Jay Rosen Profile picture
Apr 13, 2018 29 tweets 6 min read Read on X
My keynote talk to the International Journalism Festival #ijf18 in thread form. The title is 'Optimizing Journalism for Trust.' 1/
In a book called 'Politics and Vision,' the philosopher Sheldon Wolin said that when there is vision, “things appear in their corrected fullness.” This helps explain what I mean by optimizing for trust in journalism. It is a vision toward which we have to move. 2/
Trust can no longer be assumed. Its continuous production has to be designed in. Nor does trust any longer follow from industry practice. American journalists used to say that you “had” credibility if you kept to the rules of good practice. That doesn’t work anymore. 3/
We have to design the modern news organization so that it is easier for people to trust it. (Which of course doesn’t guarantee that they will.) We might even say that trust has to become more agile. 4/
We also have to make it easier for people to form a tight relationship with the news sites they value. Otherwise Facebook and Google and maybe Apple News will own that relationship. 5/
It was @pilhofer who sent me in this direction. In 2016 he asked: what would a news organization look like if it were optimized, not for clicks, or for scoops, or for time-on-site, but for trust? I thought it was a good question. So I started talking about it on social. 6/
But @emilybell did not agree with me. She said the question was badly framed. In her view, trust was a “poor metric” for quality journalism. “Arguably Breitbart optimizes for trust,” she said. “So does the Daily Mail.” 7/
At first, I didn’t understand this objection. Certainly I didn’t trust Breitbart. Nor did I think it was built for trust. And yet I had to admit: its core supporters did trust it. Breitbart was optimized for them. So in a way it was optimized for trust. 8/
This made me look again at @emilybell's dismissal of trust as a “poor metric." It’s easy to get some people to trust you, if you present as news only those things that support their existing beliefs. Or if you demonize those whom they already resent, as Breitbart tends to do. 9/
So I realized that my image of a newsroom optimized for trust was incomplete. The problem is not how to generate trust by publishing news. Donald Trump does that with his Twitter feed. He offers news of his presidency that his most committed supporters welcome and buy into. 10/
In fact, there’s polling to indicate that Trump is more trusted as a source of information than the news media— by Republicans. Among this group, at least, his campaign to discredit the American press is working. 11/ monmouth.edu/polling-instit…
If by itself trust is a poor metric (because Breitbart) then the design problem becomes how to combine the high standards of verification that real journalism requires with optimizing the news organization for trust. 12/
The hard part is not to stay in business. (Teenagers from Macedonia filling Facebook pages with made-up news stories can do that.) The hard part is to stay in journalism. Which means to accept its constraints: "Did that actually happen?” And: “does the public need to know?” 13/
Now I want to unpack this suitcase I have been carrying around: the phrase “optimizing for trust.” Here are some of the items in it... 14/
When I can easily understand not only the news story I read when I clicked through to your site, but the data policy I bought into when I signed up for your site... that’s optimizing for trust. 15/
When I know that you’ll report it when it’s nailed it down, and that you’ll correct it when it comes apart... that’s optimizing for trust. 16/
When I can click on your reporter’s name and find not only her bio and archive, but where she’s coming from, and what motivates her... that’s optimizing for trust. 17/
When I can go to the “about” tab at your site, and learn not only about your mission and ownership, but also about your reporting priorities, what you’re spending scarce resources on, and why... 18/
When I can feel you getting better at listening to the internet, even as you publish on the internet…

When I can add my knowledge to yours to make for a better product….

When my attention is not grabbed but given… 19/
When you as a reporter not only know your stuff, but show your work…

When responding to criticism, and sorting the valid from the invalid, is considered a vital newsroom skill... 20/
When educating people with your journalism is joined to educating them about journalism, and how it’s normally done…

When reporters share their learning curve even as readers share their expertise... 21/
When the people who value the work elect to support it financially, and want it to spread to the public it was made for...

When you not only ask supporters for money but explain how you use their money… 22/
When radical transparency combines with genuine diversity to make something better than newsroom objectivity… 23/
When all these things start happening together, and form their own newsroom culture, then we’re beginning to optimize for trust. 24/
For the past year I have been working with the Dutch site, De Correspondent, as it expands into English language publishing. They have a clear sense of how to continuously produce trust using the membership model. 25/ niemanlab.org/2017/03/jay-ro…
When I look at their design, the things I have been talking about appear "in their corrected fullness." That’s why I am helping @decorrespondent break into the American market. They have vision, in Sheldon Wolin’s sense. 26/
Today the users of journalism — the readers, the listeners, the viewers, the subscribers, the members — have more power. In part because they have more choice, and in part because they are paying more of the costs, as the advertising subsidy declines. 27/
Because the users of the product have more power, the makers of the product have to listen to them more. Increasingly the quality of your journalism will depend on the strength of your relationship with the people who use and value your work the most. 28/
'Optimizing for trust' is thus a name for the shift in imagination required if news organizations are to recognize this new balance of power between users and makers. 29/ END

