The news media face significant challenges in today’s market, particularly in engaging large, diverse audiences and ensuring that their content is trusted and valued. While much of the discussion around consumer disengagement in news focuses on issues like bias and clickbait, a new culprit has emerged: the public’s perception of profit-driven news.
Some people believe that news companies are increasingly compromising their integrity by prioritizing profit and financial gain, even as the industry struggles to improve its public standing and economic sustainability. Journalism scholars Jacob L Nelson,Seth C Lewis, and Brent Cowley explore factors influencing the perceptions of news trustworthiness. Their research, Money is the root of all evil.’ How the business of journalism shapes trust in news examines how perceptions about news funding influence trust and engagement with news content.
Trust, bias, and skepticism of the news
The authors interviewed 34 news consumers, using the folk theory—a generative approach to uncovering the narratives people construct on any given topic. The root causes of trust understandably vary among individuals. Some respondents attribute their distrust of the news industry to the rise of populism, others to the influence of digital technology, and some to the lack of diversity in traditional newsrooms.
However, despite these varied perspectives, many perceive news reporting as biased. While discussions on bias typically focus on political leanings, economic bias can play an equally significant role. Economic pressures influence public trust; many today believe news organizations prioritize profitability over accurate reporting.
Skepticism toward journalism also stands as a barrier to trust. Respondents highlighting their skepticism and concerns often feel compelled to fact-check and corroborate news stories. They view the news as ideologically biased rather than objective, leading them to consume it critically and avoid accepting journalistic perspectives as entirely truthful.
Is the news profit-driven with an economic bias?
The research participants assume news organizations primarily make money through advertising, leading to a focus on attracting large audiences. They believe this economic pressure results in sensational and often ideological biases in news coverage. The perception of journalism as profit-driven contributes to consumer distrust of news, as they view the news media as prioritizing profit over accurate reporting.
Further, respondents frequently point to journalism’s pursuit of profits as a reason for their deep skepticism. They observe news organizations striving to secure advertising deals and attract large audiences, thinking this will influence the journalists’ reports. Those who see ideological bias in the news perceive it as economically motivated rather than ideologically driven.
Perception controls reality
Audience distrust stems not necessarily from the news media’s actions but from the perception that news organizations prioritize profits above all else. While skepticism towards commercial influence is justified, this study indicates that audiences overwhelmingly view economic interests as dominating journalistic integrity. The respondents’ perception suggests that audiences believe profit-driven priorities significantly compromise journalistic quality.
News without profit-motivations: Non-profit or publicly-funded
The authors believe journalists will not restore public trust solely by maintaining objectivity and avoiding political bias. They recognize the need for news organizations to have revenue goals. However, they recommend addressing the economic model of journalism and demonstrating a clear separation between financial motives and journalistic integrity.
They also see options in non-profit or publicly funded models, which can reduce perceptions of profit-driven motives in the news. While trust in publicly funded outlets like the BBC dropped, a structural shift across the could improve trust. Public funding could especially benefit local newsrooms, which are perceived positively but are financially vulnerable.
It is essential to understand public perceptions of newsroom economic motivations and their impact on trust. Further examination of the assumptions that journalism’s commercial interests shape people’s trust in news is key to understanding the nuances of the industry’s credibility challenges. Meanwhile, increasing transparency can help address audience concerns about revenue and profits influencing journalistic work.
Last month, I co-led a week-long journalism program during which we visited 16 newsrooms, media outlets and tech companies in New York. This study tour provided an in-depth snapshot of the biggest issues facing the media today and offered insights into some of the potential solutions publishers are exploring to address them.
We met with everyone from traditional media players – like The New York Times, Associated Press, CBS and Hearst – to digital providers such as Complex Media and ProPublica, as well as conversations with academics and policy experts. Based upon these visits and conversations, here are four key takeaways about the state of media and content publishing today.
1. Hands-on AI experience matters
Not surprisingly, AI dominated many conversations. Although recent research shows the American public is both skeptical and surprisingly unaware of these tools, the emergence of Generative AI – and the discussions around it – are impossible to ignore.
One mantra oft repeated throughout the week was that everyone in the media will need to be conversant with AI. Despite this, research has shown that many newsrooms are hesitant about adopting these technologies. Others, however, are taking a more proactive approach. “I like playing offense, not defense, Aimee Rinehart, Senior Product Manager AI Strategy at the Associated Press, told us. “Figure out how the tools work and your limits.”
With many media companies having to do more with less, AI can help improve workflows, support labor-intensive work like investigative journalism, as well as streamline and diversify content creation and distribution. By harnessing these AI-powered functions, smaller outlets may benefit the most, given the efficiencies these resource-strapped players may be able to unlock.
Reporting on AI is also an emerging journalistic beat. This is an area more newsrooms are likely to invest in, given AI’s potential to radically reshape our lives. As Hilke Schellmann, an Emmy‑award winning investigative reporter and journalism professor at NYU, told us “we used to hold powerful people to account, now we have to add holding AI accountable.”
Echoing Schellmann’s sentiments, “every journalist should be experimenting with AI,” one ProPublica journalist said. “We owe it to our audience to know what this is capable of.”
2. Demonstrating distinctiveness and value is imperative
One fear of an AI-driven world is that traffic to publishers will tank as Generative Search, and tools like ChatGPT, remove the need for users to visit the sites of creators and information providers. In that environment, distinctiveness, trustworthy and fresh content becomes more valuable than ever. “You need to produce journalism that gives people a reason to show up,” says Ryan Knutson, co-host of The Wall Street Journal’s daily news podcast, The Journal.
In response, publishers will need to demonstrate their expertise and unique voice. That means leaning more into service journalism, exclusives, and formats like explainers, analysis, newsletters, and podcasts.
Bloomberg’s John Authers, exemplifies this in his daily Points of Return newsletter. With more than three decades of experience covering markets and investments, he brings a longitudinal and distinctive human perspective to his reporting. Alongside this, scoops still matter, Authers suggests. After all, “journalism is about finding out something other people don’t know,” he says.
Media players also need to make a more effective case as to why original content needs to be supported and paid for. As Gaetane Michelle Lewis, SEO leader at the Associated Press, put it, “part of our job is communicating to the audience what we have and that you need it.”
For a non-profit like ProPublica that means demonstrating impact. They publish three impact reports a year, and their Annual Report highlights how their work has led to change at a time when “many newsrooms can no longer afford to take on this kind of deep-dive reporting.”
“Our North Star is the potential to make a positive change through impact,” Communications Director, Alexis Stephens, said. And she emphasized how “this form of journalism is critical to democracy.”
The New York Times’ business model is very different but its publisher, A.G. Sulzberger, has similarly advocated for the need for independent journalism. As he put it, “a fully informed society not only makes better decisions but operates with more trust, more empathy, and greater care.”
Given the competition from AI, streaming services, and other sources of attention, media outlets will increasingly need to advocate more forcefully for support through subscriptions, donations, sponsorships, and advertising. In doing this, they’ll need to address what sets them apart from the competition, and why this matters on a wider societal level.
“This is a perilous time for the free press,” Sulzberger told The New Yorker last year. “That reality should animate anyone who understands its central importance in a healthy democracy.”
3. Analytics and accessibility go hand in hand
Against this backdrop, finding and retaining audiences is more important than ever. However, keeping their attention is a major challenge. Data from Chartbeat revealed that half the audiences visiting outlets in their network stay on a site for fewer than 15 seconds.
This has multiple implications. From a revenue perspective, this may mean users aren’t on a page long enough for ad impressions to count. It also challenges outlets to look at how content is produced and presented.
In a world where media providers continue to emphasize growing reader revenues, getting audiences to dig deeper and stay for longer, is essential. “The longer someone reads, the more likely they are to return,” explained Chartbeat’s CMO Jill Nicolson.
There isn’t a magic wand to fix this. Tools for publishers to explore include compelling headlines, effective formats, layout, and linking strategies. Sometimes, Nicolson said, even small modifications can make all the difference.
These efforts don’t just apply to your website. They apply to every medium you use. Brendan Dunne of Complex Media referred to the need for “spicy titles” for episodes of their podcasts and YouTube videos. Julia D’Apolito, Associate Social Editor at Hearst Magazines, shared how their approach to content might be reversed. “We’ve been starting to do social-first projects… and then turning them into an article,” she said, rather than the other way round.
Staff at The New York Times also spoke about the potential for counter-programing. One way to combat news fatigue and avoidance is to shine a light on your non-news content. The success of NYT verticals such as Cooking, Wirecutter, and Games shows how diversifying content can create a more compelling and immersive proposition, making audiences return more often.
Lastly, language and tone matters. As one ProPublica journalist put it, “My editor always says pretend like you’re writing for Sesame Steet. Make things accurate, but simple.” Reflecting on their podcasts, Dunne also stresses the need for accessibility. “People want to feel like they’re part of a group chat, not a lecture,” he said.
Fundamentally, this also means being more audience-centric in the way that stories are approached and told. “Is the angle that’s interesting to us as editors the same as our audiences?” Nicolson asked us. Too often, the data would suggest, it is not.
4. Continued concern about the state of local news
Finally, the challenges faced by local news media, particularly newspapers, emerged in several discussions. Steven Waldman, the Founder and CEO of Rebuild Local News, reminded us that advertising revenue at local newspapers had dropped 82% in two decades. The issue is not “that the readers left the papers,” he said, “it’s that the advertisers did.”
For Waldman, the current crisis is an opportunity not just to “revive local news,” but also to “make better local news.” This means creating a more equitable landscape with content serving a wider range of audiences and making newsrooms more diverse. “Local news is a service profession,” he noted. “You’re serving the community, not the newsroom.”
According to new analysis, the number of partisan-funded outlets designed to appear like impartial news sources (so-called “pink slime” sites) now surpasses the number of genuine local daily newspapers in the USA. This significantly impacts the news and information communities receive, shaping their worldviews and decision-making.
Into this mix, AI is also rearing its ugly head. While it can be hugely beneficial for some media companies—“AI is the assistant I prayed for,” saysParis Brown, associate editor of The Baltimore Times. However, it can also be used to fuel misinformation, accelerating pink slime efforts.
“AI is supercharging lies,” one journalist at ProPublica told us, pointing to the emergence of “cheap fakes” alongside “deep fakes,” as content which can confirm existing biases. The absence of boots on the ground makes it harder for these efforts to be countered. Yet, as Hilke Schellmann, reminded us “in a world where we are going to be swimming in generative text, fact-checking is more important [than ever].”
This emerging battleground makes it all the more important for increased funding for local news. Legislative efforts, increased support from philanthropy, and other mechanisms can all play a role in helping grow and diversify this sector. Steven Waldman puts it plainly: “We have to solve the business model and the trust model at the same time,” he said.
All eyes on the future
The future of media is being written today, and our visit to New York provided a detailed insight into the principles and mindsets that will shape these next few chapters.
From the transformative potential of AI, to the urgent need to demonstrate distinctiveness and value, it is clear that sustainability has to be rooted in adaptability and innovation.
Using tools like AI and Analytics to inform decisions, while balancing this with a commitment to quality and community engagement is crucial. Media companies who fail to harness these technologies are likely to get left behind.
In an AI-driven world, more than ever, publishers need to stand out or risk fading away. Original content, unique voices, counter-programming, being “audience first,” and other strategies can all play a role in this. Simultaneously, media players must also actively advocate for why their original content needs to be funded and paid for.
Our week-long journey through the heart of New York’s media landscape challenged the narrative that news media and journalism are dying. It isn’t. It’s just evolving. And fast.
Consumers value local news media, with a large majority saying that local news outlets are at least somewhat important to the well-being of their local community according to new research from Pew. Most people also say local journalists are in touch with their communities and that their local news media perform well at several aspects of their jobs, such as reporting the news accurately.
Interestingly, Republicans and Democrats both display significant confidence in local reporting, with 66% and 78%, respectively, which showcases bipartisan support. This widespread trust highlights the local media’s role in ensuring accountability and integrity in governance.
Nevertheless, the landscape continues to shift as more consumers engage with local news through online forums and social media groups. Unfortunately, these days intermediaries have moved to the forefront and diminished the direct influence – and perceived value – of news publishers. In fact, a mere 15% of Americans say they have paid or given money to any local news source in the past year – a number that has not changed much since 2018. Oddly, this coincides with the finding that a majority of Americans (63%) say they think their local news outlets are doing very or somewhat well.
Consequently, local news outlets are re-evaluating their strategies to engage audiences effectively. Addressing how local news businesses can adapt, serve their communities, reignite an interest in, and support for, news media to flourish in the current media environment remains a critical challenge for the industry.
Local news is appealing, but to smaller audiences
Around 85% of those surveyed indicate that local news outlets are at least “somewhat important” to the well-being of their local community. Similarly, a majority believe that local journalists are in touch with their communities and perform well in various aspects of their jobs, such as accurately reporting the news.
However, despite reporting significant value and trust, Pew’s trending data shows that the share of U.S. consumers who actively follow local news very closely dropped from 37% to 22% in the last eight years. Additionally, many consumers are unaware of local news’s significant financial challenges. Of these, 63% (slightly fewer than in 2018) believe their local news outlets are doing very well.
Demographics impact the perception of local news
If attention correlates to valuing local news, the industry needs to pay attention to audience behavior. A decline in attention to local news has occurred across demographic groups, though there are significant differences by age. Young adults are much less likely than their older adults to say they follow local news: In 2024, only 9% of U.S. consumers 18 -29 say they follow local news very closely, compared with 35% of those 65 and older.
Americans with higher levels of formal education are less likely than those with a high school diploma or less education to follow local news very closely. While 17% of college graduates follow local news very closely, 28% of those with a high school education or less say the same.
Among U.S. adults ages 30 and older who have not paid for local news in the past year, the most common reason they cite is that they can find plenty of free local news. This is likely influenced by the sharing of local news – or at least information about things happening locally – via social platforms. However, as platforms “distance themselves” from the news, the likelihood of people encountering news from a publisher are increasingly diminished.
While 37% cite the availability of free alternatives, the most common reason given by Americans ages 18 to 29 is a lack of interest: 46% in this group say the main reason they don’t pay for local news is that they are not interested enough in it.
Local news consumption shifts to streaming
Streaming offers a viable outlet for local news. With nearly 40% of U.S. households reachable only through streaming TV, local news can deliver a converged linear and streaming advertising strategy to access the total TV audience in a local market. This shift to streaming enables personalization in local news content while catering to individual viewer preferences. It also allows local broadcasters to monetize local inventory across a broader spectrum of premium publishers, reinventing the advertising paradigm.
The evolving landscape of local news presents challenges and opportunities for the future of journalism. While digitization transforms how news is accessed and consumed, local news’ fundamental role in informing communities remains unchanged. Local news outlets can find new and direct paths to the consumer by adapting to changing consumer preferences and embracing digital innovation. By leveraging technology and engaging more interactively with their audiences, these outlets can enhance their relevance and sustain their crucial societal role.
I recently found myself reflecting on a transformative time in my life. Spurred by an intense desire to remodel my grandmother’s basement, I worked through a difficult period in my youth. But though I was helped by taking action, not to mention my grandmother’s wisdom, I now see how (and why) the superficial changes I made to her home were not enough to keep it upright. It needed the kind of comprehensive overhaul that required expertise I did not then possess.
The experience also helped me understand how important it is to break the cycle of complacency that stands in the way of radical transformation. This mindset – and need for change – applies to the media industry too.
As I recently wrote, I believe that restoring our confidence, our faith in the power and promise of the media industry is the first step towards transformation. Confidence in the news media industry means embracing change, listening to our audience, and delivering information that serves the greater good. It’s a challenge, but one we must confront to remain a relevant and trusted sources of information.
To rebuild trust, we must immerse ourselves in understanding our audience’s needs and concerns. But, while surveys and feedback loops offer insights, they’re only effective if we act upon them. We can’t rely on old slogans or assume we know what’s best for our audience. Instead, for true transformation, the media industry must evolve, adapt, and truly engage with those we serve.
Thinking through the challenges we face in rebuilding confidence as the news media – and trust in the news media – it’s clear that aligning traditional journalistic values with evolving consumer expectations is no easy task. Nowadays, people are inundated with information from various sources, making them more discerning (or even polarized) about what they believe. They’re not just looking for facts; they want information that validates their worldview. This presents a daunting hurdle for journalists. However, it’s crucial that we remain steadfast in our commitment to truth and integrity. While we must evolve to meet the needs of our audience, we must also stay true to our core principles.
Action is essential for media transformation
A crucial step in rebuilding trust and confidence in news media involves identifying community issues and presenting potential solutions. While journalism informs us about various issues, there’s an opportunity to go beyond sensationalism and focus on actionable steps towards resolution. This approach not only empowers our audience, but also fosters advocacy and drives real change within society.
Throughout history, news media has played a pivotal role in catalyzing social change. For example, the Montgomery Advertiser, a local Alabama paper that documented and supported the year-long Montgomery Bus Boycott. Their coverage empowered the Black community, brought national attention to the issue of segregation, and ultimately played a part in desegregating public buses. This is the legacy we must strive to uphold.
It’s essential to recognize this power we hold as media and leverage our platform to continue advocating for truth and altruism. By rebranding ourselves as agents of positive change, dedicated to objective reporting and proactive problem-solving, we reaffirm our commitment to serving the public good and recapture our confidence. However, to achieve this vision, we must embrace a dual mindset. We need to evaluate our existing practices critically while fostering a culture of innovation and adaptation.
As someone who values the importance of taking risks, I believe that stepping out of our comfort zones and embracing innovation is essential. By doing so, we can develop products and processes that resonate with today’s audiences, delivering value in impactful ways. It’s time to redefine our approach, embrace change, and chart a course towards a vibrant and sustainable future for news media. Though the challenges may be significant, the potential rewards of a thriving, trusted news industry are immeasurable.
Trust and transformation
Just as a willingness to tackle a basement project unlocked surprising potential, fostering a culture of innovation within news organizations will help us find the way forward. Media transformation starts with leadership—creating an environment where fresh ideas can flourish, not wither under the weight of tradition. This culture of innovation isn’t just beneficial; it’s essential for our long-term sustainability and profitability.
I’ve witnessed firsthand how a lack of openness to new ideas stifles growth and innovation within organizations. Despite overflowing with potential revenue streams, some organizations remain stagnant due to a resistance to change. However, by creating committees dedicated to exploring new possibilities, encouraging brainstorming sessions that welcome even the most “out-there” ideas, and fostering an atmosphere of trust and respect, organizations can unlock their full potential.
Without this culture of innovation, organizations risk stagnation and irrelevance. They risk losing valuable assets—both in terms of talent and revenue opportunities—to competitors who embrace bold strategies and innovative thinking.
Explore new frontiers
Here’s where innovation gets exciting. Imagine news content that isn’t just informative but truly engaging because it leverages new storytelling techniques. Consider multimedia formats such as data visuals, video, podcasts, and other interactive audience components. These approaches don’t just make for an engaging experience; they can make complex issues accessible to a wider audience.
Furthermore, fostering a culture of innovation allows us to humanize the journalists behind the stories. By featuring stories or even more personal or longer bios about the dedication and passion of those who strive to deliver accurate information, we can rebuild trust and connect with our audience on a deeper level. People want to know the faces and stories behind the news. Showcasing the human element of journalism can go a long way in fostering trust.
