The Montana news consumers we talked to gave high marks to three practices by news organizations they trust and said if these practices were more widespread it would help restore trust in journalism:
- Fact-checking
- Labeling
- Transparency
“They need to make their sources more clear and check their source’s validity. [They need] to better distinguish between facts and opinions.”
–Jeremy (age 45)
Most respondents said fact checks make them better informed and are a good way to hold politicians accountable for what they say. “Between the politicians and the journalists, I believe the journalists,” said Michael Schwend, 25. “I believe they are less likely to lie to gain support and popularity.”
Peter McDonough, 31, said news organizations should fact check more claims more often, “not just reporting what’s happening, but reporting whether what’s happening is bullshit or not.”
To be credible, fact checks need to provide context and proof, respondents said. They urged journalists to clearly cite their sources so readers to decide if those sources are credible.
“I love that there is so much fact checking going on,” said Molly, a woman in her 60s who declined to provide her last name. “When some bozo gives a statistic, you can Google it right away and see if it is far-fetched or spot on.”
But not everyone found fact checks valuable. “Politicians lie and journalists lie even more,” said Thomas Jennings, a self-described conservative. ” I don’t know how any journalist thinks they’re getting the story when they’re talking to people they know have an agenda.”
Is it easy to distinguish news from opinion or analysis? For the most part, our respondents said yes, though they worried that it wasn’t as easy for everyone else. They urged news organizations to better label their content, particularly on TV and the web.
Rachel Singletary, 28, said it can be confusing. “I have actually seen articles that look really cool and I click into it and then say, ‘Oh, this is not like what I thought it was going to be,’ because it’s all opinion.”
“Most people don’t know the difference or even look,” said 25-year-old Zack Jarvis. “I think it should be labeled more clearly.”
According to our respondents, transparency is an important part of the reporting process. However, opinions varied on what types of information should be provided.
“I think it’s good to know something about the journalist,” said Cookie, a woman in her 70s who did not give her last name. “Now days you learn more about their personal lives and I think that’s good…because you understand where they’re coming from and why they interpret things the way they do.”
You should be able to click on the author of an article and be able to look at his political views and all of his information to see where he is writing from. That would also help a lot of readers understand where the writer is coming from.”
–Jake (age 20)
Some respondents weren’t interested in the politics or personal lives of journalists, but they did want to know more about their professional background. “I would like to see if they have trained knowledge on this subject, if they have a degree or ten years of reporting on a certain topic,” said 25-year-old Michael Schwend.
Schwend also wanted to know where news organizations get their funding. “It would be nice to see a comparison of who is most likely impacted [by a story] and who would be footing the bill for the news organization.” The way he sees it, “The more transparency, the more trust there is with the public.”
