-14 year olds. At the same time, influencers receive trust from only 9% of all respondents.

What does this mean? It means young people are massively exposed to content created by people they don't fully trust. Trust goes elsewhere: to parents (49%), to specialists (26%), to teachers (25%). This raises the question: how can a program for young people be effective if it ignores this gap? If we create content on channels they don't trust, or if we rely on authority figures who don't reach them? Critical thinking does not develop evenly

Only 15% of young people say they always check whether a piece of news is true. Most say "sometimes," which sounds honest but is not enough. Even more concerning is the 26% who say they don't fully trust anyone, a share that is highest among 15-16 year olds. This is not cynicism, it is insecurity.

Young people are losing their old reference points (parents, school) without having built new ones. If media literacy programs don't address this phase of uncertainty, they will lose exactly the group that needs them most. Older teens think more critically, but they are looking for specifics

Among younger respondents (13-15 years old), personal and emotional language dominates, with answers reflecting a wish for simple, plain explanations and a tendency to trust people who speak in a relatable, down to earth way. Here, trust is tied to tone and a sense of being understood.

Among older teens (17-19 years old), more analytical language appears, with responses noting how hard it is to tell what's true when everyone says something different, and that sounding convincing doesn't mean someone is right. Here, trust depends on arguments, sources, and transparency.

This means a single format cannot work for all ages. One-size-fits-all campaigns lose young people somewhere between these stages of development. What young people want from content

The topics young people themselves suggest for discussion paint a clear picture: money and financial literacy, mental health and stress, drug use and addiction, future career paths.

But not as abstract topics. They are looking for answers to personal questions, like how something affects them and how they can cope. They want someone to explain things without judging them. They want examples, not moralizing.

What's common across all ages is a rejection of a preachy tone. Responses reflect a dislike of being told what to think, a wish for explanation rather than scare tactics, and a preference for honesty, even when that means admitting not everything is known. What this means for your work with young people

If you're developing a corporate program to engage young employees, preparing trainings in schools, or working on an NGO project with a youth audience, these findings have direct implications.

1. The format must match the age and developmental stage. You can't talk to 14 year olds and 18 year olds in the same way. The younger group is looking for support and understanding, the older group for arguments and transparency.

2. The channel isn't enough, you need a trusted voice. If you show up on TikTok just because young people are there, but your voice is impersonal or corporate, they won't listen. Trust is built through authenticity, expertise, or through people they already trust.

3. Critical thinking isn't taught through lectures. What's needed are formats that create space for questions, doubt, and dialogue, not "here's what you need to know" but "here's how to think about this."

4. Topics need to be personal, not abstract. "Financial literacy" is an empty phrase. "How do I decide if a loan is worth it" is a question young people actually want answered.

What we work on at Impact Drive

At Impact Drive, we have 15+ years of experience working with young people, NGO professionals, and corporate teams. We see these gaps every day, between what young people say they want and what they actually get, and between the channels that reach them and the voices they trust.

The programs that work are the ones that don't oversimplify, moralize, or underestimate their youth audience. The ones that listen before they speak. The ones that give tools, not ready-made answers.

Raketa Foundation's survey confirms something we know from experience: media literacy isn't a one-time intervention, it's a process that requires context, consistency, and respect for the different stages of development.

Download the full report.

If you work with young people or are planning a program aimed at them, it's worth reading the full report. It contains a detailed breakdown by age, gender, and location, as well as specific examples from the open-ended questions.

Download Raketa Foundation's report here:

doklad-mediina-genz (1).pdf

Download PDF • 1.23MB

And if you'd like to discuss how these insights can be turned into an effective program for your organization, get in touch with us.