[Archived Symposium] Can Media Build "Trust" in the Digital Age? A Look from the Perspective of "Trust Indicators" (Part 1)

2022.08.19

The "Platforms and the '2040 Problem'" Project is one part of the "2040 independence and self-respect Project," which was launched in fiscal year 2021.

Digital platforms, which are developing at a dizzying pace, are gaining attention as a solution to the various problems of the super-aged society that will arrive in 2040. In the news media industry as well, the rise of digital platforms is remarkable compared to "legacy media" such as newspapers and broadcasting. To explore the order that should be established for news media in 2040, an archived-stream symposium titled "Can Media Build 'Trust' in the Digital Age? A Look from the Perspective of 'Trust Indicators'" was held on May 18, 2022.

In the current era dominated by digital media, attempts to "certify and evaluate" media based on certain indicators and standards have begun as a new method for building "trust" between information recipients (readers/viewers) and senders. This symposium connected online directly with practitioners who are actually implementing certification and evaluation overseas, and held active discussions on multifaceted perspectives, including the process and issues leading to the adoption of indicators/standards and the implementation of certification/evaluation. Here, we look back at the first half of the symposium.

*For Part 2 (Discussion), click here

Opening Remarks Masato Yasui (Professor, School of Medicine; Director, KGRI)

Explanation of Purpose Kazuya Matsumoto (Journalist; Visiting Researcher, KGRI)

Keynote Speeches

・Sally Lehrman (Founder and Chief Executive, The Trust Project)

・Benjamin Toff (Senior Fellow and Leader, Trust in News project, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Oxford University)

Comments and Discussion:

・Daisuke Furuta (Journalist; Representative, Media-Collab)

・Yasunobu Kumada (Senior Contents Producer, SlowNews)

・Haruyuki Seki (Representative Director, Code for Japan)

・Tatsuhiko Yamamoto (Professor, Graduate School of Law; Deputy Director, KGRI)

・Masako Wakae (Editorial Writer, The Yomiuri Shimbun Tokyo Headquarters)

Moderator: Kazuya Matsumoto

1: Opening Remarks and Explanation of Purpose

Following the opening remarks by KGRI Director Masato Yasui, Kazuya Matsumoto, a KGRI Visiting Researcher and the symposium's planner, first explained its purpose.

Masato Yasui (Professor, School of Medicine / Director, KGRI):

I hear that news media is now at a major turning point. Looking back at history, there was the advent of printing technology, the radio, and broadcasting, but today, the internet and AI are overwhelming even the media. One reason the "infodemic" was feared during the COVID-19 pandemic was that information spread through the network space of social media. What is the problem with digital media? Obtaining reliable news is necessary for us to live autonomously. I hope that starting with today's symposium, discussions to rebuild trust in news media toward 2040 will be invigorated.

*For the English audio video, click here

・Kazuya Matsumoto: Journalist, Visiting Researcher at KGRI. Born in Tokyo in 1959, graduated from Waseda University. At the Asahi Shimbun, he served as an investigative reporter, editor-in-chief of the monthly "Journalism," editor-in-chief of "Ronza," and evening edition planning editor. He won the Ishibashi Tanzan Memorial Waseda Journalism Award, the JCJ Grand Prize, and the Japan Federation of Newspaper Workers' Unions' Journalist Award for "Shimbun to Senso" (Newspapers and War), which thoroughly examined the media's responsibility for war. His books include "Shimbun to Senso" (co-author, Asahi Shimbun Publications, 2008), "55-nin ga Kataru Iraku Senso" (55 People Talk About the Iraq War) (sole author, Iwanami Shoten, 2011), and "Dīpufēiku to Tatakau 'Surō Jānarizumu' no Jidai" (The Era of 'Slow Journalism' to Combat Deepfakes) (sole author, Asahi Shimbun Publications, 2019).

Kazuya Matsumoto (Journalist, Visiting Researcher at KGRI):

This year, the Russian military invasion of Ukraine began. The issue that has been consistently questioned amidst the complex information warfare is none other than the theme of this symposium, "information reliability," and the challenge of "how the reliability of information disseminated by the media can be guaranteed."

Various problems concerning the state of media have been pointed out around the world. The two keywords are "Trust" and "Engagement." One of the important points concerning "trust" is that readers and viewers, who are external to the media, have no way or means to judge whether that media is disseminating reliable information based on accurate reporting. In other words, the field of news has become a "huge black box" lacking the means or mechanism to confirm the basis of trust from the outside, and this has become clearly visible.

With the arrival of an era where GAFA and others reign over the online space, there has been almost no discussion about what the relationship between media and "trust" should be in the digital age. Hiding in the background was the media's own assumption and arrogance that "information disseminated by the media is naturally trusted," but this discussion can no longer be avoided.

Around the world, initiatives to "certify and evaluate" various media based on certain indicators and standards are now beginning as a new method for building "trust" with readers and viewers. While learning from such preceding examples, I would like to deepen the discussion, including how the media's foundation for existence and its relationship with civil society should be in the digital age, at a time when democracy is in crisis.

2: Keynote Speech 1

In this symposium, we received keynote speeches from two guests who are actively involved in media reliability and certification/evaluation. The first speaker was Sally Lehrman of Santa Clara University, the founder and CEO of "The Trust Project."

"The Trust Project" involves over 250 news organizations active in various regions around the world. She will introduce the impact the project has on the media environment, past discussions, and its methods of operation.

Sally Lehrman (Founder and CEO, "The Trust Project")

・Sally Lehrman: Visiting Professor at the Science & Justice Research Center, University of California, Santa Cruz, and journalist. She founded The Trust Project and serves as its CEO. As a journalist, she has written for Nature, Scientific American, and others, and has received numerous awards, including the 1995-96 John S. Knight Fellowship. Her books include "News in a New America" (2005) and "Reporting Inequality: Tools and Methods for Covering Race and Ethnicity" (2019).

・ The Trust Project established the world's first "transparency system" to ensure the integrity of news. It formed a consortium with major news organizations and established eight indicators as standards for evaluating trust in news. This trust standard, the "8 Trust Indicators," is displayed on over 265 news sites.

*For the English audio video, click here

First of all, why is "The Trust Project" necessary? Before this project began, online journalism was in a difficult situation. I was originally a journalist covering social issues related to science, but I was frustrated that all news looked the same online. So, many news sites began to devise ways to attract users' interest, such as posting faces of famous people or criminals. However, while this increased traffic, it resulted in a loss of trust. So, what we did was a reversal of thinking. We thought about how to support access to honest news without compromising the quality of reporting, and "The Trust Project" was born. The project presents eight trust indicators (the 8 Trust Indicators).

When we had the University of Texas and the international research agency Ipsos investigate the effects of the trust indicators, it was verified that they have significant meaning in building trust with users. It was also found that in addition to building trust, users become more positive about paying for reliable reporting. The trust indicators were not created on paper but were born from detailed interviews with actual users. In our interactions, we identified four user types. From the most active in news, they are "Avid News users," "Engaged users," "Opportunistic users," and "Angry, disengaged." What is the agenda, are the perspectives diverse, what kind of person is the journalist, are values shared—all groups generally demanded a lot from reporting. Furthermore, to link user demands with the basic principles of journalism, senior journalists were also involved, selecting 37 indicators and finally narrowing them down to eight.

In 2020, after the introduction of the trust indicators, we conducted an additional survey on each user type and saw changes in each. "Engaged users" and the opportunistic type became more engaged with news overall, while the last type became involved with untrustworthy reporting. The important thing is that the two types that can be called the "anxious middle" have the potential to go in either a positive or negative direction. We see this as an important opportunity for news sites to increase transparency and trust.

In the news from media organizations that actually participate in this project and incorporate the trust indicators, "The Trust Project" mark is displayed online. Clicking it takes you to a page where a series of information about the news organization and journalist is disclosed. Initially, there were conflicts of opinion while working jointly with various organizations. However, as it has gradually become more common to publish ethical policies and other information, conflicts have decreased. We are also putting effort into building consensus among news organizations.

People are truly searching for information they can trust. We all must accept that. Currently, there is growing anxiety about being deceived by false information or becoming part of the process of spreading it. In our case, we are trying to respond by using a very simple and easy-to-understand system of trust indicators, enabling people to evaluate what they are seeing. We are trying to raise the momentum for more transparent, more disclosed, and more consistent reporting.

Our approach has had a major impact on how platforms evaluate the integrity of news. But there is still a long way to go. The reporting side needs to more clearly indicate on their websites whether something is news, opinion, or advertising. This is an ongoing issue. The first thing we can do for news sites is "labeling." Please use the definitions we have created.

3: Keynote Speech 2

Following Sally Lehrman, we also received a keynote speech from Benjamin Toff of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford.

Benjamin Toff (Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, University of Oxford)

・Benjamin Toff: Senior Research Fellow at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, University of Oxford; Assistant Professor at the Hubbard School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Minnesota; and affiliated faculty at the Center for the Study of Political Psychology in the university's Department of Political Science. Ph.D. in Political Science. Winner of the 2018 American Political Science Association's Best Doctoral Dissertation Award. He currently leads the Trust in News Project at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.

