Restoring trust in the media

Supporters of President Donald Trump stand next to media equipment they destroyed during a protest on Jan. 6, 2021 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Agnes Bun/AFP via Getty Images)

This past June, a group of executives from National Public Radio and journalists from around the United States got together in Arkansas to brainstorm ways to do something once taboo in their field: collaborate. How could they work together to better provide consumers with important information about their communities and create the kind of connections between journalists and the publics they serve that bolster trust in the media?

Perhaps it was the friendly intimacy of the setting: Bentonville, Arkansas, is a cozy city more than 200 miles from Little Rock. Or maybe it was the beauty of the venue: the modernist Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art, where a dense forest and a flowing stream provide a lush backdrop. Whatever the inspiration, thinking beyond traditional categories was the order of the day. The need was genuine given not only the financial pressures facing media organizations but also another discomfiting trend. A 2022 Gallup/Knight Foundation survey says it all. The survey found that 62% of Americans think U.S. news organizations put their own business needs over the public interest. That’s not exactly a ringing endorsement of Americans’ trust in their media.

Texas station managers shared how they partner on the statewide Texas Newsroom. A California public radio executive described his station’s collaboration with local newspapers, universities, and other public media institutions to create a statewide database of law enforcement abuses. The CEO of an Iowa NPR affiliate detailed her station’s work with struggling small-town newspapers in the state to provide information to news deserts – the increasing number of U.S. regions that lack a local paper.

This new, unconventional approach – under which news organizations are starting to see themselves as allies, not competitors, in the ongoing battle to provide straight, relatively comprehensive news to the public – couldn’t come at a more critical time. The serenity of the Moshe Safdie-designed Crystal Bridges museum may have relaxed the journalists during their brainstorming. But outside its walls, they all faced an ominous reality: declining trust in their work – a decline that feeds polarization and imperils the health of U.S. democracy itself.

Losing faith

Recent research paints a dark portrait of the parlous status of the news media in the United States. An Associated Press/National Opinion Research Center poll from this past spring found that 45% of Americans say they have little to no faith that the news media reports events fairly and accurately. The same survey revealed that nearly 75% say the news media polarizes Americans.

But polarization is a two-way process; it also shapes how Americans view the media. Now more than ever, one’s political affiliation directly correlates with how negatively one feels toward conventional news outlets. In that 2022 Gallup/Knight Foundation report, 79% of Republicans and 66% of independents expressed a “very” or “somewhat” unfavorable opinion of the news media. By contrast, 28% of Democrats held unfavorable opinions. The same survey found that 55% see political bias in contemporary news coverage.

Other factors also influence public opinion, including age. Last fall, Pew Research Center reported that Americans younger than 30 years old trust the information they get from social media almost as much as the news they receive from traditional outlets. And while 43% of Americans age 65 and older have a “very” or “somewhat” favorable view of the media, 20% of Americans under age 30 express that sentiment.

The fact is that across almost all groups, confidence in the news media is waning. In October 2022, Pew reported that trust in local news – long the preferred outlet for most Americans – reached its lowest point since the organization started keeping track in 2016. The figure is down 11% on average among all adults since that point. What’s more, only 35% of Americans think they can rely on national news organizations to deliver the information they need to make informed decisions about their communities and nation. In 2020, Gallup reported that, for the first time in 40 years, more Americans reported no confidence in the media than those who reported at least some confidence.

As all this data makes clear, trust in one of democracy’s most important institutions is in jeopardy. Fortunately, the news media can regain the confidence of its consumers. The answer doesn’t rely on abstract concepts. What’s required is a return to some of the foundational ideas of the industry – ideas that have recently been overshadowed as news outlets try to adapt to the new, much more economically challenging landscape.

Just the facts

Among those surveyed in a 2021 American Press Institute/Associated Press study, 67% said they care most about “factualism” when it comes to the reporting they consume. Getting the facts right drew more support than any other journalistic value the survey tested, taking precedence over things such as government and business oversight, providing a voice to the less powerful, transparency, and social criticism.

Respondents emphasized the value of accurate reporting because they saw it as a necessary ingredient for successfully solving problems. “The idea that the more facts we have in society, the more likely we are to solve problems, was fully embraced by 67% of Americans,” the survey concluded.

