By Deborah Potter.
Op-ed. Anonymous source. Commentary. Journalists know what these terms mean but many Americans don’t. A recent survey found the vast majority of Americans sometimes confuse factual statements with opinion, especially if they happen to agree with the point of view. Another study found a sizable minority of Americans do not know what an anonymous source is or think the journalists themselves don’t know the source’s identity.
It’s up to journalists to fix that. Labeling content and explaining the terms they use can boost both understanding and trust. So can providing an explanation of how and why stories are covered.
Labels are the easy part. NPR recently changed the way it describes and displays stories that include a personal point of view. “Commentary” was too vague, the network decided. Now, these pieces are labeled as “opinion” with a visible blue box, and the writer is identified at the top, not the end. Ombudsman Elizabeth Jensen praised the move but thought it didn’t go far enough because opinion pieces shared on social media don’t carry the label. NPR’s solution was to add the word “opinion” at the start of headlines. It costs nine characters but that’s a small price to pay for clarity.
The Washington Post has taken an additional step to explain its work, creating a clickable drop-down definition for terms like “analysis.” And Canada’s Globe and Mail has been experimenting with what it calls “primers,” embedding definitions of terms like “anonymous sources” in stories that cite them.
“Breaking news” is a phrase that’s been misused so often it’s almost become a joke. WITF-FM, the public radio station in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, uses it only in an effort to explain that information may change. 
“As often happens in situations like these, some information reported early may turn out to be inaccurate,” the station posts at the top of every online breaking news story. “We’ll move quickly to correct the record and we’ll only point to the best information we have at the time.”
WITF is one of dozens of news organizations working with the Trusting News project to test strategies for rebuilding trust. Project manager Lynn Walsh says people are hungry for information and news organizations need to prove that what they provide is trustworthy. “Younger consumers fact-check everything,” Walsh said, even what their mothers tell them. News sites should make it easy for the audience to fact-check them.
At WCPO-TV in Cincinnati, news director Chip Mahaney has made it a priority to explain the reporting process to viewers. The station regularly posts about the story behind a story, recognizing and responding to audience questions.
Nonprofit newsrooms like the Center for Public Integrity make explaining what they do and why a part of their routine. “Methodologies are a good way to shore up trust,” says CEO John Dunbar. The Center has explained how they investigated drugmakers’ influence over Medicaid, schools exposed to traffic pollution, and many other stories.
One final point about explanations: Whenever possible, anticipate public reaction to stories and get ahead of complaints. It’s better to let the audience in on your thinking before the angry emails clog up your inbox. Knowing ahead of time that you’ll have to explain yourself can lead to more thoughtful, defensible decisions that will bolster rather than damage your credibility.
Note: Examples cited were shared during the “Gaining Back Trust in the Era of Trump” session at the 2018 Excellence in Journalism Conference in Baltimore, Maryland.
