"I know there are tons of ways to operationalize and measure trust, but trust, at its core, is a belief that someone or something will live up to their proclaimed commitments. I've surveyed people all over the United States (with a hyperfocus on vulnerable communities in the Midwest), and there's a few things that are clear. First, trust is a universal challenge, and people don't trust a lot of things right now."
"Many people, for example, name their moms. Others name their pastors or local activists. When we ask why they trust these individuals for news, we hear time and time again that trusted spaces are places that are safe. You don't have to question it. You don't have to be skeptical. You don't have to read more. They charge their trusted messengers with the responsibility of selecting and processing the information, and oftentimes they also expect them to help them make informed decisions."
"Our research indicates that people are less likely to question the people they trust. They are less inclined to do important accountability work and less likely to feel compelled to verify the information. They are more likely to adopt the critical thinking of someone else as their own. That kind of trust might be great in a romantic relationship. But is that what journalism really wants?"
Surveys across the United States, with a hyperfocus on vulnerable Midwest communities, show that trust is a universal challenge and many people distrust many institutions. People commonly rely on engaged, visible thought leaders—mothers, pastors, local activists—for news and interpretation. Trusted spaces feel safe, reduce incentive to question or verify information, and encourage people to adopt others' critical thinking as their own. That kind of trust is useful for limited, time-sensitive public safety information but is problematic for accountability-driven journalism that aims to foster independent verification and civic scrutiny.
Read at Nieman Lab
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]