Another challenge raised by newsroom interviewees is the interplay between journalism and social media platforms that disseminate both reliable and false information. “In addition to our journalism, spreading our stories, primarily through social media or Google AMP, is always a priority,” one said. “Most of the systems we rely on for our clicks (and therefore our ad revenue) are the same ones that make widespread disinformation campaigns possible. It’s really depressing. There is a fine line between clickbait and misinformation. . . I’m trying to do my part, but I feel like King Cnut trying to stop the crashing waves. That, plus tight deadlines and incessant demand from my editors, makes me feel like the waves are drowning me. For some, the pressure to be first in the digital space collides with challenges to misinformation. “Considerations of speed to market and clickbait titles vie for pre-eminence in publishers’ thinking about taking the time to ensure something is correct and complete, including context,” said a respondent. “Until this competition decreases, we may be vulnerable to bad actors trying to defraud us. » Many have blamed new business models in the news industry that have seen independent newspapers and television stations bought up and consolidated by companies run by hedge funds. “Local media are being crushed by a bus driven by corporate media. . . . My company, like other corporate media outlets, has focused its efforts on views and clicks,” said one respondent. “The national headlines on our website and social media have been sensationalist. , they only promote the spread of misinformation.
Few specialized fact-checking teams and limited misinformation outperform reporting. While journalists stressed the importance of fact-checking and rigorous fact-checking practices, only 14% said their newsrooms had established a dedicated internal fact-checking team to monitor, debunk and write stories on the lies put forward by the purveyors of disinformation. Half of those surveyed thought it would be effective overall. Several responses highlighted that few news organizations have the resources to build a comprehensive, expert team solely to combat falsehoods spread across different content forms and platforms, including video, photography, social media and text . Several said they relied on larger information services within these departments for this content. One suggested: “The ability to provide explanatory articles on controversial topics should be a model that more media outlets use to fact-check widespread misinformation.” These types of articles would summarize the issue with accredited sources to inform the public.
Others have suggested that debunking and reporting on misinformation should be integrated into regular reporting. “The problem with assigning ‘misinformation’ as a topic to a journalist/team is that no one person can have enough expertise to easily know a) what’s not true and b) what is more damaging,” one said. “If the media decides that the best counter-disinformation strategy is to write an article explaining why the information is false, that must be the job of the journalist specializing in that subject (which I don’t like, because a reporter who hates writing fact-checks, but it’s true).
Some reporters and editors were desperate to reach those without a shared database. One respondent mentioned that their organization had partnered with a nonprofit fact-checking service, believing that a third party would provide legitimacy to their audience. Instead, the outlet found that people who were already wary had only added the highly regarded service to their list of groups to be wary of. Another said: “The audience that would most need to hear a fact-checking story *about* misinformation has already almost entirely disappeared from us. It’s not worth writing an article verifying an “alternative fact” when that alternative fact exists in a separate, highly fabricated political reality. One respondent who identified himself as a former fact-checking journalist said that, in his experience, “readers want to know the facts and the truth, but they feel lectured by ‘misinformation’ reporting and fact-checking articles, sparking resentment and distrust of the media. a power which seems to enjoy a mysterious authority and which often neglects a critical context when it produces massive quantities of content… Furthermore, reporting on “disinformation” is regularly used politically as a weapon, provoking a whole series of other problems.
Only 9% of respondents said their media outlets had a reporter whose focus was on misinformation and its impact. Silverman, who reports on misinformation for ProPublica, sees his stint as an important part of the newsroom’s defense. “There’s a game of cat and mouse, where the techniques of disinformants, the approaches they use, are constantly evolving,” he said. “And if you don’t have people whose full-time job, or part of their job, is to really stay on top of this, then you’re going to miss things. Or, worst case scenario, you’ll fall for something, give it your seal of approval, and share something false or misleading, which is one of the nightmare scenarios for journalists and news organizations. Damaso Reyes, a journalist and media literacy expert, added: “I don’t think we fully understand the scope, breadth and depth of disinformation. We’ve definitely started talking about it more, and we’ll talk about it when it comes to QAnon or January 6th or COVID denialism. But it has become an integral part of many Americans’ lives and we need to approach it holistically.
Journalists surveyed were not entirely convinced of the merits of implementing a disinformation campaign, with 41% endorsing this approach as a generally effective response. “I don’t know if this will do much to counter the harm on an individual level, but it’s one of the most important problems facing our country, and it should be documented,” one said. ‘among them, adding however: “My general feeling is that the propaganda is very effective and that it is almost impossible to convince most people who believe it. Generally speaking, I think most individuals are a lost cause. Yet the impact is enormous and worth noting. Perhaps this could prompt large-scale action to curb the flow of misinformation, which could prevent more people from being misled.”
Too little media education. Journalists responding to the survey place a high value on connecting with the communities they serve and helping them understand both how trustworthy media works and how to identify misinformation. However, only 14 percent said their media outlets were establishing partnerships to improve the public’s “media literacy.” “In general, I’ve found that people just don’t know enough about the way we work,” said one interviewee. “Once I explain to people the rigor, the strength (and length) of what actually happens when you report a story, how it is edited and the checks it goes through, they are usually surprised and see the things differently.” Another said: “Most non-media people I speak to are genuinely surprised when I explain that the opinion section is separate, figuratively and literally, from the wider newsroom. » A third respondent suggested that journalists should be “regarded by the public as integral to their communities.” . . I would be less likely to be harassed by people who regularly view me as a member of their community and understand what I do.
Several interviewees urged journalists and editors to engage with audiences outside the confines of the specific stories they are working on. “It seems a shame that we need to ‘rebuild trust’ with the communities we have served for decades, but we do,” one said. “Journalists, by nature, tend to avoid interactions with the public, sometimes claiming that it is the only way for them to remain objective. We must disabuse news agencies and editorial staff of this concept. Remaining “at a distance” does not equate to being “objective”. Another acknowledged, however, that it is difficult to find time for this extra interaction: “We are so short-staffed that we are always rushing to get the main work done, which means we place too little emphasis on to the community.
Notable emphasis was placed on formal audience training: “I think media literacy and media literacy are essential. Many readers cannot tell the difference between a legitimate news article and a fake news blog. And when they can, some trust fake news outlets more than a traditional newspaper because the newspaper is considered “mainstream.” Another added: “It’s not enough to train us as journalists and editorial staff. We must deliberately train our communities to discern, fact-check, and debunk misinformation in schools and in everyday conversations (without shouting). Civic education, with media literacy as a component, should be compulsory and obligatory education for the benefit and well-being of all.