・The Trust in News Project studies people's trust in online news sources and regularly publishes reports. It provides recommendations on what news organizations and digital platform operators should do to support trust in news. It also conducts international comparative research.

*For the English audio video, click here

First, I will introduce the three aspects of the "Trust in News Project" that we are currently working on. The first is to think about the definition of "trust in news," the second is to understand the causes of the "decline in trust" seen in various countries around the world, and the third is to think about "what can actually be done about the decline in trust." Our project focuses on four countries: the United States, the United Kingdom, Brazil, and India. We have conducted our own research in all four countries through detailed interviews with focus groups.

Now, I will focus mainly on three things. The first is the meaning of the concept of "trust in news." To understand "trust in news," it is important to think in detail about what "trust" and "news" are. In the "Digital News Report," a large-scale, multi-country survey of audiences conducted annually by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, many people answer that they "think most news is trustworthy." However, as may be obvious to journalists, people take various attitudes toward different news sources. Therefore, when thinking about "trust in news," we must be careful about what kind of "news" we are talking about. On the other hand, the same applies to "trust." Many studies use the word "trust" in a general sense, allowing for a wide range of interpretations by respondents. So, we broke down "trust" into three different aspects. The first is the evaluation of the performance of individual news brands and the media in general: whether the reporting is accurate, fair, comprehensive, unbiased, and so on. The second is the preconceived notions that audiences have. People have various ideas about what role news should play in society. The third is the messages intentionally spread by politicians and leaders. Each of these three aspects plays an important role in the formation of "trust."

Next, I will focus on the "audience's perspective." In the four countries participating in the project so far, we have investigated what people pay attention to when making judgments of trust. What is striking is the difference between what journalists think is important for building trust and what audiences think is important. Journalists tend to focus on the transparency of reporting. On the other hand, audiences tend to value the reputation and familiarity of a news brand more instinctively. From the results of our interviews with audiences, we focused on rethinking beyond the dichotomy of high and low trust. What people really want is to selectively trust information sources, not to label all sources as trustworthy or untrustworthy.

Finally, I will focus on "how to deal with the decline in trust in reporting." Even if it seems less important for building trust, it is crucial for the reporting side to maintain a daily relationship with the audience. Over time, it is possible to enhance the evaluation of "familiarity." As for strategies for listening to the audience's voice, we can build feedback routes using technology. Of course, preventing the proliferation of harmful communication on platforms will also be a major challenge. In today's news market, it is impossible to build trust with all users, and it is necessary to draw a line somewhere. Also, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to building trust that applies to all news organizations. Building a relationship of trust involves a trade-off between digging deep and casting a wide net. We would like to focus more on this point in our future project activities.

4: Guest Comments

In this symposium, in addition to the two guests who gave keynote speeches, we invited five panelists to discuss the keynotes. From here, we will introduce the comments and discussion points from each of the five panelists.

*For the English audio video, click here

Daisuke Furuta (Journalist, Representative of Media-Collab)

・ Daisuke Furuta : Born in Fukuoka in 1977, graduated from Waseda University. Journalist, Representative Director of Media-Collab, and Google News Lab Teaching Fellow. After working as a reporter for the Asahi Shimbun, where he was in charge of the Asia General Bureau, Singapore Bureau Chief, and digital edition editing, he became the founding editor-in-chief of BuzzFeed Japan before going independent to his current position. His books include "Jānarizumu wa Rekishi no Daiikkō de aru." (Journalism is the First Rough Draft of History.) (co-author, Seibundo, 2018).

The "gap between journalists and users (readers/viewers)" that Mr. Toff pointed out is extremely important. What emerges from this point is the major issue of whether journalists understand users in the first place. There is a phrase often pointed out by Jeff Jarvis of the City University of New York: "Journalism as a service." In other words, it's about the essence of the value that journalism provides to users. He repeatedly points out that to know the essence of the value that journalism provides to users, one must understand what users are thinking. I think the correctness of that statement is reflected in Benjamin Toff's earlier point.

So, what I would like to ask Ms. Lehrman is, "Is it possible to bridge this gap with The Trust Project?" I felt that The Trust Project itself might also be an activity with a strong perspective from the traditional journalism side. How can The Trust Project itself become a "trusted third party"? The Trust Project was born precisely because of the attempt to gain trust, but if the project itself is not trusted by users, it will not lead to ultimate trust. Here, the point Mr. Matsumoto made at the beginning, "We in journalism and reporting have had an arrogance that the information we disseminate is naturally trusted," becomes very important. It is precisely because this is true that discussions about trust have begun all over the world. And as we advance these discussions and research, we are beginning to see a gap between what journalists and users think of as "trust." How should we bridge this gap? I believe there is great value in discussing and learning from the initiatives that are ahead of Japan in this regard.

Yasunobu Kumada (Senior Contents Producer, SlowNews)

・Yasunobu Kumada: Born in Gifu City in 1967, graduated from Waseda University. Senior Contents Producer at SlowNews and journalist. At his previous job at NHK, he led investigative reporting on "public funds" and disaster reporting, and developed and operated new forms of communication such as "NHK Shuzai Note" (NHK Reporting Notes). He has been in his current position since 2021. He has won numerous awards, including the Galaxy Grand Prize and the Internet Media Awards 2022 Action for Trust category.

Regarding Mr. Toff's talk, while the perspective and problem awareness of well-trained journalists are indeed very important, there are not a few cases where they become identical to the problem awareness of their subjects, such as politicians, bureaucrats, and corporations. I thought that some mechanism might be necessary to reach the "unverbalized social issues" that users truly want, and during my time at NHK, I took on the challenge of connecting with communities using both digital and local networks.

In terms of the lack of explanation to gain trust, another challenge I took on was "articles with a visible face." What kind of reporter is doing the reporting, and why? What kind of reporting was done, and what materials were used? We aimed to give it "reproducibility," just like in science, so that readers could re-experience it. "Visible face" also has another meaning. It means "the face of the person at the center of the theme is visible." Why was the person involved in that problem, and what is their situation now? I thought that only when readers could feel that face would they feel that it was "their problem." I put into practice these two "faces"—the "face of the communicator" and the "face of the person in the issue"—in the context of NHK Shuzai Note and Seiji Magazine. Although it is still a work in progress, articles are now being produced that make people say they are glad they paid their license fees.

Also, regarding Ms. Lehrman's talk, the media often promotes itself by saying, "We won a Pulitzer Prize" or "We won a Newspaper Association Award," but this is completely irrelevant to readers. In fact, it seems like they are just trying to establish authority, which can be off-putting. Similarly, if "trust certification" becomes like a form of authority, wouldn't it be counterproductive? I am also concerned that after trust certification, people with an opposing stance might create another mark.

Masako Wakae (Editorial Writer, The Yomiuri Shimbun Tokyo Headquarters)

・Masako Wakae: Editorial Writer at The Yomiuri Shimbun. Master's degree (Information Science, Institute of Information Security). She has been in charge of IT issues at The Yomiuri Shimbun since 2008. Her books include "Onrain Kōkoku ni okeru Torakkingu no Genjō to sono Hōteki Kōsatsu" (The Current State of Tracking in Online Advertising and Its Legal Considerations) (co-author, Information and Communications Policy Research, 2019) and "Bōchō GAFA to no Tatakai—Dejitaru Haisen Kasumigaseki wa Nani o shita no ka" (The Fight Against Expanding GAFA—Digital Defeat, What Did Kasumigaseki Do?) (Chuko Shinsho LaClef, 2021).

I am somewhat doubtful whether Ms. Lehrman's activities can be a prescription for the credibility problems facing Japan's mass media. The trust indicators introduced seem to be ones that traditional media would all pass, but the problem is that our trust is declining despite this. Another concern is "platformization." It was said that "The Trust Project" only provides indicators of trustworthiness, but participating in it itself has the effect of conferring a certain level of credibility, and it could become a kind of platform. In my personal opinion, I feel that for professional media to survive, it is important not to rely too much on platforms prepared by others. As can be seen from the dependence of major media on Yahoo! News, there is a fear that once you get on a platform, you create a situation where you cannot get your own information accessed without borrowing its power. If a mechanism that confers credibility to reporting teams up with existing platforms, it could have great power. How to ensure independence and transparency will be a challenge. In that sense, I would like to ask what kind of support you receive from cooperating organizations like Google and Facebook, and whether being granted a trust mark gives you an advantage in search result displays. If AI is to be used to handle large amounts of news in the future, its black-box nature will also be a problem.

In Mr. Toff's lecture, the story that there is a difference in credibility between what journalists and readers think is persuasive, but it did not lead me to completely change my previous thinking. In Japan's case, I believe the cause of the loss of credibility of major media lies in misinformation, the response after misinformation, or the loss of a critical stance toward power. Therefore, I think that no matter how friendly they become, readers will not forgive these blunders. So how do we restore trust? One way is to contribute to avoiding social division, to distance ourselves from the attention economy, and to actively work to solve the problems of filter bubbles and echo chambers. Mr. Toff mentioned that "it is not cost-effective to appeal to a segment that is not interested in news or the world," but isn't it the responsibility of major media to do what is necessary even if the cost-performance is poor?

Haruyuki Seki (Founder and Representative Director, Code for Japan)

・Haruyuki Seki: Born in 1975. Representative Director of Code for Japan. After working as a systems engineer in system development, he has been in his current position since 2013. He participates in the Digital Agency and promotes the digitalization and open-sourcing of government. He promotes civic tech, which aims to solve problems with the power of residents and technology, and has launched the disaster information collection site "sinsai.info" and the Tokyo Metropolitan Government's COVID-19 related site.

I am not a journalist, but I am in a community called "Code for Japan" whose vision is "a society where we think together and create together." So, I thought today's structure was interesting and close to what we usually do. What I found particularly interesting was that The Trust Project has a significant aspect of citizen empowerment. It's not just from the provider's perspective; the point is how citizens feel. I feel that there is a lot of room for cooperation as a citizen community in activities from this perspective. There was also talk that collecting citizens' voices leads to persuasion of the media. This is also user-based. This way of thinking is similar to what the Japanese government is also making a new agenda with the term "Agile Governance." In a report issued by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, there are parts similar to what we are talking about today, such as citizen communities participating in the way organizations are run, including governance aspects, and that dialogue is important rather than citizens following what is decided top-down. I felt it was close to the idea of "trust" that is beginning to be considered in Japan.

As an example of citizen-side activities, there is a community activity in Taiwan called "Cofacts." It is an initiative where citizen volunteer reviewers post about the credibility of individual articles, so that everyone can fact-check together. Regarding fact-checking, citizen communities and NPOs are active all over the world, but such activities have not really emerged in Japan. I thought this discussion could be a good trigger. Another thing I find interesting is economic sustainability. Stable operation is an important point of the project. I feel that fact-checking is very suitable for the decentralized governance of web3. I felt that a mechanism that ensures fairness and transparency while opening up governance itself could also consider the introduction of the latest technology.

Tatsuhiko Yamamoto (Professor, Keio University Graduate School of Law; Deputy Director, KGRI)

・Tatsuhiko Yamamoto: Born in 1976. Professor at Keio University Graduate School of Law and Deputy Director of KGRI. Ph.D in Law. After serving as a full-time lecturer and associate professor at the Faculty of Law, Toin University of Yokohama, he assumed his current position. His books include "Purabaishī no Kenri o Kangaeru" (Considering the Right to Privacy) (Shinzansha, 2017), "AI to Kenpō" (AI and the Constitution) (Nikkei Publishing Inc., 2018), and "Dejitaru Kūkan to Dō Mukiau ka—Jōhōteki Kenkō no Jitsugen o Mezashite" (How to Face the Digital Space—Aiming for the Realization of Informational Health) (co-author, Nikkei Premier Series, 2022).

I am alarmed by the fact that the current situation is not a battle over the truth or reliability of information, but a battle over how to stimulate the cognitive domain to gain people's attention. Truth and falsehood are intertwined, miscellaneous information is lined up, and it is difficult to know which information to choose. Journalistic and non-journalistic information are being flattened by platforms. I can't help but feel that we are in a state of consuming one stimulating thing after another without knowing the quality of the content. In the "Information Health" project that I am currently promoting, we are discussing the necessity of meta-information like the "nutrition facts label" for food, and The Trust Project is very helpful.

The first point I want to discuss today is "the incentive for media to gain credibility." In the economic model of the "attention economy" I mentioned earlier, gaining credibility does not necessarily lead directly to business. Ms. Lehrman said that "credibility leads to business," but I have my doubts. The second point, which was also raised by several panelists, is "gaining trust for trust indicator/evaluation bodies." This can be further broken down into two perspectives: the perspective from the side being evaluated, i.e., "trust from the media," and the perspective from citizens, i.e., "trust from citizens." Regarding "trust from the media," Japan's mass media is not accustomed to being evaluated from the outside. I would like to ask what kind of discussions you had with the media to gain their trust in The Trust Project, or if you think there are still challenges there. Also, regarding "trust from citizens," there are quite a few people who have a strong distrust of the mass media in particular. How do you win the trust of such people for trust indicators and evaluation bodies? I would like to discuss whether this might not lead to or exacerbate distrust in the media even more.

[End of Part 1]

*For Part 2 (Discussion), click here