The annual report on digital news from the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism highlights the inexorable rise of sites such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, the rapid transition to mobile and a consumer backlash against digital ads as undermining traditional publishers’ business models.

RISJ’s 26-country study finds that more than 50% of all web users use social media for news each week, with increasing numbers saying it is their main source. While many publishers have linked with Facebook and Google to distribute their news, the report warns that social media sites are becoming destinations in their own right.

The report found that in countries such as the UK and Canada the the news organisation that published the story was “clearly noticed” less than half of the time when read on social media.

In countries such as Japan and South Korea, where news distribution is already much more widespread, the news brand is only noticed about a quarter of the times a story is accessed through an aggregator by a reader.

“The move towards a more distributed environment offers publishers opportunities to reach new audiences on an unprecedented scale,” said Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, director of research at the RISJ.

“But as people increasingly access news via third party platforms, it will become harder and harder for most publishers to stand out from the crowd, connect directly with users, and make money. This development will leave some winners and many losers.”

Facebook is by far the dominant social media news source with 44% of those surveyed using it to find, read, watch, share or comment on news each week. This is more than twice its nearest rival.

Unsurprisingly, social media news reading is strong among young people, with 28% saying it is their main source of news, outstripping the proportion who cited television (24%) as their top source for the first time.

The importance of TV news more generally is waning, with all groups under 45 saying that online sources are more important than broadcast.

The use of mobile devices to access news has risen to 53% of respondents globally from 37% just two years ago.

However, the use of tablets for news reading has fallen in the UK.

The report also questions whether publishers may be “backing the wrong horse” when it comes to investing heavily in video production.

Across the 26 countries surveyed just 24% of respondents said that they access online news video in a given week.

“This represents surprisingly weak growth given the explosive growth and prominence on the supply side,” report said. “The main reasons people give for not viewing more video is that they find reading news quicker and more convenient and the annoyance of pre-roll ads.”

Paying for online news continues to be unpopular with readers.

No English-speaking country in the survey has a payment rate of more than 10%, with readers seeking out free sources in an intensely competitive market for digital publishing.

The UK rate was joint lowest in the 26 country survey, at 7%, but those that do pay have one of the highest annual spent amounts per person at £82 a year.

And the report found the UK is notable for having a high proportion of ongoing subscriptions.

Despite the broadly negative picture painted by the report, it is not all gloom for traditional news publishers.

It notes the continuing importance of a number of “anchor” news brands globally that are valued by consumers as a critical source of trusted news.

Although the way news is consumed is shifting fast, the report found that most of the content still comes from newspaper groups, broadcasters or newer digital brands that have invested in original content.

However, main usage online remains with brands that have a strong news heritage and have been able to build up a reputation over time.

“It is clear that news is as popular as ever, and distinctive journalism is still valued by consumers,” says David Levy, director at RISJ.

“New brands are not yet replacing older ones in terms of the quality and range of output. The problem of how to pay for high quality but costly journalism becomes more pressing than ever.”

More about: