Poisons and Cures
Former BBC news editor Nic Newman looks ahead at journalism’s multi-headed crisis.
Nic Newman is senior research associate at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, focusing on digital news, where he served as lead author on the Institute’s comprehensive 2018 report on trust and misinformation in online news. Previously, Newman worked at the BBC, where he directed online international coverage and developed the BBC’s current ecosystem of blogs, podcasts and video.
News-to-Table talked with Newman about his recent Reuters report, and the future of trust and transparency in media.
In your report, you write that the term “fake news” has “helped audiences express long-standing frustrations with the media environment in general.” Are these frustrations based in valid criticisms and concerns?
The decline in trust in journalism predates the rise of social media. It has been going on for years. It is partly linked to increased competition, to the tabloidization of news, and to the growth of the celebrity journalist. To many people, the media no longer impartially questions politicians and business leaders. It has agendas of its own which are often not transparent. Often news companies have trampled on the privacy of vulnerable individuals in the interests of selling newspapers, or taken part in questionable practices to scoop rival publications (e.g. the UK’s phone hacking scandals).
In the internet age, the rise of clickbait headlines has been another recent irritant that feeds into a sense that journalists are acting more in the interest of owners or advertisers than ordinary people. Many are increasingly cynical of journalism that tries to attract attention in a sensationalist way that often distorts or exaggerates the truth.
How has the political weaponization of the term “fake news” complicated efforts to address this declining trust?
It is not just Donald Trump. From Malaysia to Brazil to the Philippines, politicians are trying to undermine traditional media for their own purposes. Frequently they use the term ‘fake news’ to muddy the waters, to undermine or deflect legitimate questions. At the same time in many other countries (like Hungary) political leaders have used allies to buy media outlets so they can shape public opinion directly. The growth of social platforms has also allowed political parties to drive unchecked propaganda through social media through official or unofficial channels. So, yes, the problem is that populist politicians are tapping into long standing concerns about the media — and the danger is that they are so weakened they are not able to hold rich and powerful to account.
You note that efforts by social media platforms to address the problem carries risks for the “breadth and vibrancy” of online debate. Can we address “bad actors” without threatening the democratic potential of the open Internet?
Yes, I think it is possible to do this. But we need to clearly split the problem down into different elements. Bad actors — those that have the intent to trick advertisers or distort elections — I think can be identified by a range of technical algorithms, black lists and other techniques. It should be able to do this without removing legitimate digital born sites and independent viewpoints. On the other hand, I am worried about some of the algorithms now being deployed that then prioritise legitimate content. Facebook, for example, is now using trust scores (voted by users) to uprank some sources in an attempt to reward “more worthwhile” quality content. There is a danger here that the smaller sites will lose out because they are less well known or carry greater risk for platforms. Google and Facebook are aware of this problem and are trying to find solutions to it.
What about the rise of so-called news “labeling”? Can labels and flags help stop the spread of misinformation?
Labelling can help at the margins, but research suggests that people often ignore labels, especially if they go against what they believe. Can labels have credibility with people they are designed to influence the most?
On the other hand, there may be some value in using community to quickly flag problematic content that can then be used as signals by platforms to de-rank content and make it less visible. The problem here for the platforms is to make sure that these systems can ‘t be gamed by those looking to manipulate the system.
On the subject of “gatekeeping”, there seems to be a nostalgia for legacy media gatekeepers that risks going too far in the direction of an imagined past that wasn’t ideal, either.
Gatekeeping certainly wasn’t perfect in the past. Business rivalries, and journalistic biases have frequently over emphasised certain stories or supressed others. In the past, there was also little transparency on how these decisions were reached. That has got much better with readers editors, open news room meetings and the like, but probably has further to go. But at least reputable newspapers have the names of editors on the masthead and email addresses to manage complaints. Platforms have shown far less transparency — even on how the decisions are made.
There are a lot of different types of transparency — company ownership structures, journalists’ personal political leanings, reporting processes, etc. How would you prioritize them?
That’s a really good question, and I don’t think there is a simple answer. All these things are important but not equally in all circumstances, in all countries. Ultimately trust comes from a combination of the track record of the publication and the author — and the extent to which what they do is in line with their public statements and vision. The consistency and thoroughness of their reporting can shine through even if they don’t put personal disclaimers in every other sentence. Political leanings may be important to make clear for a columnist, but not for a news reporter who is trying to accurately report the news over time. Funding models and regulation also make a difference. Donation or public service models may require more transparency over how money is being spent.
Your data suggest social media has begun to decline as a primary source of news in many countries. The beginning of a sustained ebbing?
Our research suggests that some people spending less time on Facebook, but they are not abandoning social media. Messaging apps are becoming more popular and Instagram continues to grow in many countries. Facebook is showing less news in the main feed, but people are also tired of certain news formats and stories and are looking to see less. At the same time publishers report an increase in referrals form aggregators like Apple News and Upday — so platforms are not going away.
You have a report just out about the rise of voice-activated technology. What can we expect on this front in the coming years?
The arrival of voice activated speakers and assistants adds a new dimension and a new platform. Amazon has early mover advantage here in the U.S. and UK at least where the installed based has been doubling for the last two years. Over time we can expect more existing media (e.g. podcasts, videos, text articles) to be accessed by voice commands through speakers, headphones and within cars. Voice will also open up new opportunities for native news content (e.g voice search) as well as interactive audio experiences.
Production DetailsV. 1.0.0
Last edited: January 20, 2019
Author: Alexander Zaitchik
Editor: Alexander Zaitchik
Illustration: Photo by Jason Leung on Unsplash