Fact-checking is certainly one of the most important journalistic protocols, so any attempt to fight falling trust should start there. The behind-the-scenes editing process is designed to catch errors. But as media organizations have come under intense financial pressure in recent decades, the resulting cuts – Northwestern University’s Penny Abernathy reports that 70% of newspaper jobs have been eliminated since 2005 – have decimated publications’ fact-checking operations.

The loss of copy editors – the unseen but pivotal players who double check articles for grammar and accuracy – has caused particular problems. As Elizabeth Jensen, NPR’s Public Editor (the person responsible for upholding good journalism ethics at a given media organization) from 2015 to 2020, remarked in a 2017 address:

As the profitability of print media outlets dropped in the switch to digital, one of the first groups of employees to feel the effects was the copy editors. Those wonderful employees whose role in the newsroom is to uphold standards and practices, to save reporters from misreporting the facts, to cast that final critical eye looking at nuance in headlines. Their ranks have been dramatically thinned. The result is obvious to anyone who reads a newspaper or website. Errors are up, from the misplaced apostrophe in “it’s” to dropped words, misspellings, and worse.

News organizations that try to retain their copy editors are investing in their communities – as well as in democracy – since high-quality, reliable information is essential to both. Reinvesting in copy editors won’t be a cure-all for declining trust and polarization, but the more that news organizations get the facts right, the more Americans might begin trusting them again. So, obsessing over accuracy is a good place to start.

The New Orleans Times-Picayune newsroom circa 1900. (Unknown photographer / Public domain)

The objective is objectivity

Prior to the early 1900s, U.S. newsrooms more closely resembled house organs for various political parties than unbiased providers of public information. Around the turn of the century, after popular journalists such as the Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Walter Lippmann began condemning so-called yellow journalism, U.S. newsrooms began embracing objective reporting. Journalists became more focused on unpacking both sides of a story, finding as many sources as possible, and questioning (and suppressing) their own biases. They sought to tell fact-based stories, no matter where they might lead, and began clearly demarcating news sections from opinion pages.

Today, however, many newsrooms are once again questioning and debating the merits and limits of objectivity. Should reporters bring more of their personal opinions and experiences – especially when those experiences are shaped by discrimination or oppression – to their work? Or should they just present the facts – all of them, on both sides of the issue? The latter view, known as “both side-ism” and once an article of faith among U.S. journalists, is increasingly being challenged. Indeed, a 2022 Pew Research Center survey found that 55% of U.S. journalists said they did not think they should maintain the practice. Leonard Downie Jr., who served as The Washington Post Executive Editor from 1991 to 2008, endorsed the argument in January when, in a much-debated essay in his former newspaper, he forcefully took the side of those who believe that pursuing objectivity actually obscures reality. The dictionary definition of objectivity, Downie observed, is “expressing or using facts without distortion by personal beliefs, bias, feelings or prejudice.” But such a principle has become outdated, he argued, writing that in today’s more diverse newsrooms, many reporters feel that pursuing objectivity “negates many of their own identities, life experiences, and cultural contexts, keeping them from pursuing truth in their work.”

Downie explained that research he had conducted with former CBS News President Andrew Heyward had led both men to conclude that “truth-seeking news media must move beyond whatever ‘objectivity’ once meant to produce more trustworthy news.” The gist of his argument was that when reporters allow their personal backgrounds to inform their work, it results in more accurate coverage, whether the topic is a community’s economic opportunities, access to health care, sexual harassment, or some other subject that intersects with the journalist’s experience. Downie’s view remains highly controversial. So it was no surprise when, a few weeks later, Martin Baron, who served as the Post’s Executive Editor from 2013 to 2021, published a counterargument. Baron argued that objectivity should be defined as “a fair, honest, honorable, accurate, rigorous, impartial, open-minded evaluation of the evidence.” He emphasized that objectivity remains at the heart of many endeavors, such as scientific research, judicial decisions, and medical diagnoses – and should for journalism, too.

Objectivity remains at the heart of many endeavors – such as science and judicial decisions – and should for journalism, too.