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Jay Rosen

Jay Rosen Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @jayrosen_nyu

Oct 8, 2018
There used to be in president-press relations something called a gaffe. The gaffe doesn't exist any more because it's become the whole presidency. This method is surprisingly effective. It's worked for fact-checking too. How can you fact check a hurricane of lies? Thread. 1/
I call it a 'method' because we have a statement explaining it that way. “The real opposition is the media. And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit," said Steve Bannon to author Michael Lewis. 2/
Flooding the system with too much news, much of it misleading or simply false, not only reduces the weight of any individual story; it has the further effect of keeping opponents in a pop-eyed state of outrage, which in turns shows supporters a hateful image of the other side. 3/
Read 8 tweets
Sep 14, 2018
The listening tour that @jack has been on as CEO of Twitter found its way to me this week. I recorded my one hour conversation with him on my iPhone 5. Then @Recode made a podcast out of it, with transcript. recode.net/2018/9/14/1785… 1/2
Among the things I talked about with @jack: an edit feature; a "live now" button you could turn on and off that would say, I'm on and reachable; what he heard from conservatives when he met with them; his view that Twitter should be an "impartial" platform— but not "neutral." 2/2
Ideas I suggested to @jack: Twitter needs public editors plural; tech companies pride themselves on being innovative but in their public communications it's the same old PR; I don't know how to alert @Twitter to a problem its people should look at. (He said tweet about it.) 3/3
Read 4 tweets
Sep 9, 2018
A common element in Woodward's book, Fire, and the anonymous op-ed in the New York Times is the manner in which they ask to be trusted. In both cases, the trust system summed up in the word transparency is declined in favor of an older system: reputation, or "stored" trust. 1/
Woodward has hundreds of hours of tapes, but we cannot hear them. He has voluminous notes, but we cannot see them. He also has documents, a few of which are apparently reproduced in the book (it isn't published yet) so that part would be an exception to this observation. 2/
On the whole, trust must attach itself to Woodward's reputation as the greatest investigative reporter of his time, and to his record of "getting it right" through exhaustive research and the triangulation of sources. Very rarely has he had to be corrected on a factual matter. 3/
Read 11 tweets
Sep 3, 2018
On the New Yorker having Steve Bannon at its festival, I disagree with friends and people I normally align with. We ought to debate it— and even fight about the wisdom of such invites. But I am cautiously in favor of this one. I will try to explain why. nytimes.com/2018/09/03/art… 1/
That Bannon is a dangerous operative with a racist agenda, an avatar of illiberal democracy, I do not doubt. I am just back from three months in Germany, where I had a lot of conversations with journalists about "giving platform" and media coverage to people like him. 2/
This experience made me think harder about when you invite, when you don't, and why you would. A thing I came to believe: setting matters a lot. Add a racist demagogue whose party depends on media stunts to a panel of four and you will lose. In that setting, you never invite. 3/
Read 9 tweets
Aug 26, 2018
Ask the journalists who loved him why they did, they will say: McCain loved to talk to them, he was FUN to talk to, you could ask him anything, he didn't observe his own party's PC or anyone else's, he was unpredictable, he had depth, he was larger than life, and no one ever...1
...ran a campaign like his in 2000 with the sort of openness, candor, patience and good humor they found on the "Straight Talk Express," as it was called. And all that is probably true. He was kind of a dream politician to cover. But there's another "fit" we should mention... 2
Reporters in the era when McCain flourished saw themselves as sitting between parties, creatures of neither, equal opportunity cynics, un-ideological, in possession of the most awesome crap-detectors in politics. They also loved him because he reflected this image back to them. 3
Read 4 tweets
Aug 14, 2018
I watched the briefing today. Not as a journalist, but as an academic. A thing I kept asking myself as I listened to Sarah Sanders reply: what kind of speech is this? Who — or what — does she represent? Not for you, maybe, but for me, it is extremely difficult to answer that. 1/
By convention she is supposed to, but in reality she knows she does not speak for the president. He will contradict her on a whim, without realizing that this is a problem. But she does not speak for — or as — herself either. For the world has no interest in what she "thinks." 2/
I finally decided that hers is the voice of an intention. And the intention is Trump's, so that in that sense she is representative. What she represents is the fulfillment of a campaign promise. "We will put these people down for you. We will spit at them the way you want to." 3/
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(