We must also find ways to showcase the true impact of journalism. By highlighting investigative reports that led to positive change, we can demonstrate the power of journalism to make a difference in society. When audiences see real-world examples of how journalism has improved lives or held powerful institutions accountable, it strengthens their understanding of the vital role the news media plays in a healthy democracy.
Proactively communicate media transformation
To thrive in the ever-evolving landscape of news media, we must flood the market with our message. Message saturation will define our success in the coming decades. If we don’t take ownership of our narrative, others will shape it for us, potentially in ways that don’t reflect our values or contributions.
It’s crucial to convey that news media is not the enemy; we play a vital role in society’s development, understanding, information and speaking truth to power. By articulating our role, we position ourselves for growth and progress on our terms. This foundation is essential for restoring confidence, as it shapes public perception of who we are and what we stand for. While we may already know our identity and purpose, the sheer volume of information available today requires us to actively engage with our audience. We must strike a balance between confidence and visibility to maintain our relevance and influence in the marketplace. Otherwise, we risk being overshadowed by the constant influx of information.
Navigating the complexities of rebuilding trust and relevance in the news media industry, one thing remains clear: confidence is key. It’s not just about embracing change or asserting our importance; it’s about believing in our ability to make a difference.
By fostering a culture of innovation, embracing new storytelling techniques, and actively engaging with our audience, we can reaffirm our commitment to truth, integrity, and the greater good of democracy. With confidence as our cornerstone, we can chart a bold course toward a vibrant and sustainable future for news media. Though the challenges may be daunting, our belief in the power of journalism to inform, inspire, and empower will propel us forward.
If you were fortunate enough to have a grandmother like mine, who served as both a protector and a source of wisdom, count yourself among the blessed. Recently, I’ve found myself reminiscing about her, particularly thinking about a bittersweet memory from my teenage years. I spent a few weeks at her Missouri home when I was about 16, seeking a haven from life’s tumult. During the visit, I became fixated on revitalizing her dilapidated basement.
My grandmother’s home was built in the early 1900s and it bore the marks of time, including structural issues and flooding. Amidst the turmoil and events following my parents’ divorce, I yearned for a project to occupy my mind and hands. Armed with carpet, paint, screws, and lumber, I set to work, determined to transform the basement into a sanctuary of sorts. My goal was simple: to bring a smile to my grandmother’s face.
In retrospect, that time holds a mix of emotions. While the project provided a temporary escape and a sense of purpose, I now recognize its limitations. Despite my efforts, the temporary facelift I offered couldn’t mend the home’s deeper issues. Over the following 25 years, the house fell into disrepair, succumbing to floods and neglect after my grandmother’s passing.
Reflecting on this experience, I can’t help but draw parallels to the state of the news media industry. We, too, seem focused on mourning a historic structure that is no longer sound. While it is better to take some action than none, we can’t restore news media revenue through superficial updates. It’s high time we find the confidence to undertake a radical remodel.
The news media’s confidence gap
Despite producing valuable content and abiding by high journalistic standards, trust in the news media has eroded in the face of rampant misinformation. In the wake of this decline, consumer engagement plummets, subscriptions struggle, and advertising revenue dries up. This is underpinned by a stinging irony. We possess the potential to be bastions of truth, yet our message lacks resonance with both subscribers and advertisers because of a fundamental question: Do we truly believe in our own value?
A recent study by the Pew Research Center paints a concerning picture. Public trust in news media is declining, mirroring a broader trend of declining trust in institutions. Several factors contribute to this erosion, including the rise of misinformation online and a shift in news consumption habits. Consumers are bombarded with information from various sources, making it difficult to distinguish fact from fiction.
However, the study also offers a glimmer of hope. People are more likely to trust news outlets they feel a personal connection with. This highlights a crucial strategy for the news media to rebuild trust: fostering a sense of community and focusing on local stories that resonate with readers.
Here’s the crux of the matter as we seek to rebuild news media trust and revenue: confidence is the missing piece. We can’t project strength externally if we doubt it internally. We resemble a once-grand home, its foundation weakened, its purpose in some ways forgotten. It’s time to rediscover our core values and embark on a comprehensive renovation, one built on a foundation of unwavering confidence.
It is time for the news media to take action
Throughout my tenure in the industry, I’ve noticed a pervasive tendency to operate solely on the defensive. However, a recent insight from an editorial leader resonated deeply with me: it’s time to stop playing defense and start playing offense.
This call to action struck a chord because it underscores our urgent need to break free from conventional approaches. Too often, we find ourselves caught in the whirlwind of day-to-day operations, constantly putting out fires and mitigating losses. This reactive mindset inevitably leads to painful layoffs and compromises the quality of our journalism.
My grandmother’s basement would have fallen into dilapidation even faster if I hadn’t taken action. And it helped me regain some of my personal confidence at a challenging time because action breeds confidence. As an industry, going on the offense will help us seize control of our destiny.
This proactive approach requires us to move beyond simply reacting to challenges. It demands we undertake a strategic shift that empowers us to stop only playing defense and start playing offense. We must confront issues head-on and unlock the full potential of revenue strategies that lie dormant within our news media organizations.
Revenue experimentation and diversification
One strategy that has captured my attention in rebuilding revenues is sponsored content. When executed effectively, sponsored content can be a powerful tool that serves audiences and the bottom line. For example, partnering with local businesses to sponsor informative content about financial literacy or health generates revenue and provides valuable, niche content to our audience. That in turn builds trust and strengthens our community focus. Sponsored content should be clearly labeled and adhere to strict editorial guidelines to differentiate it from traditional reporting. This transparency illustrates our commitment to ethical journalism and further builds trust with audiences.
Going on offense also means consistently communicating the narrative of what we represent to our core audiences, to our communities, and to democracy itself. We are the watchdogs, the truth-tellers, the vital link that empowers citizens with the information they need to participate. This is a story we need to tell consistently and with unwavering conviction.
The same proactive approach applies to our role as advertising partners. Sponsors aren’t just a revenue stream – they’re potential partners in progress. By demonstrating the engaged demographics we reach and the lasting impact advertising can have within our platforms, we become trusted allies in achieving their marketing goals. This shift in perspective – from passive recipient to active collaborator – is key to forging mutually beneficial relationships.
This type of strategy should also lead to increased audience engagement, positive feedback on content, and a rise in subscriptions or memberships – all indicators that we’re moving in the right direction to improve news media trust and revenue. Ultimately, we can measure success through our ability to regain public trust, elevate our journalistic standards, and secure a sustainable future for our organization.
