- Оригинал статьи
- Объяснение
Enrique Núñez-Mussaa School of Journalism, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
Andrea Riquelme School of Political Science and Public Administration, Faculty of Social and Juridical Sciences, Universidad de Talca, Talca, Chile
Sebastián Valenzuelac School of Communications at Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile;d Millennium Institute for Foundational Research on Data (IMFD), Santiago, Chile;e Millennium Nucleus in Digital Inequalities and Opportunities (NUDOS), Santiago, Chile
Valeria Aldanaf School of Public Administration, Universidad San Sebastián, Santiago, Chile
Fabián Padillac School of Communications at Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile;d Millennium Institute for Foundational Research on Data (IMFD), Santiago, Chile;g Fastcheck, Fastcheck, Chile
Renato Bassi Millennium Institute for Foundational Research on Data (IMFD), Santiago, Chile;h Department of Informatics, Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María, Valparaíso, Chile
Abstract
This study analyzes the discourse of reporters, editors and audiences in focus groups and in-depth interviews, examining the expectations on journalists when facing misinformation. While both groups agree that journalistic information is critical, how this expectation is met varies. On the one hand, the audience’s way of knowing involves diverse assessments regarding valuable information; also, they are dubious about journalists’ intentions. On the other hand, journalists exhibit a limited understanding of the audience’s informational needs and encounter practical challenges in rigorously fact-checking, affecting their authority in knowledge generation. The study proposes a discussion on acknowledging their complex epistemologies to benefit mutual understanding. Doing this can establish structural support for journalistic information, contributing to trust in journalism when challenged by sources spreading misinformation.
Keywords:
- Audience epistemology
- audience expectations
- focus groups
- journalism epistemology
- journalism studies
- misinformation
- imagined audiences
- interviews
- verification
Previous articleView issue table of contentsNext article
Introduction
The public has no interest in the truth, does not fact-check, and wants to confirm their beliefs. Journalists work for the agenda of media owners, seek professional recognition, and generate content to gain clicks rather than to inform. These statements summarize what the journalists who participated in this study think of audiences and what audiences believe about journalism when facing misinformation. Despite these differences, journalists and audiences are interdependent: The public needs accurate information, and journalism relies on the public’s acceptance.
Misinformation threatens journalism’s informative capacity and the public’s ability to discern accurate information (Carlson Citation2020). Examining the discourse of journalists and audiences when discussing misinformation brings into focus their implicit and mutual presumptions. Despite these discourses often suggesting that misinformation is related to weaknesses in the opposing group, we argue that such comparisons unearth a deeper problem: a lack of understanding between both groups on how journalistic information is produced and consumed, revealing how their distinct ways of knowing hinder them from reaching a shared comprehension of reality. Addressing this gap is crucial for building trust in journalism and strengthening verified information.
This study analyzes how the discourse on misinformation poses an epistemic challenge to journalism from the perspectives of different target audience groups: college students, older adults, and participants in civil society organizations. Moreover, the study includes the perspectives of Chilean journalists and editors in national mainstream media, local media, and institutional communications departments. The article uncovers discursive tensions and areas of agreement on the expectations and evaluations of both groups regarding misinformation, observing the reasons journalists and audiences give for believing and sharing misleading content and rejecting journalistic accounts. This examination serves to identify the arguments fueling epistemic disparities. The study further addresses the challenges of verifying information in a journalistic routine and offers insights into fortifying journalists’ epistemic foundations.
Journalism’s Epistemology
News is the primary form of knowledge journalists produce (Nielsen Citation2017; Park Citation1940). Its consumption is predominantly digital and incidental on social media platforms (Mitchelstein et al. Citation2020), where journalism’s epistemology is permanently challenged by other actors (Carlson Citation2020). Misinformation describes scenarios and interpretations of events that raise alternative narratives, diverging from the accounts provided by the news media, thereby contributing to a crisis surrounding the authority and legitimacy of journalism (Carlson Citation2017; Steensen Citation2019; Toff et al. Citation2020). Consequently, it erodes journalism’s capability to serve as the primary purveyor of knowledge about events in the form of accurate information within society (Carlson Citation2020; Ekström and Westlund Citation2019; Fallis and Mathiesen Citation2019; Parks Citation2022), assembling epistemic communities centered around these divergent interpretations (Waisbord Citation2018). This situation pressures the news production process to answer timely with updated information while competing with malicious content with a high potential for rapid dissemination on social media (Vosoughi, Roy, and Aral Citation2018).
