Journalism’s Challenge
The majority of news consumers in the United States don’t trust the news media. When I say they don’t “trust” the news media, I don’t mean the trust difference is small. I mean it’s BIG — very big.
Last summer, Poynter quoted a report that the United States ranks last in media trust among 46 countries at just 29%. Gallup reported just a few months ago that Americans' Trust in Media dipped to the second lowest level on record.
The “trust” fall has also been swift. In just the past 25 years, trust in media has fallen more than 20% and the trend continues downward. Is there anything the news media can do to reverse it? That’s the challenge of journalism — rebuilding trust with the people it is supposed to serve.
I believe there is something journalists can do and it starts with them. My proposal is that they consider how they rate themselves in these four categories:
Curious
Skeptical
Objective
Accurate
We’ve already looked at curious, skeptical, and objective. We move now to the importance of accuracy.
Be Accurate
To be accurate is to be right about a story. Accuracy and Objectivity are tied for #1 in journalism. I don’t think we can have one without the other. That’s still true today, even though we don’t see it often enough in actual news reporting.
It’s not that journalists aren’t familiar with the importance of accuracy. In fact, some of the top journalism organizations list truth and accuracy as the number one requirement for real journalism.
Ethical Journalism Network’s Five Principles of Ethical Journalism
American Press Association Principles of Journalism
Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics
Committee of Concerned Journalists Principles of Journalism
RTNDA Code of Ethics
Not An Option
I don’t believe accuracy is an option in journalism — it’s an absolute. That brings us to another elephant in the room.
Many people today believe they are living in a “post-truth” world.
First, let’s define post truth —
relating to a situation in which people are more likely to accept an argument based on their emotions and beliefs, rather than one based on facts — Cambridge Dictionary
relating to or existing in an environment in which facts are viewed as irrelevant, or less important than personal beliefs and opinions, and emotional appeals are used to influence public opinion — Dictionary.com
This is not a new phenomenon in journalism. I saw this coming many years ago when journalists began using the word “feel” instead of “believe” or “think” in the newsroom, in their writing, and in their live reports. I shared in news meetings about the correct uses for each word and edited scripts to reflect the correct use of the terms.
As time went on I began to realize that the use of emotional terms was taking the place of factual terms because of a worldview shift — how people saw their world. Some journalists were reflecting that shift in the words they used as they reported the news. As Cambridge correctly defines post-truth — it relates to people accepting an argument based on their emotions rather than on facts.
I feel bad about that (emotional).
I believe that’s bad information (factual).
I think believing that truth exists is a necessary ingredient of real journalism — journalism that news consumers can trust. If truth exists (which it does), then accuracy must follow naturally from finding truth. We report the truth accurately — a journalistic absolute.
The news media today lacks the trust of the majority of citizens in the United States. That’s a fact based on numerous polls conducted by companies that do their polling on accepted scientific processes.
Watching newscasts (especially from networks and major market television stations) and reading newspaper stories might explain the reason for people’s distrust.
Reporters often withhold important information in their stories that would give context and possibly change the narrative the station, network or newspaper is promoting.
Reporters often manipulate recorded interviews to give a false impression about what interviewees really said. News consumers discover that when another station or network plays an unedited version of the same interview.
Reporters often quote from one unnamed source. The old journalistic rule for anonymous sourcing required that three independent sources confirmed the same information. News managers had the final say in whether a reporter could use triangulation in sourcing. They preferred to name sources whenever possible so that the public could trust the information reported, but would sometimes allow three independent sources confirming information when a journalist wasn’t allowed to name the sources. Some managers wouldn’t even allow a triangulated-sourced story to proceed without knowing the identities of the three sources.
Reporters often add comments in their stories, sometimes live, that are obviously personal opinion rather than facts and information. Those opinions help build narratives and fulfill agendas for the news agencies that employ the reporters, but also help build a growing gap between the journalists and the people they are supposed to serve — the public.
How would viewers and readers know that what they’re watching or reading is true?
Members of the public can do their own fact and source checking by watching multiple networks and stations and reading a variety of newspapers and publications. They can also research news topics online or at libraries.
I developed the habit early in my career of watching all of the network newscasts every day (there were only three news networks to watch in the 60s and 70s), listening to several radio station news reports, reading several morning and afternoon newspapers, along with many weekly and monthly magazines. I also read the Congressional Record. It came in the mail every day that Congress was in session and was voluminous. It taught me two things: (1) how to read and comprehend material quickly, (2) how much time and money our elected officials wasted in talking about things that didn’t improve the lives of their constituents. It also gave me good story ideas I could do locally.
The task of doing your own research and source checking is much easier and faster today with the Internet. News consumers can fact-check stories quickly and see how journalists are doing their jobs. That has added to the growing trust gap as the public sees the lack of objectivity and accuracy among some journalists. News consumers learn how easy it is to find truthful information and wonder why journalists don’t do it.
If journalists are concerned about regaining lost trust, they can do something about it. However, it will take major changes in how some do their jobs and how news organizations manage those journalists. Will that happen? Will they do what’s right? I hope they will.
Next Newsletter
There is one more thing I’d like to share about the people in journalism. It takes a strong community of skilled people to get news on air, online or in print. There are a lot more people than the reporters and anchors you see on the news or journalist bylines in print. I’ll share about the work of those fine folks in the next newsletter.
Comments Welcome
I hope these thoughts are helpful to you as a journalist or news consumer. Please share your comments and I’ll respond as quickly as I can. If you like what we’re doing in this newsletter, please let your friends know about it so they can subscribe.
Newsletter Purpose
The purpose of this newsletter is to help journalists understand how to do real journalism and the public know how they can find news they can trust on a daily basis. It’s a simple purpose, but complicated to accomplish. I’ll do my best to make it as clear as I can in future newsletters.