Reflecting on my grandmother’s home, I can’t help but feel a sense of regret for what could have been. Yet, I’m reminded that in our industry, we have the chance to make a real impact, to enact change, and to revitalize our role in American society.
The industry is starting to realize that a one-size-fits-all approach to weeding out MFAs doesn’t work. Media buyers and tech providers are taking a step back to re-examine their selection of media partners. Instead of automatically blocking publishers that don’t fit specific criteria, they’re looking at media more granularly and adding approved publishers to inclusion lists.
What are advertisers seeking in a publisher partner? Broadly speaking, they’re looking for media brands that have created quality ad environments that are seen by real audiences. But different buyers use different criteria and technologies, which lead to inconsistent and disparate outcomes. So: How can publishers take control of the narrative and demonstrate why they should be rewarded for their quality content?
The answer: media companies should implement trust signals, especially those developed and backed by the industry. Here are three trust signals designed to help publishers stand out to buyers for their commitment to quality, transparency, and accountability, and earn advertisers’ trust and business.
Trust signal #1: Industry certifications
Several industry groups, including the Media Rating Council, IAB Tech Lab, Trustworthy Accountability Group and the Alliance for Audited Media, have developed compliance programs to recognize publishers for meeting industry standards for ad measurement, brand safety, ad fraud and sustainability. Publishers that complete these programs demonstrate their commitment to transparency. It shows that they have processes and systems in place that deliver accurate and reliable data advertisers can trust.
Many of these industry certification programs require independent validation that a publisher has implemented industry standards and best practices to earn certification. Independent review and validation provide additional assurance for media buyers and publishers.
Trust signal #2: Brand safety tools
With advertisers becoming increasingly concerned about brand safety, solutions have been developed to highlight publishers committed to creating safe content and environments.
The Journalism Trust Initiative was developed by Reporters Without Borders in collaboration with the industry. It provides a blueprint for certifying media outlets for their adherence to industry standards to produce ethical content. JTI’s certification program includes third-party verification and differentiates quality media for their commitment to these standards and best practices.
Trust.txt is an industry framework developed by the non-profit JournalList to help tech platforms and advertisers make associations between publishers and the industry organizations they belong to including Digital Content Next and AAM. Participants in the program add a Trust.txt file to their website directory, which acts as a machine-readable map to help advertisers, tech platforms and search engines connect legitimate publishers with respected industry organizations.
The Ad Fontes Media Bias Chart® rates publishers for their political bias and reliability and lists them on an interactive chart. Publishers verified by a third party tend to be rated among the most reliable. They can use their rating to show media buyers their reliability and trustworthiness. Media outlets rated at the top of the media landscape can take their ratings to the next level and achieve certification from Ad Fontes for consistently providing reliable news and information.
Trust signal #3: Industry memberships
Membership in an industry organization is another signal of trust that differentiates quality publishers from other websites. Industry memberships require investment and often adherence to a code of ethics. Publishers that join and participate in industry associations stand out for their commitment to supporting and advancing the industry.
As digital advertising evolves and becomes more competitive, standing out for your good work becomes even more crucial. Demonstrating your commitment to industry standards and best practices by participating in the industry programs mentioned above is essential for communicating your value to advertisers.
As media buyers become more focused on curating their inclusion lists, it is critical to showcase your commitment to quality and transparency. Adopting these trust signals differentiates premium publishers and valued media brands in a competitive market and fosters a healthier ecosystem for advertisers and audiences alike.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is generating a new era of content creation. However, with this innovation comes the challenge of distinguishing AI-generated content from human-made material. This creates another issue media companies must grapple with to build and maintain audience trust.
Mozilla’s latest report, In Transparency We Trust?, delves into the transformative impact of AI-generated content and its challenges. Ramak Molavi Vasse’I and Gabriel Udoh co-authored this research, exploring disclosure approaches in practice across many platforms and services. The report also raises concerns about AI-generated content and social media’s powerful reach ― intensifying the spread of algorithmic preferences and emotionally charged material.
Where generative AI falls on the synthetic content spectrum
AI-generated content is a subset of synthetic content. It includes images, videos, sounds, or any other form generated, edited, or enabled by artificial intelligence. Synthetic content exists on a spectrum with varying degrees of artificiality. One end of the spectrum features raw content, comprising hand-drawn illustrations, unaltered photographs, and human-written texts. These elements are untouched, representing the most natural form of creative expression. Moving along the spectrum is minimally edited content. Subtle refinements characterize this stage, like using Grammarly for text refinement or adjusting image contrast with photo editing apps. These adjustments enhance the quality and clarity of the content while maintaining its original essence.
Stepping up from minimally processed content is ultra-processed, where automated methods and software play a more significant role in altering or enhancing human-generated material. Applications like Adobe Photoshop can easily enable intricate image manipulations, such as replacing one person’s face with another’s. This level of processing represents a deeper form of content alteration facilitated by advanced technology.The spectrum of synthetic content presents authenticity challenges, and the credibility of digital content comes into question.
AI-generated content can potentially negatively impact society, from spreading misinformation to eroding public trust in digital platforms. This includes concerns like identity theft, security problems, privacy breaches, and the risk of cheating and fraud. The growing use of AI-generated content mandates the the need for rules to limit its harm.
Regulatory mechanisms
Mozilla’s report notes that regulatory requirements across the globe mandate clearly identifying and labeling AI-generated content. Current approaches include visible labels and audible warnings to address the challenges of undisclosed synthetic content effectively. However, human-facing disclosure methods are only partially effective due to their vulnerability to manipulation and the potential to increase public mistrust.
Machine-readable methods, such as invisible watermarking, offer relative security. However, they require robust detection mechanisms to be truly effective. Machine-readable methods show promise but require standardized, robust watermarking techniques and unbiased detection systems.
The authors advocate for a holistic approach to governance that combines technological, regulatory, and educational measures. This includes prioritizing machine-readable methods, investing in “slow AI” solutions that embed corporate social responsibility, and balancing transparency with privacy concerns. Furthermore, they propose reimagining regulatory sandboxes as spaces for testing and refining AI governance strategies in collaboration with citizens and communities.
Ensuring the authenticity and safety of digital content in the age of AI demands innovation in governance strategies is a complex challenge. As the report points out, navigating the AI content challenge requires supporting a trustworthy digital ecosystem by leveraging machine-readable methods, fostering stakeholder collaboration and user education.
Transparent governance is essential to combat the risks associated with AI-generated content and uphold the integrity of digital platforms. Regulatory frameworks and technological solutions must adapt to safeguard against misinformation in order to promote trust in digital media content.