News epistemology comprises the practices employed in crafting informative content and its outcome (Eldridge and Bødker Citation2019). This entails three interdependent epistemic levels: how knowledge is generated, justified, and received (Ekström Citation2002; Ekström and Westlund Citation2019). Producing news entails gathering information, verifying it, and its acceptance by the audience. This pursuit stems from the epistemic standpoint that facts in journalism are valid based on how reporters acquire information and how that information is assimilated by the audience (Tuchman Citation1978). To transform information into knowledge, it must garner acceptance. Hence, in Journalism Studies, facts have traditionally been considered an agreement between journalists and the public (Ericson Citation1998; Gans Citation2004; Waisbord Citation2018), and journalism’s epistemology as a social construction (Godler, Reich, and Miller Citation2020).
Fact acceptance involves agreeing on how information was obtained and validated through a verification process that supports the second epistemic level (Ekström Citation2002; Ekström and Westlund Citation2019). The expert verification practice, searching for and presenting sources to justify that the content aligns with reality, distinguishes journalism from other professions (Kovach and Ronsenstiel Citation2014). Therefore, verification in journalism is held as a canonical and desirable activity within the field (Kovach and Ronsenstiel Citation2010). Journalists act like “brokers” (Michailidou and Trenz Citation2021, 1341) who assess the value of facts, determining what must be reported and how to convey it to the audience. This value attribution process shapes and informs decision-making during verification, influencing the determination of the source’s trustworthiness. However, journalists do not have complete agency; they respond to organizational structures that tend to rely on official sources with comparatively less attention given to ordinary citizens as credible information providers (Gitlin Citation1980), which is true for the case of Chile (Díaz and Mellado Citation2017).
The verification process carried out by journalists occurs in a context of uncertainty with evolving information. Journalists shape their stories as they gather information. In this process, the tendency is to make inferences and draw conclusions by assembling the available facts rather than openly acknowledging uncertainty (Eldridge and Bødker Citation2019). The literature has discussed a more transparent approach, where journalists communicate their information-gathering processes to the audience (Broersma Citation2010, Citation2019).
It is also essential to acknowledge that factors such as the format of information delivery, whether audiovisual or written or specific thematic areas like sports journalism, may introduce nuances in how journalism generates knowledge (Ekström Citation2002; Ekström and Westlund Citation2019). Nevertheless, providing verified information remains a common thread in the exercise of the profession.
Journalistic practices have encountered ceaseless criticism concerning their capability to attain ontological truth (Broersma Citation2010; Godler, Reich, and Miller Citation2020; Michailidou and Trenz Citation2021; Parks Citation2022; Steensen Citation2019; Uscinski Citation2015; Waisbord Citation2018). Those criticisms have tackled distinct aspects of the knowledge production process of journalists, for example, delineating various types of truth (Parks Citation2022), exercising critical thinking when selecting sources (Steensen Citation2019), and embracing a social epistemology that integrates people’s testimonies and perspectives into stories (Godler, Reich, and Miller Citation2020). In this study, we aim to contribute to that knowledge by exploring the practical challenges of carrying out their verification routines in an industry often labeled precarious (Núñez-Mussa Citation2021; Ruggiero et al. Citation2022). This way, we seek to understand how they make sense of the conditions in which they perform their work to achieve verification that aligns with their professional ideals.
The third epistemic level, the reception of journalistic knowledge (Ekström Citation2002; Ekström and Westlund Citation2019), involves considering for whom knowledge is produced. Imagined audiences are conceptualized as the mental image of who receives a message (Litt Citation2012; Nelson Citation2021), impacting the message’s production. A perception of the public is crafted from a mix of sources, including interviewees, algorithms, and input from journalists’ families and close circles (Coddington, Lewis, and Belair-Gagnon Citation2021). To a lesser extent, qualitative tools like focus groups are used in journalism (Robinson Citation2019), but it is still a mental image rather than a precise profile. Therefore, imagined audiences are contextual and volatile (Litt Citation2012). Structural factors influence how audiences are perceived (Litt Citation2012), especially in environments where an occupational culture like journalism is shared (Coddington, Lewis, and Belair-Gagnon Citation2021). For example, in rhetoric, understanding the audience for whom one writes is considered a signal of professionalism (Berkenkotter Citation1981).
