[Archived Symposium] Can Media Build "Trust" in the Digital Age?—Considering "Trust Indicators" (Part 2)

2022.08.19

The "Platforms and the '2040 Problem'" project is 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 attracting 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, the archived symposium "Can Media Build 'Trust' in the Digital Age? —Considering 'Trust Indicators'—" was held on May 18, 2022.

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

*For Part 1 (Lectures), click here .

5: Discussion

Following comments from the five panelists and the points they raised, an online discussion was held with Ms. Lehrman and Mr. Toff.

*For the video with English audio, click here .

Lehrman

There are similarities and differences between what Benjamin and I have discussed. First, the differences. Benjamin mentioned that journalists value trust and transparency. However, the word "transparency" as we use it is broken down by citizens into various elements, such as: What is the agenda? What are the motives behind the reporting? Are there sources unique to journalists?

On the other hand, there are also similarities. People who don't trust the news don't even think about how to trust it in the first place. According to our research, many people want trustworthy information. At The Trust Project, we focus on those who "want information but don't know how to determine what to trust." We are working to support their ability to make informed judgments.

Toff

Like Ms. Lehrman, we also focus on people in society who are not actively engaged with or particularly interested in the news. Even people in such groups know that there are contradictions in the information they get from the news. They also don't know how to distinguish between information sources. That's why they hope for tools that can help differentiate online information sources.

Furthermore, these people don't have much contact with the news to begin with. This creates a situation where they become dependent on platforms. We cannot ignore the existence of platforms. Ultimately, it's "trust in platforms" versus "trust in news organizations." Finding the news unengaging at the point of contact with the masses—the platform—is a major hurdle. In other words, I believe different strategies are needed for civil society as a whole versus the indifferent segment.

Lehrman

The issue of platforms has come up, and that's precisely why we started The Trust Project. In the digital space, everything is treated as flat. That's why journalists must differentiate themselves. We want to enable users to extract these "differences" and "points that are important to them" on their own.

Matsumoto

Allow me to ask two questions. The first relates to the "external evaluation" that Mr. Yamamoto mentioned. I imagine that media outlets, being put in the position of being reviewed by a third party, must have put up considerable resistance to having their internal workings scrutinized by outsiders. What specific resistance did you face from Western media, and how did you persuade them?

Lehrman

We started by listening to the voices of users. A recurring theme was the desire to hear not just high-level voices from the economy, business world, and politics, but also diverse, life-sized voices like their own. Therefore, while there was some surprise at the idea of listening to the public's voice, the resistance from the media was not very significant.

What we are trying to do in journalism is create a "commercial label." We want the general public to know the agenda of the reporting side. For example, advertising content is clearly labeled, right? Similarly, people need to be able to clearly understand whether something is a news report or an expression of opinion. We want to make it possible to distinguish what the reporting side is doing as business with sponsors. Also, to dispel the impression that the media is tied to business, we also provide explanations that journalism is independent from funders and owners.

Matsumoto

My second question is about the research findings on the project's effectiveness. In a study commissioned by The Trust Project to the University of Texas, the increase in trust from implementing the trust indicators was a subtle 0.2 points on a five-point scale. On the other hand, when asked if participation in The Trust Project would influence their decision to pay for a subscription, 8% said they would be "more willing to pay," and 25% said they would be "somewhat more willing to pay."

In contrast, a survey conducted by the international research firm Ipsos of 39,000 adults in 28 countries, including Japan, found that 27% of people responded positively, saying they "are willing to pay for news if it is trustworthy." How do you interpret the difference in the figures from these two surveys?

Lehrman

First, a key point of the research is that the trust indicators were shown to have a certain effect. A study by the University of Georgia showed with statistical significance that the mere presence of our trust mark considerably increases trust. Because the mark has meaning, we must have solid evidence. We are under pressure. We conduct compliance checks and strive to increase trust in the mark.