People are increasingly opting out of the news. According to the Digital News Report 2023 from Oxford University’s Reuters Institute, 36% of people around the world sometimes or often actively avoid news. So it is no surprise that “news avoidance” has emerged as a hot topic among academics who study news media. It’s a growing problem, with major implications for society.
In fact, this topic was chosen as the main theme of the pre-conference at the 2023 International Communication Association (ICA), the largest conference in the field of communication. The event was packed with speakers and attendees who poured over analysis and future predictions. Presenters cited numerous studies that show that those who don’t read the news are less likely to vote and feel detached from the community.
Unsurprisingly, there is no simple solution to this crisis. However, there was a general consensus that there’s a need for an increase in public assistance, education, and policies that support news media.
But ask yourself: If there were public funding available to support news as a public service, would your organization qualify? Are you providing quality news? Or have you fallen prey to algorithmic enticements to chase clicks?
An alarming trend
The news avoidance trend has been underway for a long time, driven by several factors. For one, people are overwhelmed with the sheer volume of information. They also feel worn out by a constant flow of grim news, which is cognitively exhausting. And let’s face it – from TikTok dance challenges to cat memes – there are a ton of entertaining alternatives for people to tune in to online.
But while people are enjoying entertaining content on their social feeds, they are also consuming news on these platforms. Or at least they think they are.
People have developed a news-finds-me (NFM) mentality, which creates the illusion that they are well-informed about important news even when they are not. Because they have access to news (or a facsimile of it) through social media any time and all the time, people falsely believe important news will find them.
This becomes particularly alarming as we increasingly see social and search platforms actively back away from news brands. A New York Times article points to actions and announcements by the likes of Meta (parent to Facebook and Instagram), X (aka Twitter), and even Google that make news less visible.
For news publishers, these converging trends point to a shrinking audience and a fiercely competitive environment for attention.
Attention-seeking behavior
One temptation is writing for eyeballs. Anyone vying for attention online knows that clickbait, rage-bait, and sensational news perform well in the digital marketplace.Arguably, social platforms incentivize this type of content.
Sadly, low-quality content typically outperforms high-quality news in terms of today’s measures of ROI. Sensational stories, aggregated news, and gossip are cheap to produce and easy to spread.
Even more worrisome is the fact that numerous studies (including mine) have found that false information spreads more quickly and widely on social media than true information. Unlike quality news reports, which are bound by facts, fake news and titillating stories can be created solely to capture audience attention, with whatever claims or sensational statements capture the most views.
So how can genuine news compete in this marketplace of attention? The playing field seems rigged in favor of hyperbolic sludge.
What we are observing today is a systematic problem that no single innovative business model can break through. It is a combined result of a vicious news cycle, distracted consumers, the dominance of platforms, and more. At least the growing journalism crisis provides a clear call to action. Media scholars even say that fake news is the best thing that’s happened to journalism. It allows high-quality news media to shine.
But while scholars continue to see the value of quality news, the trend of news avoidance among general audiences continues. Not only is it critical that we find a means to support the production of quality news, but we must also figure out how to re-engage audiences with it.
Solutions for journalism
From growing cries for social platform reform to tax-based and remunerative approaches, there are voices demanding public interventions to support sustainable news. In the U.S., legislation designed to support local news is increasingly popping up in Congress and state legislatures.
Given their dominance in the consumption of news, platforms should be pressured to incorporate measures of news quality into their ranking algorithms. Currently, several projects such as the Trust Project and NewsGuard provide credibility measures of news sites to elevate quality news.
Media literacy programs also offer some promise for publishers, as they emphasize the reputation of sources. For example, some university and local libraries keep track of reliable news sources and share the lists with residents.
In the meantime, news publishers must stick to the core values that are the foundation of journalistic work. Of course that is easier said than done given all the systematic obstacles listed above. The unfortunate reality is that quality news is expensive to produce. And, from the available metrics, this so-called high-quality news is not sufficiently valued in the marketplace.
However, reputation matters in the media business. Therefore, competing on the social platforms’ terms – with eyeball-chasing clickbait – won’t solve the attention deficit and will likely only exacerbate the misinformation problem (as people skim misleading headlines). While publishers may have to pivot to what’s working on social platforms (video, for example), they must not sacrifice core standards.
In the post-truth era, trust is the most valuable capital. Maintaining journalistic quality is the only way to protect the business in this tumultuous time. News providers are wise to remember that reputation is difficult to build but easy to destroy.
About the author
Jieun Shin (Ph.D, University of Southern California) is an Assistant Professor in the College of Journalism and Communications at the University of Florida. Her research explores information diffusion on social media focusing on misinformation and news use.
Savvy publishers know that balancing user experience with the need to drive revenue is key to thriving in today’s media marketplace. For NPR—where donations from an engaged and loyal audience are as important to their diverse revenue streams as sponsorship dollars—building trust is paramount to continued success. That’s why the National Public Media (NPM) team (the corporate sponsorship subsidiary of NPR) strives to uphold the values that NPR exhibits and years of data says its audience has come to expect, even as it develops content and advertising campaigns for sponsors.
Erica Osher, Vice President of Sponsorship Products and NPM Creative, says years of affinity research tells her that 72% of NPR’s audience has more positive feelings about NPR sponsors. Why? Because of a phenomenon called trust transference. NPR’s audience trusts the organization and its personalities, and that trust transfers to brands that support the news organization.
Furthermore, NPR’s research shows that its programming and journalism are “personally important” to its audience and that, all things being equal, they will buy products that are advertised on NPR over competing products. “We understand that maintaining the trust in journalism translates to our sponsors,” says Osher. With that in mind, the NPM team works “to obtain user feedback, especially when implementing new programs.” Keeping the user in mind at every turn allows NPM to create ad products that are beneficial for everyone involved.
Facts over flash
In order to maintain that all-important user trust, NPM enforces strict standards for sponsors who want to reach NPR’s digital audience with their advertising. In many ways, the guidelines sponsors must adhere to are not all that different from the standards journalists must uphold. Sponsors can only make substantiated claims in their ads, and even “broad claims” are rejected by the NPM team. No misleading creative or messaging is allowed, and sponsors cannot use disparaging language. Certain categories of sponsors are held to an even higher standard.
Another best practice suggestion for brands looking to reach NPR’s audience is to avoid inauthentic messaging. Osher says she often urges brands to speak for themselves, and feature speakers who can communicate genuinely, rather than just hitting a list of talking points. Avoiding jargon and technical language also helps keep the messaging relatable.
