• Lab
  • AndroidForMobile Foundation at
    Just showing our work isn’t enough
    ABOUT                    SUBSCRIBE
    June 29, 2017, 12:47 p.m.
    Reporting & Production
    LINK:   |   Posted by: Christine Schmidt   |   June 29, 2017

    Since the 2016 presidential election, media groups like and have expanded their fact-checking operations. Sites like Google and Facebook have given it more prominence in search results and social media feeds. But it’s like the old saying goes: You can lead a reader to a checked fact, but you can’t make them believe it.

    That’s the core of what political science assistant professor has been investigating with the . She has been surveying Americans on their trust in the news media, specifically related to fact-checking. The full paper is due in September, but the API released some preliminary findings — including some suggestions for how journalists can make hot button issues more convincing to readers.

    Caughell examined two methods that might have improved the credibility of fact checks — including a photo of the reporter to increase trust in the story itself or citing sources and including quotes from people whom readers already trust to support the fact check’s results. It turns out that adding a reporter’s picture doesn’t make a real difference in how much people are able to recall the information in the story — but they are more likely to remember the facts of the story if it cites sources that the reader trusts.

    That trust, however, varies for the different kinds of sources she tested — corporations, government agencies, and academic research institutions. People who entered the experiment with more trust in a particular kind of source were also more likely to recall facts if that source was the type cited.

    Her research also found interesting data about users’ assumptions about what defines a “journalist” and the “news media.”

    • 83 percent considered those working for print newspapers and broadcast programs on television networks as journalists.
    • 34 percent said pundits or those who write for op-ed pages are journalists.
    • 30 percent considered people who write for blogs/websites not associated with print or major broadcast programs are journalists.
    • 23 percent said people who post on social media platforms (again, not associated with major outlets) are journalists.

    When asked to define the “news media,” 66 percent cited news programs on television networks. Other answers were:

    • 34 percent: traditional print sources
    • 10 percent: websites or blogs not run by print sources or networks
    • 10 percent: social media posts
    • 9 percent: comedy programs
    • 8 percent: programs aired on social media channels, such as YouTube
    Show tags Show comments / Leave a comment
    Join the 50,000 who get the freshest future-of-journalism news in our daily email.
    Just showing our work isn’t enough
    “There’s very little current demand for the majority of reproducible code from newsroom leadership or the general audience.”
    Let’s talk about power (yours)
    “If we don’t use it in ways that give people quality news, useful information and power, people will find a way around us.”
    Newsrooms take the comments sections back from platforms
    “Local news organizations should become a driving force for better online public discourse, because Facebook and Twitter aren’t cutting it.”


    Наш классный веб сайт , он рассказывает про тали maxformer.com