Solutions to declining trust are staring news media in the face

Three-quarters of New Zealanders who experience an event which improves their trust in news media are  likely to believe it continues to be better. So why do our media ignore such crashing statements of the obvious and continue to lose credibility?

The statistic is drawn from a new study commissioned by the Broadcasting Standards Authority on trust in media. Carried out by The Curiosity Company, it draws on both focus groups and an online opinion survey. Most of its findings reinforce what we already know, and that begs the question: Why do news outlets continue to exhibit the sort of behaviour that contributes to declining trust when the solutions are so obvious?

This is the quotation that leads the BSA report: “If it tells the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in news reports, clearly separating opinion and content, I am more likely to trust the provider.”

Yet every day we see example after example of fact and opinion being mixed together in what is presented as news stories, with the audience finding it increasingly difficult to differentiate between reportage and comment.

Yes, in an age when anyone has the ability to spread their views (however asinine) through a digital megaphone, it is only natural that news media believe the opinions of their informed journalists should also be heard. Not, however, in the same breath or paragraph as the facts they are reporting or events they are relaying.

We see regular examples of click-bait headlining and story selection – particularly on news sites that use artificial intelligence, algorithms, and analytics to curate content–that leaves the audience feeling both cheated and intellectually belittled.

The 66-page BSA report canvasses broad consumer views of news and information, factors that promote trust, and factors that drive distrust. It reinforces other studies such as those by AUT’s Research Centre for Journalism, Media and Democracy the Reuter’s Institute in the United Kingdom, and the Pew Center in the United States.

The listed factors that promote trust should be self-evident: Accuracy, fairness and impartiality, comprehensive coverage, independence, transparency, and accountability. However, the nature of content generally should send a useful signal to news providers.

Consumers applied higher trust scores to providers focused on hard news such as politics and current affairs, than those focused on “lite” news such as lifestyle or entertainment content. Yet websites and apps regularly prioritise lightweight, celebrity-based, and curiosity-driven stories that essentially say: ‘Let us entertain you’.

The report highlighted five factors that contribute to loss of trust (again, not new, but worth repeating):

• Misleading/sensationalist headlines/clickbait
• Failure to acknowledge and correct errors
• Too much opinion and not enough factual reporting
• Too much ‘attack journalism’ (aggressive or bullying questioning)
• Advertisements presented as news.

The fact that this does not come as a revelation again raises a question over why there has not been wholesale redress. Every week I see examples of each of these detrimental effects.

The forms of redress in the BSA report are quite simple and represent no more than the re-emphasis of traditional journalistic values. Transparency and accountability, clear editorial boundaries, and commitment to impartial and fact-based reporting were – and should still be – the cornerstones of journalism.

Many in the trade will say they still are. While that may indeed be the case, the problem is that these qualities are not apparent to the audience. And, if the audience is unaware, the attributes effectively are not there.

Some elements of what the audience expects in return for vesting trust, indeed, have been diminished or lost.

In the minds of the audience, transparency and accountability means prompt correction of errors. News outlets are wrong if they think their responsibility to correct errors is met by tagging a note at the bottom of a long online story. Far too often the reader does not get to that end note. And the peripatetic nature of online news flows means there is every likelihood that the corrected version will be gone before it can even be sighted. Forthright correction in a for-purpose location (a set page in a newspaper or accessed through a website menu) says loudly and clearly that the outlet is accountable for its errors and can be trusted to set the record straight. Is that too hard?

Similarly, editorial boundaries mean separating news from opinion. Nothing new there, but a day does not go by when I do not witness the opinion of a reporter indelibly over-written on reportage. I – and the rest of the audience – am left to my own devices in separating one from the other. The practice not only transgresses journalistic boundaries but also provides ammunition for those seeking every opportunity to diminish and discredit media outlets with claims of bias. By definition, opinion takes a position and, if it is one with which you disagree (as you are entitled), it is only a short step to label the entire newspaper, website or broadcaster as partisan, biased, dishonest, and untrustworthy. Adding ‘analysis’ to the top of a news story peppered with opinion is no answer. Is physically separating reportage and opinion (and labelling the latter as such) really too hard?

Those same boundaries should separate editorial content from advertising. Financial adversity has seen partial collapse of what was once a Great Wall between the Editorial Church and the Advertising State. I know that the news industry now has to scramble for every dollar it can find, and I suspect the public know that, too, when they see page upon page of Harvey Norman advertising before they get to a real front page. What the public find unacceptable is not knowing whether what they are consuming is independent editorial content or something that ultimately benefits whoever had paid for it to be printed or broadcast. And that includes material that directly aids a commercial arm of the news business itself. How many real estate stories do you see linked to a news organisation’s commercial arm? How many lifestyle product-related stories have paid-for elements? Are you confused when you see a news reporter popping up on a sponsored story? Is it too hard to clearly label such items so the audience is in no doubt that it has to add a small grain of salt for commercial content? And shouldn’t news reporters be off-limits for commercially-linked stories?

If the challenging financial future of news media gives over-riding importance to commercial imperatives, it still makes very good sense to institute measures to regain trust.

The BSA’s survey showed that, once they lost trust, 38 per cent of respondents stopped going to that particular provider . It also confirmed something else we already knew: Once trust has gone, it is very hard to regain it. The survey showed more than half felt that, once trust declined, there was a perception that it continued to get worse. Surely these are very good reasons to find ways to stop the erosion of trust.

Four quotations from members of the focus groups pointed the way to recovery. They had been asked what, if anything, was the one thing news providers could do that would rebuild trust in them. If news outlets take the responses to that question to heart, they may be rewarded with studies that show a rewarding change in the public’s attitude toward them.

“Report the facts and detail the sources, giving the listener the information to make an informed decision.”

“Having both sides presented and hearing the full argument…That is balance. Only ever hearing one perspective soon becomes dull but also incredulous.”

“Publicly report the causes of errors, corrective measures, accept public scrutiny and enhance the transparency of information.”

“Don’t be misleading with the ‘advertising’ of your news, if you have done your job and found good / helpful news to report then there shouldn’t be a need to sensationalise the title.”

What more need I say?