Among these structural factors is the duality between an audience to whom an informative service is provided and the need to keep them commercially engaged with journalists taking a marketing role among their informational one (Tandoc and Vos Citation2015). Therefore, reaching an agreement over facts with the audience is structurally complicated for journalists.
Audience’s Epistemology
Since the digitalization of journalism, the widespread use of smartphones, and the expansion of social media platforms, there is abundant literature exploring how technological shifts impact news consumption, especially in how algorithms curate information to which the audience is exposed and the incidental nature of those encounters (e.g., Hermida et al. Citation2012; Nelson and Lei Citation2018). From an epistemic perspective, this way of knowing is tied to the affordances offered by technology (Humphreys, Karnowski, and Von Pape Citation2018; Masip et al. Citation2021), the epistemic communities or belief circuits that audiences belong to (Waisbord Citation2018), and their identity (Banjac Citation2022a). Beyond the consumption circumstances of digital journalism, another epistemic aspect of the audience relevant to this study is their literacy concerning journalists’ information processing routines, organizational structure, and how news is distributed (Tully et al. Citation2022). Since the knowledge produced by journalists depends on how the audience receives it, the epistemology of journalists and the audience influence each other.
Misinformation
In a broader sense, misinformation involves exposing oneself and being susceptible to engaging with content that lacks a validation mechanism connecting it to reality, such as the journalistic verification process (Southwell, Thorson, and Sheble Citation2018; Valenzuela et al. Citation2019; Wittenberg and Berinsky Citation2020).
Acknowledging that the term fake news refers to fake content presented as news (Wang Citation2020) and considering there may be epistemological communities with low trust in journalism, it is a limited concept for this study. Disinformation and misinformation have been distinguished by their intent (Wardle and Derakhshan Citation2017), with the former seeking to deceive the recipient (Rossini et al., Citation2021; Jack Citation2017), while the latter is shared without necessarily intending to deceive (Bakir and McStay Citation2018).
For this study, we chose to use misinformation because it is the preferred concept in the literature to refer to the phenomenon of incorrect information due to the difficulty of distinguishing the intent behind content (Rossini et al. Citation2021; Wang Citation2020). Therefore, it is more comprehensive.
Chile, an Exemplary Case of Journalism’s Epistemic Crisis
We conducted our study in Chile, a country experiencing political, social, and economic crises after the 2019 protests, the ensuing constitutional crisis, and the COVID-19 pandemic that followed (Luna, Toro, and Valenzuela Citation2022). In times of uncertainty, misinformation has become an essential concern for journalists, political leaders, and public opinion (Valenzuela, Halpern, and Araneda Citation2022). For instance, the 2022 Digital News Report found that 64% of users in Chile agreed with the statement: “Thinking about online news, I am concerned about what is real and what is fake on the internet” (Newman et al. Citation2022).
Misinformation is prevalent regarding politics, crime, health, and natural disasters (Valenzuela et al. Citation2019). In response, several fact-checking initiatives have flourished, many of which operate exclusively on social media (Núñez-Mussa Citation2021). Fact-checking has become a staple in election coverage. By 2019, nearly 54% of online users were familiar with fact-checking journalism (Grassau et al. Citation2019).
Despite fact-checking initiatives, journalists and news organizations have experienced a sharp decline in public trust, especially after the 2019 mass protests against socioeconomic inequality. By 2020, the level of trust in the news had decreased by 30% overall (Newman et al. Citation2020). The rally-round-the-flag effect, observed in many countries after the COVID-19 pandemic hit, leading to increased trust in institutions and media, was barely noticeable in Chile (Bachmann, Valenzuela, and Figueroa-Bustos Citation2021).
The erosion of trust is attributed to journalists being perceived as representatives of political and economic elites, who were the primary targets of the 2019 events (Luna, Toro, and Valenzuela Citation2022). While scholars debate whether this decline reflects an epistemic crisis (Orchard and Fergnani Citation2022), it is evident that the work of journalists and media organizations has become more politically contested, echoing antimedia discourses observed in other countries (Panievsky Citation2022; Van Dalen Citation2021). For instance, several political and social actors have pushed, unsuccessfully, for new regulations against journalists and legacy media.
