A Manifesto for a More Trustworthy Press
Public trust in the media fell to an all-time low in 2020. It doesn't have to stay that way.
The American news industry has a long and sordid history of playing fast and loose with facts. Early on, sensationalized “yellow journalism” was the dominant form of news reporting across the nation. It wasn’t until the late 1800s that the value of unbiased facts finally began to exceed that of opinion, in part due to the high cost of long-distance communication technologies like telegraphs. The concept of unbiased journalism gained more popularity in the century that followed, when influential reporters began to promote the idea of objectivity and the application of the scientific method during the reporting process.
Today, something like the reverse is happening. Unlike the expensive telegraphs of bygone eras, instant worldwide communication is now easy and virtually free online. Also gone are the exorbitant printing and distribution costs once associated with publishing — today, anyone can launch a website, start a blog or print on demand.
The democratization of communication and information has largely been a positive thing for global society. Technology broke down many of the walls that once separated humans and created opportunities for better education, professional development, and entrepreneurship in ways the world had never seen before.
But as corporate-owned social media platforms and search engines started to base their business models on addictive algorithms that maximized profits by amplifying sensational content without regard for truth, news outlets followed suit in an effort to survive and meet the demands of a rapidly changing digital landscape. This changed the way we accessed and consumed information in significant, and often harmful, ways.
In 2020, following a year of maddeningly contradictory reporting and mixed messaging in the media about everything from a global pandemic to vaccines and presidential elections, public trust in the press fell to an all-time low in the United States.
But it doesn’t have to stay that way.
Like the journalists at the turn of the century who demanded the scientific method be used during the reporting process to limit bias, media professionals today can restore the public’s trust by taking responsibility for their industry and adopting more rigorous reporting and fact-checking practices.
The following are 20 things the news media should do to credibly earn back the public’s trust in 2021:
Prioritize original reporting and primary source fact-checking. In March, the Washington Post stunned readers and journalists alike when it issued a lengthy correction to an influential story it had published two months earlier. In January, the major paper of record had reported what ended up being inaccurate and misleading information related to a phone call from former President Trump during an inquiry into the integrity of the 2020 presidential election in Georgia. The original version of the story, along with its errors, was amplified by countless news and media outlets across the internet — reflecting a questionable trend of journalists relying on the work of other journalists at other outlets without conducting their own independent investigations or fact-checking. Although relying on the reporting of other journalists is sometimes necessary, reporters risk amplifying erroneous information and contributing to public confusion about important issues when they fail to independently verify facts.
Prominently display corrections and retractions without paywalls. That lengthy Washington Post correction? It’s behind a paywall. Corrections and retractions should always remain highly visible and be accessible without paywalls. News outlets should also collaborate with social media platforms to ensure that special algorithms are designed to display major corrections or retractions to every user that viewed the original version of the story.
Grant anonymity only in situations where a source’s life or job are in legitimate danger. The use of unnamed and anonymous sources in news reporting has become commonplace in recent years, repeating a trend those familiar with the start of the Iraq war might recall with some discomfort. There is a time and place to grant anonymity to sources, particularly when their life or job is in jeopardy — a practice the public generally agrees with under such special circumstances. When journalists and editors grant anonymity for less serious reasons, though, it can strain public trust. A litmus test for deciding whether or not outlets should grant anonymity to sources should be to determine whether or not the information provided by the source is important enough to the public interest that the journalist and editor would be willing to go to jail to protect the source’s identity.
Establish policies to publicly disclose the names of anonymous sources when they lie to journalists. When sources intentionally mislead or lie to journalists for personal or political reasons, and those lies get printed as facts, it understandably undermines public faith in the press as an institution. Part of a news outlet’s agreement to grant anonymity to sources should include the caveat that the information provided by the source must be true in order to preserve their anonymity. The legitimacy of a democracy relies on the availability of clean, accurate information — the public cannot make informed decisions without it. When granting anonymity, journalists put themselves at risk of going to jail to protect their sources — a sacrifice that should depend on the legitimacy of the information being provided. Because of that, intentional deceit should negate any protections afforded under an anonymity agreement.
Slow the pace of publication and adopt more stringent fact-checking standards that emphasize verification with primary sources. Contemporary fact-checking practices often rely on web searches and earlier reporting from other outlets, without ever picking up a phone or contacting a primary source to confirm the details of a story. One of the many obvious pitfalls of these practices is that if the earliest outlet to report on a subject gets something wrong, any outlet that checks their facts against that outlet’s reporting will also get it wrong. Stringent fact-checking policies that require someone other than the writer to confirm facts directly with primary sources prior to publication would solve this problem.
Promote transparency and hold everyone accountable for their work. Transparency and accountability are critical to regaining public trust in journalism. But accountability shouldn’t be limited only to journalists, who sometimes have very little control over what a finished story looks like when it’s finally published. The editors that help shape those stories should be named in bylines, as should the fact-checkers that worked behind the scenes on each story. This practice would establish a public track record for accuracy and create higher standards of accountability in reporting.
Prioritize conclusion-neutral reporting and editing to avoid narratives, perception gaps, and information blind spots. According to Pew Research, around eight-in-ten Americans say they believe news coverage tends to favor one side more than the other in political coverage. This can be fixed by implementing more ideologically inclusive, conclusion-neutral reporting and editing practices that start with questions — not angles — and utilize the scientific method to look for answers.