Holding sponsors to a higher standard is just the start of building better ads. Osher’s team thinks about how many ads per page—or podcast—the audience will tolerate. They use lazy loading to ensure content does not shift on a page because of an ad, and always test how any new major placements will impact a page. In essence, they strive to meet and sometimes improve on Better Ad Coalition Standards.
“We have these guidelines that we stick to and need to be balanced with the need for revenue,” says Osher. “When we do it well, the audience is receptive… but they hold us accountable.”
Best practices in action
So, what does it look like when sponsors take NPM’s standards to heart and deliver the kind of content NPR audiences want to see? In the case of Mattress Firm, NPM Creative (with the help of Spark Foundry) crafted a campaign around the science of sleep as part of its Brand Soundscapes product offering, which includes Center Stage. Interviews with sleep experts lead to tangible advice for readers on how to calm their minds and get better sleep.
Osher says that, as with most campaigns, her team tested different images and headlines to find what resonated best. “Featuring people is always effective,” she says. The Mattress Firm campaign, which strives to educate readers and listeners about how to get good sleep and why it matters, uses doctors to lend legitimacy to the topic. Listening to one of the segments, it’s easy to forget you are listening to sponsor content rather than a story segment about health and wellness. Year-over-year, Osher says, NPM has increased the play rate on its Center Stage Soundscapes product by about 33% and the average completion rate by roughly 19%.
Mass Mutual worked with NPM Creative to create custom Spotlight Mid-rolls to run across NPR podcasts. A case study describes the campaign: “The creative featured director Brian Trzcinski, Certified Exit Planning Advisor (CEPA). He shared how MassMutual financial professionals can help business owners balance the needs of today and tomorrow, including planning for a comfortable retirement.” Mass Mutual also used NPM’s research and measurement services to measure “campaign insights, optimize for success and ultimately make an impact.” According to the case study, the custom audio yielded a conversion rate (CR) 18% higher than standard 30-second mid-roll placements.
The success of NPM’s campaigns is due, in large part, to its commitment to producing sponsor content that feels true to NPR’s brand. With that in mind, the team has also moved away from traditional banner placements in its newsletters and switched to incorporating a native sponsorship unit. Taking a more text-based, story-driven approach has increased the click-through rate by 1,850% for the same campaign, says Osher.
The “facts over flash” approach that NPM takes when developing and implementing campaigns for sponsors has reaped rewards for sponsors as well as its own bottom line. A laser-like focus on what its audience expects and a willingness to hold sponsors to a high set of standards has created a virtuous cycle of great content that informs readers and listeners, creates a halo effect for brands, and keeps NPR in business.
Trust – and the lack of it – has become the metric of choice when discussing the alienation individuals feel regarding news organizations. When we consider what the metric is telling us, the picture is undeniably grim.
In an October 2023 poll, Gallup found that more people said they had no trust at all in the media (39%) than those that said they had a great deal of trust (32%). Increasing accountability and transparency are oft-cited prescriptions news organizations focus on to build trust.
Getting to the root of trust issues
However, many people say that the reasons they don’t trust the media include a failure to cover both sides of an issue and the perception that journalists have a political bias, particularly a liberal bias. The Gallup poll reflected a 47% trust gap between Democrats (58%) and Republicans (11%). That said, trust among Democrats is falling significantly for the same reason that it has plummeted for Republicans: a perception of bias, in this case, a conservative bias. The nation’s political polarization is further driving down media trust.
It is understandable that media organizations believe that audience perception of bias can be addressed through transparency efforts focused on the way journalists report and disseminate the news. Unfortunately, there’s a fundamental element of storytelling that may have a much bigger impact on the appearance of bias: word choice.
It’s difficult to address issues of bias when people fail to see themselves reflected in the words journalists use. Language is not merely a tool for communication but a reflection of positioning and perspective, bias and blame. Academic studies show that trust and distrust are encoded in the very language choices we make.
Research we’ve been conducting at the University of Florida’s College of Journalism and Communications is identifying patterns of common language usage in coverage of controversial and potentially divisive subjects that could drive wedges and further damage trust. It is possible that, by recoding words away from inherent biases and towards authentic language people use to describe their experiences, we may find a pathway that engenders trust.
While the pursuit of trust is indeed a noble one, it feels more ambitious than the current climate allows. Therefore, journalists should ask the question: Is trust entirely in my control? And if not, what is? Our work has steered us toward focusing on what can be controlled: authenticity, intentionality and precision. We believe these elements can serve as the building blocks that lead to greater trust.
Based on that work, we’re developing a machine-learning tool journalists can use to identify potentially biased language and use that feedback to make more intentional word choices. The tool, called Authentically, is aimed at equipping journalists with the insights to make informed decisions in their writing. Authentically is currently in the alpha stage of development and we’re working with newsroom partners to test functionality.
When complete, the tool will operate in real time to flag words that merit more careful consideration. By providing a more robust context to the connotations of language, journalists are given the opportunity to ask themselves: Is this really what I meant to say? Does this accurately represent the events I’m describing? Is this language biased?
Word choices and perceived bias
Throughout our investigation of multiple news topics, common patterns of use emerged. In our analysis of abortion coverage, the data indicated that words conveying a sense of pride, such as “proudly,”“unapologetically” and “adamantly” frequently preceded the pro-life label, whereas the pro-choice label was frequently preceded by words indicating a sense of necessity or urgency, such as “necessarily,”“increasingly” and “relentlessly.” While these differences might appear subtle, they raise critical questions: what is being communicated when the language used around one position consistently denotes an undertone of morality while the other suggests one of urgency?
In examining coverage of racial justice protests, specifically regarding the murder of George Floyd in 2020, the findings spoke for themselves. The verbs used to describe protest actions repeatedly drew comparisons to fire or destruction, such as “spark,” “fuel,” “erupt,” “ignite,” “trigger” and “flare.” Is the recurrent use of this fiery language a deliberate choice, or is it a subconscious pattern of bias? What impact does that have on the perception of these demonstrations and of the people participating in them?
As concerns and polarizations regarding the climate grow, so does the importance to be conscious of our language choices. Verbs used with the term “global warming” appear to have a more neutral focus on the general effects, such as “occur” and “bring,” while verbs used with the term “climate change” delve deeper into the speed, intensity and potential ramifications of ongoing environmental shifts, such as “alter,” “fuel” and “accelerate.” Does the language journalists use – even when the differences are subtle – help convey the urgency of a climate emergency, and therefore shape perceptions?
While the foundational tenants of journalism remain core to audience trust, words matter. Our research has illustrated to us the pivotal role of authenticity, intentionality and precision in beginning to bridge the gap between the intention of the journalist and the ways their stories are received by the public.
