You’re sitting at home. You’re watching TV. A commercial comes on. What do you do?

Many of us reach for our phones — checking Instagram or X or Facebook or YouTube, anything to help us kill the next two minutes.

For many of us, our phones are the first thing we pick up in the morning and the last thing we set down at night. During the day, we scroll while waiting for the train, or in the checkout line, or waiting for a friend to use the restroom while at lunch.

And our kids are the same. That much we know.

What we don’t know is how all this technology — smartphones and tablets and video games and social media use — affects us, especially our young ones.

But now we might get a clue with what could be the first study of its kind to learn how kids are impacted long term by our world of technology and social media. Led by Dr. Justin Martin of the University of South Florida, the Life in Media Survey was published this morning. Martin is the Eleanor Poynter Jamison Chair in Media Ethics & Press Policy and associate professor in the Department of Journalism and Digital Communication at USF.

It’s a revealing, in-depth look at one of the biggest outside influences on our children.

The survey shows that 78% of respondents have their own smartphone, including 72% of 11-year-olds. About 52% of all kids surveyed have their own smartphone and data plan, meaning they are connected to the internet 24/7. And if it feels as if kids (like adults) are on their phones constantly, you’re not far off. The survey showed they spend an average of 12.3 hours on their smartphone and/or tablet on school days, and 14.3 hours on non-school days.

So, again, we ask? What does this all mean? How does this usage affect children? That’s what the survey aims to find out.

Martin told me, “Our grand goal is to survey digital media use and wellness measures among 11-, 12-, 13-year olds, and then track those same children for the next 25, or 30 years into the future.”

It’s an incredible undertaking and it is already yielding surprising results, many counterintuitive to what you would expect.

For example: Kids with smartphones report greater well-being than kids who don’t have one. They are more likely to hang out with friends. They are more likely to exercise. They also are more likely to feel good about themselves, and are more likely to seek help when they need it. They also are less likely to use phrases such as “life often feels meaningless” or “I get very angry and often lose my temper.” They score better when it comes to self-esteem. They are less likely to be cyberbullied.

This is just one chapter of this incredible look into the minds of kids and their use of devices and social media.

It’s not all positive. While some of the results are surprising, some are not. Technology, like anything else, can have serious consequences if not used properly or in moderation. Overuse is especially harmful if it impacts children’s sleep. Many get far less than the recommended sleep for children, partly because they are on their phones or playing video games. Even the kids seem to recognize that overuse can be an issue, with one-third saying they actually feel relieved when they are in places where they cannot use their phones.

The survey is broken into many parts, including devices, what kids are using and for how long, in person and digital activities, news, parents and schools, and attitudes on ethics, freedoms and rights.

The news part of it is, again, revealing.

The good news for news? When breaking news happens, about one in five go to reputable news outlets for information. The bad news? More kids say they never use a news app versus any other app. Half of the respondents say they actively avoid the news. Many children are uninformed because of news deserts — 72% of kids living in urban areas said they read or watch news at school a few times a month or more, but only 39% of kids in rural settings said the same.

Many kids suspect that much of the news they see online is made up. That can be both good and bad — meaning they don’t believe everything they see, but also meaning they don’t trust factual information.

One more good thing? Children do have positive views of journalists — 55% said most news reporters do a very good job, and 53% that news reporters want to help other people.

The survey — which included assistance from Poynter’s MediaWise and Sean Marcus, MediaWise’s interactive learning designer — is extensive and detailed, so there is a lot more to digest aside from the few parts that I shared here.

Go deeper with ‘The Poynter Report Podcast’

USF researcher Dr. Justin Martin, shown here recording an episode of “The Poynter Report Podcast” hosted by Poynter’s Tom Jones. (Courtesy: USF)

Check out the USF study and then be sure to tune into the latest episode of “The Poynter Report Podcast,” out today, in which I talk to the leader of the study — Dr. Justin Martin of the University of South Florida.

The latest episode is part one of our conversation. We talk mostly about the survey’s findings about kids and the use of their devices. In part two, coming out on April 7, Martin and I talk about the survey and how kids use social media and consume news. Both episodes overlap on some topics, but the conversation will reveal plenty of surprises when it comes to kids and smartphones.