Establish more inclusive and democratic standards for what is considered “newsworthy.” By taking time to listen to readers and community members, rather than advertisers and publishers, news outlets can redefine the concept of “newsworthiness” by covering topics their readers actually care about.
Establish protocol for protecting the identity of whistleblowers. Whistleblowers have long been the press and public’s most valuable resource for preserving civil liberties and providing insight into corruption and other shadowy government and corporate activities. But as federal legislation continues to be weaponized against those trying to do the right thing, and as digital surveillance grows more efficient, the act of whistle-blowing is becoming increasingly dangerous. The sloppy handling of leaked documents by major outlets in recent years has needlessly added to that danger. While it’s impossible to guarantee the safety of a whistleblowers’ identity, outlets should work to create specific protocol for handling and publishing whistleblower documents and protecting whistleblowers’ identities to the fullest extent possible both online and off.
Discourage and strictly limit the use of current and former intelligence officials as sources for political reporting. Members of the intelligence community have a job to do, and reporters risk pushing political agendas, amplifying propaganda, and disseminating counterintelligence or state-sanctioned disinformation to the public when they utilize intelligence officials as sources for political coverage.
Minimize harm. Minimizing harm is a foundational element of journalistic ethics. It’s a rule that should always be followed, especially when it comes to the rights and privacy of private citizens. Reporting should focus only on details that are in the public interest, without violating citizens’ rights or seeking out embarrassing but unimportant details about the private lives of others.
Place more emphasis on thought diversity and opposing viewpoints. Watching the news in the 1950s was likely a much different experience than it is today. Opposing viewpoints were regularly aired on television, ensuring that citizens were fully informed and engaged in debates about politics and social issues while preventing partisan censorship on the airwaves. In part, this dedication to fairness was due to the now-defunct FCC Fairness Doctrine — a law that once required holders of broadcast licenses to present all sides of important issues to the public. The rule was revoked in 1987 and formally removed from legislation in 2011. Regardless of its repeal, though, news outlets and broadcasters should continue to abide by the spirit of the doctrine to prevent partisan censorship and lopsided agenda-pushing.
Advocate for the implementation of algorithms that keep readers informed on social media, rather than entertained or ideologically gratified. The news is not entertainment. It’s time to start advocating for cleaner algorithms that don’t polarize readers or create dangerous perception gaps between different ideological groups.
Invest in journalism that scrutinizes and investigates wrongdoing. Historically, cults of personality have been enormously dangerous when it comes to government. Too often in the last decade, politicians have been treated like celebrities by the media. News outlets on both sides of the aisle have taken dovish approaches to reporting on their preferred candidates, while unfairly hounding the opposition with obnoxiously petty reporting. Regardless of their political affiliations or positions, elected officials should never be treated like rock stars or saviors by members of the press. Instead, outlets should invest more time, effort and resources into scrutinizing the impact of public policy, investigating corruption and legitimate abuses of power, and working more tirelessly in the public interest.
Avoid sensational or misleading headlines — especially online. In a time when the majority of U.S. adults get their news on social media, it’s important that headlines don’t sensationalize or mislead for the purpose of generating shares and going viral — especially since many of those articles won’t actually be read.
Openly disclose conflicts of interest, and ensure that sponsored content and opinion editorials are clearly labeled and easily distinguishable from reporting. In the migration from print to web, media outlets blurred the line between facts, opinions, and advertisements — creating a dangerously confusing environment for digital news consumers. Any content that isn’t produced independently by the outlet should be clearly and prominently labeled as an opinion/editorial, advertisement, or sponsored content.
Create policies to retain editorial independence and control over partner content. It is actually possible to draft clauses into agreements with sponsors and advertisers to maintain editorial control over paid content, and more outlets should utilize their power to do so.
Apply values and principles consistently across all subjects. Nothing destroys trust as effectively as hypocrisy. Values and principles should always be applied fairly and consistently, no matter what the topic is. Journalistic ethics and standards of integrity should not wax and wane depending on the popularity or ideological content of the subject being covered.
Stop allowing social media mobs to shape editorial and business decisions. Social media is not representative of the real world. According to Pew Research, around 80% of the tweets from U.S. adults on Twitter were created by only 10% of the platform’s U.S.-based adult users. The platform’s overall user demographic also doesn’t compare to the general population, skewing younger and more liberal. Beyond that, automated “bot squads” have been shown to be effective in disseminating propaganda and manipulating user interactions on Twitter for political purposes. With that in mind, news outlets should immediately cease the practice of allowing social media to dictate their editorial and business decisions, especially the firing of longtime staff. Instead, decision-makers at media outlets should conduct internal evaluations and analyze letters from real subscribers who deserve to have influence over those decisions.
Ask better questions. Never underestimate the power of substantive questions.
The suggestions on this list might not fix everything that is wrong with our press, but they would be a good place to start.
As the saying goes, nothing changes if nothing changes.
Until journalists, editors, and publishers accept individual and collective responsibility for losing the public’s trust — and make significant changes to the way they cover the news — the public will likely continue to view the press as an institution not worthy of its confidence.