It’s not enough to just say someone’s an “expert” and leave it at that. Instead, how can you explain why, out of all the professionals and experts out there, you chose to interview or quote the ones you did?
Which sources do you trust? Copy these NYT explainers
Want to get this Trust Tips newsletter in your inbox each Tuesday? Subscribe here.
When you’re reporting a story, which experts do you turn to? Which sources of information do you deem trustworthy and reliable? Where do you go for definitive answers?
Most of the time, journalists have good reasons for interviewing certain sources or highlighting specific data. But we know the public often assumes journalists cherry-pick sources or data based on their own agenda or bias. That makes them skeptical of where, or to whom, journalists turn for information.
At Trusting News, we often talk about the concept of bringing your reporting receipts. Or in other words: getting clear with your audience about how you gather facts and verify information.
This concept applies to sources, too. It’s not enough to just say someone’s an “expert” and leave it at that. Instead, how can you explain why, out of all the professionals and experts out there, you chose to interview or quote the ones you did?
As with other misassumptions about the ethics and processes involved in journalists’ work, it’s up to us to get on the record and explain our decisions and vetting processes with our audience.
Here are two recent examples from the New York Times’ health desk showing how journalists can do this.
1. Explain how you pick experts
Reporter Teddy Rosenbluth recently wrote an explainer about how the Times’ health reporters select expert sources for their stories.
In the explainer, Rosenbluth lays out how reporters keep key factors in mind as they weigh selecting sources:
- Their level of authority
- Their unique viewpoint
- Any potential conflict of interest
Rosenbluth also gets into how they fact-check a source’s information against what others in their field have said.
“Before quoting experts, we always consider whether they have any biases that might influence their comments,” Rosenbluth explains. “For example, if a researcher speaks positively about a new medicine, I check whether he or she has a financial stake in a company that might profit from positive media coverage of the drug. If he or she does, I disclose that to readers and carefully check each statement to ensure it is based in fact.”
What’s especially great to see is that the Times has been linking back to this explainer in relevant health coverage (here’s an example from last week). We know far fewer people will seek out this explainer on its own than will click on actual headlines about possibly viral, or controversial, topics. That’s why we often encourage journalists to take advantage of attention where they have it and link back to explainers within the stories themselves.
2. Explain how you vet research
Health reporter Dani Blum recently wrote an explainer about what makes a good scientific study and how she knows which research papers warrant an article.
In the column, she walks readers through her process for vetting and choosing which research studies to cover, including how she evaluates the quality of data and accounts for possible conflicts of interest.
What’s especially great about this column is Blum’s empathy for news consumers’ experience when trying to get information. As Blum lays out in the explainer, trying to understand scientific research is confusing. Scientific studies and medical advice often contradict one another. It’s absolutely fair that people have questions when determining whether they should trust what they’re reading.
Instead of leaving people to wonder, make assumptions, or feel ill-equipped to navigate this on their own, Blum gives readers tangible examples of what criteria to look for when evaluating the accuracy of scientific studies.
She also makes it clear that knowledge is always evolving, which builds literacy about how research works and acknowledges what is and is not definitive.
“As much as I try to clearly convey what a study finds, it is just as important to show what a study is missing. I recently reported on growing evidence that suggests vaping harms your health, but I noted that it is likely to take decades before we understand the whole picture, since possible outcomes like cancers take time to develop.”
Why these work
Both of these Times explainers accomplish two things when it comes to building trust with their audience.
- They provide some basic news literacy for their audience by helping people better understand what signals of credibility to watch out for when turning to online health professionals for information. Doing this helps show the journalists’ care for their audience and gives the audience some skills to navigate through the confusing sea of health advice and information online.
- It provides a glimpse into the Times’ process and transparency. Not only do these explainers give readers insight into the reporting process — how the journalists pick stories, and what type of coverage you can rely on them for — they also help demonstrate the level of attention, ethics and rigor that goes into the reporting.
Explainers like these will not make every reader trust every expert or study the Times covers. But they will give people who aren’t sure what to trust a framework through which to assess what they read. They’ll show how responsible coverage decisions are made and equip people to vet other sources of information with more sophistication.
Explaining which sources YOU trust
We can see how these explainers work well on the healthcare beat, a topic ripe for confusion and misinformation. But they would also work across different newsroom beats: a breaking news reporter explaining why they use local law enforcement as a singular source and how they fact-check that information; a business reporter explaining why they reached out to certain business owners for their reaction to a local bill; or a reporter explaining which economic indicators they pay attention to and why.
Another topic absolutely ripe for this approach is political polling. Here are some examples of how newsrooms have explained their approach to coverage of polls.
Whenever you’re covering a story that has the potential to be met with skepticism, think about how you can better explain:
- Where you turn for definitive answers or expertise
- How you vet your sources
If you could use more guidance around this, check out our Sourcing Trust Kit, where we dive deeper into how you can explain your sourcing decisions. And feel free to reach out to our team for help by hitting reply. We love to help journalists brainstorm ways to get transparent with their audience.
At Trusting News, we learn how people decide what news to trust and turn that knowledge into actionable strategies for journalists. We train and empower journalists to take responsibility for demonstrating credibility and actively earning trust through transparency and engagement. Learn more about our work, vision and team. Subscribe to our Trust Tips newsletter. Follow us on Twitter, BlueSky and LinkedIn.
Assistant director Lynn Walsh (she/her) is an Emmy award-winning journalist who has worked in investigative journalism at the national level and locally in California, Ohio, Texas and Florida. She is the former Ethics Chair for the Society of Professional Journalists and a past national president for the organization. Based in San Diego, Lynn is also an adjunct professor and freelance journalist. She can be reached at lynn@TrustingNews.org and on Twitter @lwalsh.
