People want to pull the curtain back. They want more than the story: They want to understand who’s telling it, how it came together, and how it’s being paid for.
In dozens of conversations with people across the U.S. and world, news consumers told us they want more insight into how the news is made. Why was a headline written a certain way? Why was one story featured on the homepage and not another? Who are all of the people involved in making those decisions? Similar to the shift we’ve seen in the farm-to-table movement around food sourcing and production, people want to know what goes into news production, whether that’s knowing that a news organization adhered to a standard of verifying specific information via multiple sources, that journalists poured over thousands of pages of documents for a particular story, or the people involved in the chain of command of decision-making.
That transparency, while at times seemingly mundane, helps people understand what the work of a modern news organization entails and contextualizes it. Most importantly, it also helps them get to know the people involved in making the content they consume, and that’s crucial when it comes to trust. People trust people more than institutions. They also now feel fairly fluent in the mechanics of marketing. Individuals have become much savvier consumers as a result of social media. We encountered person after person casually dropping marketing language into the conversations we have with them. They wonder if they’re in a certain news organization’s “target demographic.” They talk about push notifications as “clickbait.”
In a social media economy that thrives on individual personalities and opinions, people find it hard to make sense of an institution’s motivations or financial incentives. “Was that breaking news notification sent because I really needed to know that information in that moment, or because a news outlet gets paid when I click on a link?” This hint of skepticism has been expressed to us repeatedly in our in-field user research.
Highlighting individual voices within an organization makes it easier to build a relationship of trust, because people — what they stand for and their motivations — feel more easily knowable, especially due to social media. Social media has, for better or worse, given rise to an easily accessible vetting system. People can look to Twitter to see the history of a person’s shares, positions, and opinions. They can look to Instagram to see #ad to know when someone is selling something. Institutions don’t always feel as knowable or as transparent. It is far harder to make sense of an organization’s motivations or financial incentives than it is to unpack a person’s Twitter or Instagram history. People can see when someone is promoting something, sharing a funny meme, or retweeting a particular article. In looking through a person’s history, it feels easier to understand what an individual is asking of you (if anything) or how he or she wants you to engage. WIthout giving people a behind-the-scenes look into the process of how a story comes together, people largely assume that an institution’s motivations are purely financial.
In order to build trust, news organizations must let people in on the processes and people that bring stories to life.
Kourtney Bitterly is research lead for product and design discovery at The New York Times.
People want to pull the curtain back. They want more than the story: They want to understand who’s telling it, how it came together, and how it’s being paid for.
In dozens of conversations with people across the U.S. and world, news consumers told us they want more insight into how the news is made. Why was a headline written a certain way? Why was one story featured on the homepage and not another? Who are all of the people involved in making those decisions? Similar to the shift we’ve seen in the farm-to-table movement around food sourcing and production, people want to know what goes into news production, whether that’s knowing that a news organization adhered to a standard of verifying specific information via multiple sources, that journalists poured over thousands of pages of documents for a particular story, or the people involved in the chain of command of decision-making.
That transparency, while at times seemingly mundane, helps people understand what the work of a modern news organization entails and contextualizes it. Most importantly, it also helps them get to know the people involved in making the content they consume, and that’s crucial when it comes to trust. People trust people more than institutions. They also now feel fairly fluent in the mechanics of marketing. Individuals have become much savvier consumers as a result of social media. We encountered person after person casually dropping marketing language into the conversations we have with them. They wonder if they’re in a certain news organization’s “target demographic.” They talk about push notifications as “clickbait.”
In a social media economy that thrives on individual personalities and opinions, people find it hard to make sense of an institution’s motivations or financial incentives. “Was that breaking news notification sent because I really needed to know that information in that moment, or because a news outlet gets paid when I click on a link?” This hint of skepticism has been expressed to us repeatedly in our in-field user research.