Next, regarding subscriptions, I feel the difference between 28% and 33% in the studies is small. Other research also shows that about 30% of people are willing to pay for trustworthy news. The Trust Project also wants to work with various partners to create channels for converting trust into loyalty.

The discussion then moved on to the topic of paying for news platforms.

*For the video with English audio, click here .

Furuta

Regarding trust, I believe there are two layers: trust in individual media outlets and trust in the journalism industry as a whole. Paying for subscriptions based on trust is a very clear indicator. For individual media, the strategy of building trust to increase subscribers is already becoming clear. Various reports have come out in recent years, and with the great success of The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Financial Times, and Nordic newspaper companies are also increasing their subscriptions. What I feel is that while the techniques and methods for gaining trust are evolving at each media outlet, we still don't understand anything about trust in the journalism industry as a whole. Doesn't the current situation, where some media outlets are gaining trust, lead not to bridging the gap between those who pay for and get information from trusted media and those who don't, but to further division?

Toff

The subscription model, in particular, is an effort to differentiate from other media organizations. However, as you say, not everyone is willing to pay for general news. Since the media is a public service, it must reach a wide audience. The research report we will release in December is about "breadth and depth." Regarding the target audience, should we aim for breadth or depth? With whom and how do we actually want to build trust? In what form do we reach people, and with whom do we build trust and relationships? I think this is a very difficult problem.

Lehrman

We must not forget that the financial model of journalism is not just about the independent activities of news organizations. It is heavily influenced by the technical elements of platforms, such as how high a news site ranks in search results. What Mr. Toff said about "breadth or depth" is a very good phrase. I thought it's an item we should consider in the future.

Furuta

In Japan, there are still very few media outlets that have succeeded with a subscription model. When we consider what happens if subscriptions don't succeed, the "attention economy" that Professor Yamamoto pointed out comes up. If subscriptions aren't successful, the only option is to earn a lot of advertising revenue. The PV (page view) model, which was discussed in the West a decade ago, is now the mainstream discussion in Japan. I feel that the "depth or breadth" discussion mentioned earlier is occurring in a different form in Japan.

Toff

As Mr. Furuta says, local newspapers are struggling greatly. They are having trouble acquiring subscribers, paid subscribers. Audience fragmentation is advancing. This is something I don't yet understand myself, but while trust is an important factor, it's probably not something that can be solved by trust alone.

Lehrman

Regarding the attention economy, we need to re-examine the premise. A word that comes up in our and Benjamin's research is "anxiety." Users are exposed to "emotional content" that is violent or incites social division through intense debate. Pursuing the attention economy leads to inciting conflict and division, but the attention economy itself is not inherently bad. It's better to think about what we can do to make it something good for us.

Kumada

I have a concern that the Trust Mark itself might become a symbol of division. What are your thoughts on this?

Lehrman

The trust indicators are based on clearing eight standards. They show the perspectives users look at when considering the trustworthiness of news, represented by eight indicators. In other words, we are not giving our approval. We are not judging what is good or bad; rather, we are indicating that news organizations with the trust mark are properly responding to the public's voice regarding things like precision, accuracy, and transparency, and are reporting with integrity.

We also consider what kind of trust indicators can be applied to the traditions of a country's media. We share the concern you raised, but so far, we have been able to derive indicators that can be used in various countries.

Toff

There are users who interpret the label selfishly just because it's there. On the other hand, without a label, everything looks bland and flat, so there is a positive side to having labels.

Kumada

For example, if a "Russian Government-Certified Trusted News Mark" were to be issued, would that become a difficult situation to resolve?

Lehrman

Also, we cannot approve of reporting that has strong government influence, no matter which country it is reported in. We have rejected Russian news organizations in the past.

Toff

The conversation tends to focus on building trust, but having too much trust can also be a problem. The issue is whether major news outlets are overly dependent on a single source of information. While we want people to have proper judgment criteria when making decisions, high trust is not necessarily a good thing in some countries. We must also simultaneously consider whether the information source is worthy of earning that much trust.

