Matilde

Do we trust the news? Yes, but…

Newspapers have been a privileged form of communication over the past hundred years. However, in the same way as other “products” with such a long history, it has undergone many transformations. To point out the most recent and important ones, we can talk about the advances in information and communication technologies, which has transformed the newspaper industry into a digital, online news industry and, even most recently, the impact that social media networks have on news production and distribution.

To quickly answer the key question of this article, let’s quote Nic Newman, Senior Research Associate of Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism: “Journalism matters and is in demand again.” So, yes, generally we trust news, but the topic is not as simple as we may think at first glance.

The novel paradigm of news consumption brings to the heart of this discussion a new generation of young adults, the digital natives, who grew up with the internet and digital technology and devices. This part of the population has quite a different approach to learning, experiencing the world, and reading habits. They don’t usually read traditional print newspapers, but they can be remarkably informed and eager for information. “Avoiding the news is seemingly becoming more difficult and more common,” wrote Joshua Benton. And it’s absolutely true: nowadays, even if you skip the morning newspapers, news come across everywhere on digital devices: headlines of online newspapers, web-links posted in social networks or even more masked on memes and gifs.

For these consumers, digital news introduces several powerful advantages that are traditionally absent in the printed environment — namely interactivity, non-linearity, immediacy to accessing information, and the convergence of text, images, and video. However, information disorder finds, in this new environment, a way to spread faster than ever and the current pandemic context emphasized it in an impressive way:

• A report published on April 17th by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism found that about one-third of social media users across the United States (US), as well as Argentina, Germany, South Korea, Spain and the United Kingdom (UK), reported seeing false or misleading information about the coronavirus;
• More than 3.4 million suspicious accounts targeting coronavirus discussions were challenged on Twitter since the start of the COVID-19 outbreak, thanks to the work of European Union institutions with online platforms;
• Facebook reported, in just two months, around 90 million pieces of content related to COVID-19 and is seen as the main channel for spreading false information almost everywhere;

A new day for journalism

The Global Web Index found that over 80% of consumers in the US and the UK say they consume more content since the COVID-19 outbreak, with broadcast TV and online videos being the primary mediums across all generations and genders. The BBC reported its biggest week ever for UK visitors, with more than 70M unique browsers as the lockdown came into effect and, in Portugal, we found almost the same scenario: between the first week of March — when the first positive cases for COVID-19 emerged — and the third week of March, the weekly views of information sites skyrocketed 78%.

“The seriousness of this crisis has reinforced the need for reliable, accurate journalism that can inform and educate populations, but it has also reminded us how open we have become to conspiracies and misinformation” — starts to explain Nic Newman, in the Digital News Report 2020 — and, in fact, the document shows that media trust was more than twice the level for social networks, video platforms, or messaging services when it came to information about COVID-19.

Simultaneously, the study found the news media were considered to have done a good job in helping ordinary people understand the extent of the crisis (60%), and also in making clear what people can do personally to mitigate the impact (65%). Though some media have in the past been accused of sensationalizing stories, on this occasion, only a third (32%) think that the media have exaggerated the severity of the situation, though concern was higher in the US (38%).

Although, there are considerable country differences even inside Europe, ranging from Finland and Portugal where over half (56%) say they trust news most of the time to less than a quarter in France (23%). In 38 countries examined, just six countries now have trust levels of over 50%.

What factors drive people to trust news reporting sources?

A comprehensive study, conducted by The Media Insight Project — an initiative of the American Press Institute and the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research — in 2016, showed that trust and reliability in news can be broken down into specific factors that publishers can put into action and consumers can recognize.

1. Accuracy

85% of Americans rate it as extremely or very important that news organizations get the facts right, higher than any other general principle;

2. Up to date information

76% of respondents say it is critical to them that a news report is up to date with the latest news and information. This is something all media can compete on in the digital age on fairly equal footing;

3. Clarity

72% of the survey respondents say it is extremely or very important to them that a news report be concise and gets to the point efficiently.

The study also states that in the digital age, several new factors, largely unexamined before — such as the intrusiveness of ads, navigability, load times, and having the latest details — are also critical in determining whether consumers consider a publisher competent and worthy of trust.

Related to trust in news, Digital Media Report 2020 also found some interesting facts:

• Divided societies seem to trust the media less, not necessarily because the journalism is worse but because people are generally dissatisfied with institutions in their countries and perhaps because news outlets carry more views that people disagree with;
• The majority (60%) of respondents still prefer news that has no particular point of view and that only a minority (28%) prefer news that shares or reinforces their views;
• Public service media remain by and large the most trusted brands, especially in Northern European countries where they have a strong tradition of independence;
• Partisan preferences have slightly increased in the US since 2013 but even here a silent majority seems to be looking for news that at least tries to be objective. 52% would prefer them to prominently report false statements from politicians rather than not emphasize them (29%);
• The most important factor for those who subscribe to a media outlet is the distinctiveness and quality of the content;

Back to misinformation and disinformation

Mobilizing and manipulating information was a feature of history long before journalism established standards that define news as a genre based on particular rules of integrity. But the 21st century has seen the weaponization of information on an unprecedented scale: powerful new technology makes manipulation and fabrication of content simple, and social networks dramatically amplify falsehoods.

In fact, more than half (56%) of Digital News Report respondents remain concerned about what is real and fake on the internet when it comes to news. Domestic politicians are seen as most responsible (40%) for false and misleading information online, followed by political activists (14%), journalists (13%), ordinary people (13%), and foreign governments (10%).

Much of the discourse on ‘fake news’ conflates two notions: misinformation and disinformation. The document published in 2018 by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) proposes that misinformation is “information that is false, but the person who is disseminating it believes that it is true,” while “disinformation is information that is false, and the person who is disseminating it knows it is false.” This means that the second concept refers to a deliberate, intentional lie, and points to people being actively disinformed by malicious actors. A third category can be added — mal-information — to refer to information that is based on reality, but used to inflict harm on a person, organization, or country.

In conclusion, more and more, the lines between fact, entertainment, advertising, fabrication, and fiction are blurred. And when disinformation and misinformation are published, social networks are powerful allies to make it viral, making it impossible to pull back, even if journalists and other fact-checkers successfully debunk it.

How to stop it is the one million dollar question, but if we want to stop it, if we are aware of fake news existence, and we want to trust traditional media outlets as they report, we have to take the responsibility for finding reliable sources, such as Steven Miller, vice provost for research at Singapore Management University, wrote: “(…) there are all these other options, and people can choose to live in worlds where they ignore so-called reliable sources or ignore a multiplicity of sources that can be compared, and focus on what they want to believe.”