About the authors
Janet Coats is the Managing Director of the Consortium on Trust in Media and Technology at the University of Florida’s College of Journalism and Communications. She spent 25 years as a journalist and a decade as a media consultant before moving to higher education.
Kendall Moe is the Senior Project Manager and Researcher for the Authentically project and has conducted the language analysis described in this story. She has an undergraduate degree in linguistics and a master’s degree in special education from the University of Florida.
For many people, social media is an indispensable tool for communication, information consumption, and entertainment. However, its pervasiveness raises concerns about its potential negative impact, particularly the spread of disinformation and hate speech. The use of social media as a daily source of information has rapidly grown over the past 15 years, to the point of now surpassing print media, radio, and even television according to a new report.
Research from Ipsos and UNESCO, Global Survey on the Impact of Online Disinformation and Hate Speech, sheds light on the complex interplay between social media and information consumption. On average, 56% of internet users across 16 countries frequently rely on social media to stay updated on current events. This finding highlights social media’s growing influence in shaping public opinion and political discourse.
The study reveals that social media is the primary source of information for internet users across countries with high and medium/low levels of the Human Development Index. The Human Development Index (HDI) is a statistical tool used to measure a country’s overall achievement in its social and economic dimensions. The HDI was created to re-emphasize that people and their capabilities should be the ultimate criteria for assessing the development of a country, not economic growth.
The study breaks out HDI as follows:
Countries with a very high HDI (>0.800): Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Romania, and the United States.
Countries with a high HDI (0.700 to 0.799): Algeria, Dominican Republic, Indonesia, Mexico, South Africa, and Ukraine.
Countries with a medium or low HDI (<0.700): Bangladesh, El Salvador, Ghana, India, and Senegal.
Unfortunately, the study confirms the widespread perception of social media as a platform for disseminating disinformation. Over two-thirds of respondents in the survey believe that social media is the primary source of disinformation. That means it also surpasses traditional media outlets like television, radio, and print media. This concern is particularly prevalent among younger generations, with 74% of respondents under the age of 35 reporting encountering hate speech online. So, while people rely more heavily on social media for their information—over traditional media sources—they also believe social media is more likely to be a source of disinformation.
Addressing disinformation
The study further indicates that social media platforms must adequately address the issue of disinformation. Only 50% of respondents expressed trust in news from social media, compared to 66% for television news, 63% for radio news, and 61% for print media news. These findings suggest that social media fails to meet users’ expectations regarding providing accurate and reliable information.
In response to these concerns, citizens are advocating for stricter regulation of social media platforms. Over 90% of respondents believe social media platforms should mandate trust and safety measures to combat disinformation. Further, 89% concur that governments and regulatory bodies should enforce these measures.
The research also underscores the importance of citizen engagement in combating online disinformation. Less than half of all respondents (48%) say they reported online content related to disinformation during an election campaign to social media platforms. Those reporting disinformation are more likely to be younger and have a more substantial interest in politics. This suggests a need to encourage more informed and active participation from older citizens in addressing the issue of disinformation.
Call to action
Ipsos and UNESCO’s findings underscore the need for a comprehensive approach to tackling the challenges posed by social media. The approach includes:
regulation of social media platforms;
media literacy education for citizens; and
fact-checking and verifying information.
Social media is ubiquitous and brings unique challenges that require proactive measures. Social platforms need to do limit the spread of disinformation. Platforms can limit the number of times a post is shared and require users to verify the accuracy of a post before sharing it. They can also display warnings about the potential spread of disinformation. It’s time that platforms create a more responsible online space where people can access accurate news without exposure to misinformation and hate speech.
In a world driven by information, trust in the news has reached an all-time low in the United States. The most recent Gallup poll reveals that only 32% of Americans express “a great deal” or “a fair amount” of trust in the mass media to report the news fully, fairly, and accurately. This statistic ties with the lowest results to date from 2016 and reflects a significant decline in confidence over the years.
A further breakdown of the data reveals that another 29% of U.S. adults have “not very much” trust in the media, while a record-high 39% register “none at all.” The nearly four in 10 Americans completely lacking confidence in the media is the highest on record, surpassing Gallup’s 2016 results by one percentage point.
Historical trends
Gallup began tracking media trust in 1972. Trust ranged from 68% to 72% in the 1970s and started to decline in the late 1990s. The decline grew in 2004 when it dropped to 44%; since 2008, it’s registered annual declines.
One significant aspect of the decline in trust is the partisan divide. While Democrats have traditionally expressed more trust in the media than Republicans, the gap between the two has narrowed. Democrats’ trust has fallen by 12 points in the past year to 58%, compared to 11% among Republicans and 29% among independents. The gap in media confidence was largest from 2017 through 2022, during which Democrats’ trust remained above their trend average of 64%, while Republicans and independents lagged.
Interestingly, aggregated data reveals that young Democrats trust the media far less than older Democrats, highlighting generational differences in media perception. In contrast, Republicans’ views are less varied across age groups.
Rebuilding trust in the news media
The decline in trust in the media, as demonstrated by Gallup’s recent poll, reflects a deeply rooted issue in American society. Gallup’s research shows that trust in news media is eroding over time, leading to a disconnect between audiences and new outlets that inform them. The World Economic Forum identifies six steps for news organizations to rebuild trust in news and journalism’s integrity.
Build awareness about the trustworthiness of news media. News organizations must double down on their dedication to high-quality content by disclosing their principles and procedures for upholding accuracy and trustworthiness. This entails providing insights into their source evaluation, editing protocols, reader guidance, and responsible utilization of artificial intelligence.
Reduce exposure to harmful content online. News organizations must identify and cut back the malicious actors spreading information, and disincentivize the creation of echo chambers for extremist views.
Promote media information literacy and empower people to discern between reliable and misleading information. Integrating media information literacy into educational programs and offering it through corporate training ― to their employees and audiences.
Refrain from solely depending on AI for news generation. It’s important for news businesses to learn how to use AI to support journalism—from improving reporting techniques and expanding media literacy to enable individuals to share their narratives to establishing fresh channels for user interaction.
Strengthen credibility by emphasizing transparency and accountability. News organizations must use transparent processes and adhere to independently audited audience measurements to establish and sustain trust.
Increase interest and engagement in news media. News businesses need to create quality content that is accessible and affordable. Partnerships between media outlets and other players can provide consumers access to multiple news sources, overcoming challenges like walled gardens and privacy regulations.
Restoring trust in the news is a continuous process that demands cooperation among media organizations, tech firms, policymakers, and the public. Upholding the integrity of journalism is imperative to ensure that the public has confidence in the news outlets they depend on.