6: Summary

Finally, each of the symposium speakers gave their concluding comments to summarize the symposium.

Lehrman

Trust indicators must, after all, respond to the needs of citizens. They also have the role of connecting journalism. I hope they will become an even more globally usable tool in the future. We are also collaborating with platforms from a journalist's perspective, because platforms play a large role in information dissemination. We must continuously watch how people react to news on platforms.

Finally, when listening to the voices of ordinary people, we must not be condescending. I believe this point is crucial for building trust broadly.

Toff

What I think is important is the role of "Engagement." It's about news organizations connecting with users and building relationships. Ultimately, I believe this is the foundation of a trustworthy relationship. A single solution cannot solve all the challenges. There are various trade-offs and different environments, and I think there are different solutions for which initiatives are suitable for which audience.

The news industry also recognizes that platforms may lead to a solution for this structural problem. The fact that people spend a lot of time online means they spend a lot of time on platforms, and we can also reach young people. Of course, there are downsides, as everyone has already mentioned. However, I am certain that seeking some form of engagement, both on and off platforms, is a clue to a solution.

Furuta

There is no magic wand, so I believe we need to do everything that was discussed today. What was particularly impressive was Ms. Lehrman's point about "re-examining the attention economy." It's important and something we can do right away.

I think it's important to properly understand readers and the current social situation, and then produce content that sheds light on social issues and indicates the direction society should take, structured in a way that follows traditional journalism. That is, in essence, what journalists want to do as their job, and I believe that by doing so, they can gain trust.

Kumada

Watching the behavior of digital natives, I think there has never been a time when so much news is consumed, and I believe they are developing an instinct for discerning information within that. However, it is also a system that makes it very easy to fall into a filter bubble, so I am concerned about that. At the same time, I feel that news and journalism itself may be starting to be dismantled and transformed.

Wakae

Labeling for trust may have the effect of getting people to trust the labeled media, but I feel that alone will not resolve the state of having lost the trust of the media as a whole. I don't think it will reduce the kind of media criticism that floods Yahoo! Comments. To restore trust, there is no choice but to continue conducting proper reporting, but in the modern era, I think measures against the attention economy and filter bubbles are also important. I believe even existing mass media can do this starting now. I feel we should make an effort to re-engage those who have left in anger.

Seki

When it comes to gaining trust, I believe one cannot be self-righteous. Therefore, I think it is a very good sign that someone like me, from a citizen-side community, was able to participate in a symposium like this one that considers media trust. I felt that if this leads to the creation of similar dialogues in various places, and participatory dialogues are born instead of one-sided formats, it would create a good flow. I would be happy to continue to cooperate.

Yamamoto

Earlier, I spoke about "information health." It can be said that the information we consume shapes our minds and our democracy. In other words, I feel that what kind of information we consume in a digital society is becoming a very important issue. That is likely why labeling for consumption is required.

On top of that, how do we decide the standards for labeling, and how do we gain trust for the organization that does the labeling? For this part, I think it's important to have cross-disciplinary communication that involves citizens, and I think it's important to have more global discussions with people like Ms. Lehrman and Mr. Toff. As the Deputy Director of KGRI, I hope to promote global collaboration in the future. I look forward to our continued work together.

Matsumoto

In this discussion, on the very challenging issue of whether media can build trust in the digital age, I feel that we have seen several rays of light that suggest we can move toward a solution, even if it's just one step or half a step. However, that light is still fragile, and whether we can make this light thicker and richer in the future seems to depend on the future commitment of each and every one of us. To all our guests, thank you very much for your valuable insights today. In the future, we would like to move the stage to the regions, and while having media professionals who are continuing to struggle in various regions join the discussion, we want to deepen our thoughts on the state of trust indicators in Japan and their feasibility. We look forward to your engagement.

[Notes]

Held online with simultaneous interpretation on May 18, 2022.

*Affiliations and titles are as of the time of the event.