Baron stressed the importance of reporters – like scientists, doctors, and lawyers – upholding such standards, even if they sometimes fall short. “We don’t start with the answers. We go seeking them, first with the already formidable challenge of asking the right questions and finally with the arduous task of verification,” he wrote. Journalists, he continued, should “be generous listeners and eager learners, especially conscious of our own suppositions, prejudices, preexisting opinions and limited knowledge.”

American journalist and columnist Walter Lippmann lecturing at Cambridge in May 1952. (Photo by John Chillingworth/Picture Post/Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

Much of the public opinion data cited above suggests that the news media would be better off hewing to Baron’s argument over Downie’s. Indeed, last year Pew found that 76% of Americans say they think journalists should always give equal weight to all sides. Yet the same poll found that more than half of the journalists surveyed expressed the opposite opinion.

What’s fascinating about these arguments is that they’re more than 100 years old. All the way back in 1919, Lippmann felt compelled to write, “The public, when it is dependent on testimony and protected by no rules of evidence, can act only on the excitement of its pugnacities and its hopes.” That statement remains true today. Rather than abandon tried-and-true practices, contemporary reporters must embrace the value of those practices and follow them rigorously. That means challenging their own biases, asking their sources hard questions, and maintaining an open mind about the evidence or data they are examining. Doing these things ­– rather than parroting arguments and narratives they know will find approval among a narrow audience of like-minded readers – is the best way to provide consumers with the essential details and facts on whatever they’re covering, be it a war, a crime, a medical breakthrough, or anything else. Democracy depends on an informed electorate, and an informed electorate requires honest information.

None of this is meant to suggest that reporters must repeat falsehoods and call them the truth. If they come across a lie, they should label it as such. Striving for objectivity doesn’t require journalists to promote false narratives. Russian President Vladimir Putin, for example, invaded Ukraine, pure and simple. He was not, as he argues, responding to NATO aggression or Ukrainian fascism. Reporters can and should make that clear.

Broaden the newsroom

Striving for objectivity as well as deepening trust in journalism does require diversifying newsrooms. When greater numbers of white males dominated media organizations, it inevitably limited what kinds of stories were reported and which audiences were addressed.

Inclusivity particularly matters when editors are deciding what stories to assign to whom. As Downie wrote, “Inclusive newsrooms should encourage their journalists to speak up and be heard by their colleagues and leaders in making decisions about coverage.” Inclusivity also helps news organizations connect with a broader audience. The 2022 Gallup/Knight Foundation study found that paying attention to the personal connection between a reporter and reader pays off. People with a deeper emotional connection to the news are more likely to consider it reliable. According to the report:

The more emotional trust in news, the more empowered Americans feel to navigate a complex information environment. The more emotional trust in news, the more willing Americans are to pay for it. And emotional trust in news is linked to Americans’ overall assessment of U.S. democracy.

Diversity should extend beyond race and gender to include political viewpoints, as well. Research from Pew Research Center reveals that American readers value knowing that members of the media resemble them and reflect their values. Newsrooms should therefore ensure they employ a mix of liberals, conservatives, and centrists. When hearing a range of perspectives from those journalists, editors are less likely to overlook a topic that part of their audience prioritizes. For example, it’s important for editors to hear from the journalists in their newsrooms exactly why people in their community distrust vaccines, or consider capitalism unfair, or follow a religious tradition. Editors are more likely to broaden the range of topics they cover when their newsrooms reflect the communities in which the journalists live and work. In the end, that serves the public and policymakers alike.

Provide hope

Sometimes, the torrent of bad news can become overwhelming. Even I, having spent four decades in opinion journalism, sometimes feel worn down by the constant bombardment of dark tidings. That may explain why these days I gravitate toward the sports pages or ESPN more than I did earlier in my career: I need relief. And I’m not the only one. In a column last year, The Washington Post’s Amanda Ripley confessed to the same doom fatigue, which she found to be widespread; a Reuters survey she cited shows that 40% of respondents had stopped reading, watching, or listening to the news because it left them feeling powerless or dispirited.

To be sure, journalists must keep reporting on problems. Citizens can’t address community or societal challenges if they don’t know they exist. A former colleague of mine from The Dallas Morning News (where I worked for many years and now serve as a columnist) once described a newspaper’s role as similar to a parent presenting issues to their family around a breakfast table. Like a family, a community sometimes must confront difficult, even unpleasant, issues.

