While there are a lot of unknowns ahead of Election Day, there are things we as journalists can do to help manage our audiences’ expectations and prepare them for what to expect. One of those being telling people that there may not be results for days, possibly even weeks, after Election Day. WITF In Pennsylvania did this by running a box alongside the station’s voting stories and election previews that explains why the public shouldn’t expect election results on election night. The box reads: “Results of the Nov. 3 election in Pennsylvania, and across the country, likely won’t be known for days. The counting of ballots continues after election night most years. This year’s expected surge in mailed ballots means election offices will need extra time to tally all the votes.”
WITF included an editor’s note on the top of a story in their “Transforming Health” project. They said, “we maintain independence between editorial decisions and funding. But as a note of disclosure, WITF’s Transforming Health project receives financial support from Penn State Health. Read our policy on transparency in fundraising here.“
In an effort to let users know they are listening to them and looking to include all perspectives when reporting a story, WITF added the following to the top of their web stories: “Here are the most prominent perspectives on this story. We are on the lookout for stereotypes and assumptions in our own work, and we invite you to point out we may have missed. Contact us on our Trusting News page.”
To highlight their push for including multiple perspectives in stories, WITF added the following to the top of some web stories: “WITF strives to provide nuanced perspectives from the most authoritative sources. We are on the lookout for biases or assumptions in our own work, and we invite you to point out any we may have missed. Contact us on our Trusting News page.”
WITF discussed their participation in the Trusting News project in a post on their website. They also shared the post on Facebook and asked for feedback. Overall, WITF journalists said comments were positive.
In a story on their website, WITF explains how journalists put together one of the shows they air. The article discusses how they use wire content and other national news coverage, and what their relationship is to those partner organizations. It also discusses how much of the news segment is local.
WITF wanted to show users they are connected to the community so they added a note at the top of a story. It read, “WITF is part of your community. We’re your neighbors. We invest in this type of reporting because it’s vital to talk about life in our region, not about politics. Learn more about our involvement in the Trusting News project.”
WITF decided to share their ethics policy and explain how it impacts their news decisions. In the post, on their website, the newsroom discussed how, when and why it may use anonymous sources, how it handles corrections, how it handles story selection and more.
On a partnership series focused on energy in their region, WITF invited users to contact the reporter working on these stories directly. They also asked users what they want to know related to the topic of energy.
WITF asked their users for feedback in a simple, yet effective way by posing two questions at the end of stories on its website: “Have a question about this story? Do you see something we missed? Send an email to…” If we ask for feedback, we often don’t focus on what we may have missed. By doing so, you are letting users see you want to know how the story could have been better and are willing to make stories the best they can be.
During a daily, live radio show, WITF put the focus of the show on journalism and declining trust in news. They invited industry experts and took questions from listeners, which they answered after the show. The show was honest about the issues facing the industry while also offering insight into how news works.
Audience members don’t always understand the work that goes into a big investigative piece. WITF shined a light on a five-month projecy by discussing all of the work that went into the story: dozens of interviews, hundreds of miles traveled, tons of documents analyzed and input from several editors. In this case, the reporter was happy to share “the story behind the story,” which both emphasizes the costs of serious reporting and reinforces the organization’s commitment to fair, in-depth reporting.
Social media can get a bad rap, but for many newsrooms, it’s a key part of how audiences find their coverage. In this post, the social media editor at WITF explains that her goal is to inform and add value to the readers’ day. She clearly states that while tracking clicks is part of the job, “we avoid raising your blood pressure for the sake of engagement stats.” Finally, she reminds readers of the station’s comment policy, and invites feedback and reactions.
Over the course of a week–from the first report of a death of a law enforcement officer, to his memorial service–WITF wrestled with several difficult coverage decisions. Should they report information they confidently knew through informal connections, or wait for official announcements? Should journalists attend the service as members of the public? The editor, who was a friend of one of the people involved, offered a very open, first-person account of how the newsroom approached the highly sensitive story. He writes: “It’s important to remember the people we cover are more than just the role they play in a story.”
Some audience members assume that journalists will broadcast whatever they hear–or whatever will drum up the most controversy. Inviting them into your editing process can reassure them of your credibility. WITF did just that when it received possibly explosive information. Rather than running with it as a breaking news story, they took a month to vet all the facts, A post from the editor explained their commitment to producing a deeply reported, independent analysis of the issue.
Breaking news stories can lead to many questions from your audience–especially if early information turns out to be inaccurate. WITF proactively added an editor’s note to reassure readers that “we’ll only point to the best information we have at the time” and that any errors would be quickly corrected.