Highlighting individual voices within an organization makes it easier to build a relationship of trust, because people — what they stand for and their motivations — feel more easily knowable, especially due to social media. Social media has, for better or worse, given rise to an easily accessible vetting system. People can look to Twitter to see the history of a person’s shares, positions, and opinions. They can look to Instagram to see #ad to know when someone is selling something. Institutions don’t always feel as knowable or as transparent. It is far harder to make sense of an organization’s motivations or financial incentives than it is to unpack a person’s Twitter or Instagram history. People can see when someone is promoting something, sharing a funny meme, or retweeting a particular article. In looking through a person’s history, it feels easier to understand what an individual is asking of you (if anything) or how he or she wants you to engage. WIthout giving people a behind-the-scenes look into the process of how a story comes together, people largely assume that an institution’s motivations are purely financial.
In order to build trust, news organizations must let people in on the processes and people that bring stories to life.
Kourtney Bitterly is research lead for product and design discovery at The New York Times.
Mario García Think small (screen)
Kevin D. Grant The free press stands against authoritarians’ attacks on truth
Alfred Hermida and Mary Lynn Young The promise of nonprofit journalism
Dan Shanoff Sports media enters the Bronny era
Sarah Schmalbach Journalist, quantify thyself
John Garrett It’s the best time in a century to start a local news organization
Barbara Gray Join local libraries on the frontlines of civic engagement
Cristina Kim Public media stops trying to serve “everybody”
Alexandra Borchardt Get out of the office and talk to people
Tamar Charney From broadcast to bespoke
Ben Werdmuller Use the tools of journalism to save it
Bill Grueskin Our ethics codes get an overhaul
Sarah Alvarez I’m ready for post-news
Richard Tofel A constraint of the reader-revenue model emerges
J. Siguru Wahutu Western journalists, learn from your African peers
Doris Truong The year of radical salary transparency
Rick Berke Incoming fire from both left and right
Kourtney Bitterly Transparency isn’t just a desire, it’s an expectation
Logan Jaffe You don’t need fancy tools to listen
Beena Raghavendran The year of the local engagement reporter
Cindy Royal Prepare media students for skills, not job titles
Fiona Spruill The climate crisis gets the coverage it deserves
Victor Pickard We reclaim a public good
Carl Bialik Journalists will try running the whole shop
Jonas Kaiser Russian bots are just today’s slacktivists
Ståle Grut OSINT journalism goes mainstream
Knight Foundation Five generations of journalists, learning from each other
Josh Schwartz Publishers move beyond the metered paywall
Francesco Zaffarano TikTok without generational prejudice
Christa Scharfenberg It’s time to make journalism a field that supports and respects women
Jeremy Gilbert and Jarrod Dicker A call for collaboration between storytelling and tech
Kerri Hoffman Opening closed systems
Ernie Smith The death of the industry fad
Julia B. Chan We 👏 take 👏 breaks 👏
Raney Aronson-Rath News deserts will proliferate — but so will new solutions
Lucas Graves A smarter conversation about how (and why) fact-checking matters
Sarah Marshall The year to learn about news moments
Nico Gendron Make better products if you want to reach Gen Z
Gordon Crovitz Fighting misinformation requires journalism, not secret algorithms
Joni Deutsch Podcasting unsilences the silent
Tom Glaisyer Journalism can emerge newly vibrant and powerful
Whitney Phillips A time to question core beliefs
Don Day Respect the non-paying audience
Brenda P. Salinas Treating MP3 files like text
Monique Judge The year to organize, unionize, and fight
Kristen Muller The year we operationalize community engagement
Heidi Tworek The year of positive pushback
An Xiao Mina The Forum we wanted, the forum we got
Lauren Duca The rise of the journalistic influencer
Mary Walter-Brown and Tristan Loper Power to the people (on your audience team)
Moreno Cruz Osório In Brazil, collaboration in a time of state attacks
Joe Amditis Collaborative journalism takes its rightful place at the table
Kathleen Searles Pay more attention to attention