When asked about the overwhelming theme when it comes to kids and smartphone usage, Martin told me during the podcast episode released today, “Just the fact that we don’t find evidence that smartphone ownership is harmful to children — which goes against what, honestly, I thought, going into the survey.”

Listen to “The Poynter Report Podcast” on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or Amazon Music (and please don’t forget to leave us a rating and review).

Now onto the rest of today’s newsletter …

Are you serious?

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, shown here outside the White House last Friday. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)

In a story of bumbling incompetence almost too hard to believe, the Trump administration accidentally texted its plans to attack Houthi targets across Yemen on March 15 to a journalist.

Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, writes that he knew about the plans two hours before the bombs started falling in Yemen shortly before 2 p.m. Eastern Time.

Goldberg wrote, “The reason I knew this is that Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense, had texted me the war plan at 11:44 a.m. The plan included precise information about weapons packages, targets, and timing.”

Goldberg’s story goes into great detail on how it came about that he was texted the plans. As The New York Times noted, the chat included some of the most influential figures in President Donald Trump’s inner circle, including Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and national security adviser Michael Waltz. There were, overall, 18 in the group.

The New York Times’ Helene Cooper and Eric Schmitt wrote, “It was an extraordinary breach of American national security intelligence. Not only was the journalist inadvertently included in the group, but the conversation also took place outside of the secure government channels that would normally be used for classified and highly sensitive war planning.”

Goldberg wrote in his piece, “I have never seen a breach quite like this. It is not uncommon for national-security officials to communicate on Signal. But the app is used primarily for meeting planning and other logistical matters—not for detailed and highly confidential discussions of a pending military action. And, of course, I’ve never heard of an instance in which a journalist has been invited to such a discussion.”

How in the world could this possibly happen? How did no one in the text chain notice that a journalist was included? Goldberg even wrote that he was included in the chain for days in advance of the bombings. In fact, he had serious doubts that what he was reading was even real. He thought the texts might be part of a “disinformation campaign, initiated by either a foreign intelligence service or, more likely, a media-gadfly organization, the sort of group that attempts to place journalists in embarrassing positions, and sometimes succeeds.”

But, nope, it was real. Brian Hughes, a spokesman for the National Security Council, told Goldberg, “This appears to be an authentic message chain, and we are reviewing how an inadvertent number was added to the chain. The thread is a demonstration of the deep and thoughtful policy coordination between senior officials. The ongoing success of the Houthi operation demonstrates that there were no threats to troops or national security.”

Only through sheer luck and, most importantly, Goldberg’s proper handling of the situation is that last sentence true.

In a statement, Sen. Jack Reed (Rhode Island), the Senate Armed Services Committee’s top Democrat, said, “If true, this story represents one of the most egregious failures of operational security and common sense I have ever seen. Military operations need to be handled with utmost discretion, using approved, secure lines of communication, because American lives are on the line. The carelessness shown by President Trump’s cabinet is stunning and dangerous. I will be seeking answers from the Administration immediately.”

Read Goldberg’s story, and try not to shake your head over and over as you do.

One more thing: Trump was asked about it by reporters on Monday, and played dumb, saying he knew nothing about it. Along the way, he insulted The Atlantic, saying, “I’m not a big fan of The Atlantic. To me, it’s a magazine that’s going out of business.”

The other part of this story

Let’s talk about the journalism part of this. What are the ethical ramifications of a journalist receiving sensitive information like the kind Goldberg received? No one knows more about journalism ethics than my colleague Kelly McBride, Poynter’s senior vice president and chair of Craig Newmark Center for Ethics and Leadership. In her latest column for Poynter, McBride writes, “You’re a journalist added to a classified group chat. Here’s what you need to consider.”

McBride breaks it down into five questions:

• Is this real?
• What’s my first principle?
• To whom do I owe loyalty?
• Am I obligated to reveal my presence?
• How can I minimize harm?

McBride smartly answers each of these questions, making for a must-read story.

The Times responds

President Donald Trump threw another one of his media temper tantrums over the weekend, going off on the “failing” New York Times in a Truth Social post. He used nicknames that an 11-year-old would come up with to insult Times reporters Peter Baker and Maggie Haberman. He also took a jab at Baker’s wife, journalist Susan Glasser of The New Yorker.