But newspapers and other media outlets need to identify and offer solutions to these problems, too. It’s not enough to complain about homelessness, or rising prices, or systemic racism. Readers need to understand that there are pathways to reform and that we’re making progress in quite a few areas. As Ripley wrote, people need hope, just as families around the breakfast table need to believe that they can get through trying times.

Fortunately, a few organizations have sprung up to provide just that. After George Floyd’s murder, for example, 10 of the largest Black publications in the United States came together to form Word In Black, an online publication that republishes articles from members of the network as well as original reporting and opinion pieces. The organization’s goal is not just to identify problems; Word In Black presents solutions, too. A report this summer, for instance, detailed how to combat poverty by improving transportation connections. The report drew upon the Tech Valley Shuttle’s work in Albany, New York, to help employees in local “transportation deserts” get to their jobs. Likewise, the shuttle drives people to nonemergency medical appointments and delivers food to people in need.

Stronger together

The Word In Black partnership demonstrates another important tool news outlets should use to restore the public’s trust in their work: collaboration. By partnering with other media organizations, economically and otherwise constrained individual news outlets can increase their power, influence, audience size, and resources. By banding together, they can provide a better product and more accurate information to consumers.

To that end, a number of newspapers, other media, and various organizations and institutions are already finding ways to work together. The Dallas Morning News, for example, partners with local universities to attract talent to both the campuses and the newspaper. This collaborative arrangement has led to the hiring of respected science, medical, architectural, and arts experts who have split their time between the school and the paper, where they can share their work with both readers and students.

Other news organizations are also stepping in. In 2022 and 2023, KERA – a community-supported north Texas radio and television station – worked with the National Trust for Local News to buy the Denton Record-Chronicle, a newspaper serving a north Texas community of nearly 150,000 people, whose owner was reaching retirement age. The sale, which was finalized in August of this year, means the paper will remain in local hands. The purchase also allows the paper (now a nonprofit) and KERA to collaborate on reporting projects.

The National Trust for Local News, meanwhile, is taking what CEO and Co-Founder Elizabeth Hansen Shapiro terms an “ecosystem approach.” Her nonprofit’s first collaboration involved working with the American Journalism Project, the Gates Family Foundation, The Colorado Sun, and several other Colorado-based organizations to acquire 24 local papers in the state, consolidate them into one organization (the Colorado News Conservancy), and keep them in local hands. That effort has not only saved the community papers in question but also allowed them to maintain their strong bonds with the towns they serve. Publishing local stories, birth and wedding announcements, obituaries, and high school sports might not seem as exciting as national blockbusters, but the work helps foster a sense of community and builds an emotional bond (and trust) between the newspapers and their readers. As Hansen Shapiro wrote in March, “Quality local news organizations have the power to build and transform the social ties that are essential to democracy.” The National Trust for Local News even measures how well its community papers “bring people together and motivate people to act.”

Rebuilding trust, restoring democracy

There is no magic spell that will instantly restore Americans’ trust in the news media. But the aforementioned elements offer organizations ways to respond to declining resources and rebuild essential connections with consumers.

I am not talking about the connections that all too often are forged nationally by media organizations – the ones that drive polarization by narrowcasting and telling their consumers what they want to hear or already believe. I am talking about bonds that are based on a shared appreciation for local needs and the public good.

To be sure, some parts of today’s media landscape will not adopt these practices. Cable television, for one, has largely adopted a model that depends on confrontation or talking heads. Still, these fundamentals can help traditional media – whether that’s newspapers and digital sites, local television stations, or public radio outlets – bolster Americans’ trust in the news and information they consume each day.

Following these steps I’ve outlined will bring benefits not just for news producers and the public; it will also benefit American democracy. That 2022 Gallup/Knight survey highlighted earlier found that 71% of Americans with low trust in national news also have less faith in the country’s political process. For example, only 22% of those with low trust in national news believe U.S. elections are free and fair.

Regrettably, that’s a perfectly reasonable trend. If people don’t believe in the reliability of the information they consume, they will find it very difficult to agree on a common set of facts. And without a common set of facts, they will find it much more difficult to resolve larger public problems and overcome the fierce polarization that divides so many Americans.