Mariana Moura Santos The future of journalism is collaborative
Michael W. Wagner Increasingly fractured, but little bit deliberative
Jennifer Brandel A love letter from the year 2073
Margarita Noriega The platforms try to figure out what to do with single-subject newsrooms
S. Mitra Kalita The race to 2021
Rachel Glickhouse Journalists get left behind in the industry’s decline
Stefanie Murray Charitable giving goes collaborative
Catalina Albeanu Rebuilding journalism, together
Laura E. Davis Know the context your journalism is operating within
Jim Brady We’ll complain about other people living in bubbles while ignoring our own
Steve Henn The dawning audio web
Sarah Stonbely More people start caring about news inequality
Irving Washington Leadership isn’t something you learn on the job
Colleen Shalby Journalists become media literacy teachers
Nicholas Jackson What’s left of local gets comfortable with reader support
Jeremy Olshan All journalism should be service journalism
Masuma Ahuja Slower, quieter, more measured and thoughtful
Rachel Schallom The value of push alerts goes beyond open rates
Mike Caulfield Native verification tools for the blue checkmark crowd
Seth C. Lewis 20 questions for 2020
Sara K. Baranowski A big year for little newspapers
Eric Nuzum Podcasting finally creates another mega-hit show
Dannagal G. Young Let’s disrupt the logic that’s driving Americans apart
Imaeyen Ibanga Let’s take it slow
Bill Adair A Nobel Prize, a Brad Pitt film, and a Taylor Swift song
Alana Levinson Brand-backed media gets another look
Felix Salmon Spotify launches a news channel
Meg Marco Everything happens somewhere
Jakob Moll A slow-moving tech backlash among young people
Elizabeth Dunbar Frank talk, and then action
Meredith Artley Stronger solidarity among news organizations
Alice Antheaume Trade “politics” for “power”
Jeff Kofman Speed through technology
Brian Moritz The end of “stick to sports”
Tonya Mosley The neutrality vs. objectivity game ends
Zizi Papacharissi A president leads, the press follows, reality fades
Geneva Overholser Death to bothsidesism
Elizabeth Hansen and Jesse Holcomb Local news initiatives run into a capital shortage
Anthony Nadler Clash of Clans: Election Edition
M. Scott Havens First-party data becomes media’s most important currency
Sonali Prasad Climate change storytelling gets multidimensional
Peter Bale Lies get further normalized
Pablo Boczkowski The day after November 4
Joshua P. Darr All that campaign cash will make the media’s problems worse
Tanya Cordrey Saying no to more good ideas
Joanne McNeil A return to blogs (finally? sort of?)
Juleyka Lantigua A changing industry amps up podcasters’ ambitions
Annie Rudd The expanded ambiguity of the news photograph
Errin Haines Race and gender aren’t a 2020 story — they’re the story
Carrie Brown-Smith Engaged journalism: It’s finally happening
Emily Withrow The year we kill the news article
Sue Robinson Campaign coverage as test bed for engagement experiments
John Keefe Journalism gets hacked
Rasmus Kleis Nielsen The business we want, not the business we had
Simon Galperin Journalism becomes more democratic
Rachel Davis Mersey The business of local TV news will enter its downward slide
Hossein Derakhshan AI can’t conjure up an Errol Morris
Matt DeRienzo Local broadcasters begin to fill the gaps left by newspapers
Heather Bryant Some kinds of journalism aren’t worth saving
Nushin Rashidian Are platforms a bridge or a lifeline?
Helen Havlak Platforms shine a light on original reporting
Jake Shapiro Podcasting gets listener relationship management
Jasmine McNealy A call for context
Linda Solomon Wood Everyone in your organization, moving toward a common goal
Mira Lowe The year of student-powered journalism
Nathalie Malinarich Betting on loyalty
Madelyn Sanfilippo and Yafit Lev-Aretz News coverage gets geo-fragmented
A.J. Bauer A fork in the road for conservative media
Cory Haik We’re already consuming the future of news — now we have to produce it
Craig Newmark Formalizing newsrooms’ battle against disinformation
Matthew Pressman News consumers divide into haves and have-nots
Candis Callison Taking a cue from Indigenous journalists on climate change
Greg Emerson News apps fall further behind
Monica Drake A renewed focus on misinformation
Talia Stroud The work of reconnecting starts November 4
Logan Molyneux and Shannon McGregor Think twice before turning to Twitter