This time, the Times felt the need to respond, putting out this statement: “Presidents from both parties have found reason to be unhappy with honest, independent journalism. Peter Baker, Maggie Haberman and their colleagues have an unrivaled record of covering this and prior administrations fully and fairly. Intimidation tactics against Times reporters or their family members have never caused us to back down from our mission of holding powerful people to account, regardless of which party is in office.”

What else is going on today? Here are more media notes, tidbits and interesting links …

• Have you been following our Poynter 50 series? To celebrate Poynter’s 50th anniversary in 2025, we’re looking back at 50 significant media moments and people of the past 50 years, while also detailing how they have impacted our future. The latest in the series by my Poynter colleague, Angela Fu: “ProPublica didn’t just prove nonprofit journalism could work — it changed how investigative reporting is measured.” Fu writes in her story, “The success of ProPublica and some of its peers has sparked unqualified support for nonprofit models in some media circles, leaving for-profits feeling pressured to justify their structure. But nonprofit status isn’t a panacea, and many nonprofit newsrooms have shuttered. What ProPublica showed was that the model can work and that audiences will pay for excellence.”
• Amanda Bennett, former director of the Voice of America (2016-20) and CEO of the U.S. Agency for Global Media (2022-25), with a strong opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal: “Kari Lake Isn’t Telling the Truth About the VOA.”
• MSNBC’s Jordan Rubin with “Supreme Court declines to hear Trump donor’s challenge to press freedom precedent.”
• The Washington Post’s Kara Voght has a lengthy and in-depth profile on Karoline Leavitt, the 27-year-old White House press secretary: “In Karoline Leavitt’s world, Trump’s word is enough.” It’s a little complimentary in some parts, but overall, a pretty good read.
• Have you noticed Donald Trump’s go-to line when he doesn’t like a question from a journalist? The Washington Post’s Laura Wagner writes, “‘Who are you with?’: Trump’s latest way to pick at the media.”
• Tracy Brown, Chicago Public Media’s chief content officer, writes in the Chicago Sun-Times: “No more editorials at the Sun-Times, but letters, op-eds and columns will continue.”
• The Guardian’s Ruth Michaelson, reporting from Istanbul: “Journalists among more than 1,100 arrested in Turkey crackdown.”
• My colleague Rick Edmonds, Poynter’s media business analyst, with “Inquirer closes community news desk, sparking outcry over diversity and equity goals.”
• Ronan Farrow’s latest for The New Yorker: “How police let one of America’s most prolific predators get away.”
• Speaking of The New Yorker, there’s The Guardian’s Andrew Anthony with “The New Yorker at 100: ‘We live in a world of misinformation … a lack of verification. Our readers want what we do.’”
• Are you someone who feels overwhelmed by the news, and has started to avoid the news? But at the same time, do you feel as if you should stay informed? Well, first things first: Hopefully, you will continue to stay informed and engaged in current affairs, as depressing as they might be at times. What’s going on is way too important to turn a blind eye. In the meantime, Vox is trying something new — a newsletter called “The Logoff.” They describe it as a “newsletter that helps you stay informed about the Trump administration without letting political news take over your life. Every afternoon, we’ll send you an as-short-as-possible explanation of the most important news of the day regarding the new president. It’s not a hidden argument. It’s not an anti-Trump screed. It’s aimed at explaining, in the simplest and most efficient terms, what’s going on and why it matters.” They add, “So why are we calling this ‘The Logoff” In addition to helping you manage the torrent of Trump news, we will close every edition with something — a video, a podcast, a story — that will help you refocus your thoughts away from Trump, and into a more productive headspace as you log off for the day.”

More resources for journalists

• Strengthen your legal acumen with a complimentary webinar delivering strategies to protect your work in today’s media landscape. Enroll now.
• Upgrade your approach to Immigration policy with Poynter’s Beat Academy training. Enroll now.
• Our signature Poynter Leadership Academy transforms leaders. Apply by March 31.
• Develop responsible AI practices for newsrooms. Start here.

Have feedback or a tip? Email Poynter senior media writer Tom Jones at tjones@poynter.org.

The Poynter Report is our daily media newsletter. To have it delivered to your inbox Monday-Friday, sign up here.