The challenges facing journalists and news organizations in Chile resonate with those experienced in other parts of the world. Countries undergoing significant political changes and social upheavals often encounter challenges related to misinformation and public trust in media. The COVID-19 pandemic, which affected Chile as it did many other countries, further highlighted the importance of reliable information and the dangers of misinformation in times of crisis. The decline in public trust and the epistemic crisis of journalism has been documented in various regions. The calls for new regulations against journalists and legacy media mirror similar attempts to control media narratives in other countries.
Therefore, while this study is focused on Chile’s specific context, the issues explored are interconnected with global trends. By examining how journalists and media audiences discuss misinformation in Chile, we can gain valuable knowledge that has implications and relevance well beyond the borders of the country, shedding light on the challenges faced by media systems and societies worldwide (Cheruiyot and Ferrer-Conill Citation2021).
Research Questions
For this study, we propose to explore the audience’s and journalist’s epistemology through discourse. Analyzing the audience’s discourses provides insights into how they institutionally engage with journalism (Kananovich and Perreault Citation2021), revealing their expectations and evaluations of journalistic work when confronting misinformation. Expectations stem from observing behaviors (Biddle Citation1979), serving as the yardstick to measure the performance of a third party. Therefore, expectations hold an ideal perspective on what audiences think journalists should do. While expectations are cognitive, when verbalized as parameters of fulfillment, they become evaluations (Banjac Citation2022b).
Comparing audience expectations with what journalists believe those expectations are helps understand the gaps and similarities between both groups (Loosen, Reimer, and Hölig Citation2020; Loosen and Schmidt Citation2012). Journalists define their roles through discourses on their norms and practices. Audiences contribute to this definition through evaluative discourses about how those roles are performed based on an expected ideal (Banjac Citation2022b). Studies on audience expectations have revealed shared normative ideals but differing interpretations of achieving them between journalists and the public (Karlsson and Clerwall Citation2019; Riedl and Eberl Citation2022).
Asking journalists about the audience’s relationship with misinformation involves understanding what they believe are the audience’s content consumption habits, how they engage with news produced by journalists, and their interaction with alternative versions of those events presented by other sources. Therefore, it is a way to comprehend how journalists think their audience acquires knowledge, why journalistic information is sometimes rejected, and why some audiences believe in misinformation.
Journalist’s discourses will also offer insights into how reporters and editors explain their verification processes to understand the practical characteristics that facilitate and limit the production of verified information.
Misinformation exposes the vulnerability of information consumption, providing an opportunity to observe the cross-diagnoses. Moreover, the comparative study of discourses allows us to observe epistemic clashes, highlighting disparities and agreements between audiences and journalists.
The research questions that guide this study aim to reveal those perspectives:
RQ 1: What are audiences’ expectations and evaluations about the work of journalists when facing misinformation, and what do journalists think those expectations and evaluations are?
RQ 2: How do journalists explain the process and challenges of verifying facts when facing misinformation?
RQ 3: How do journalists and audiences explain that some audiences do not accept content verified by news organizations?
Methodology
We collected data from 37 individuals using focus groups (32) and in-depth semi-structured interviews (5). Focus groups were employed to gain insights into the perspectives of journalists and audiences on misinformation. Meanwhile, interviews were directed toward editors responsible for making decisions regarding resource allocation and workflows within the newsroom.
All focus groups and interviews were conducted digitally through the Zoom platform during 2022, except for the group involving older adults. All data collection instances were facilitated by a member of the research team, who later participated in the data coding, ensuring consistency across the process. Conducting interviews and focus groups online proved particularly convenient for recruiting journalists, editors, and college students with busy schedules and limited possibilities for in-person meetings.
The technology enabled efficient and confidential interactions between participants and the facilitator, with no significant differences noted compared to the one focus group held in person. This aligns with the literature recognizing the technological advancement of video calling for qualitative interviewing (Thunberg and Arnell Citation2022) and focus groups (Halliday et al. Citation2021).
The structure of both focus groups and interviews revolved around the three main themes reflected in the research questions of this study: expectations and evaluations of journalism when facing misinformation, journalistic verification routines, and reasons for accepting or rejecting journalistic content and misinformation. Interviews and focus groups followed a strategy from the general to the specific, initiating all interactions by discussing participants’ understanding of misinformation and their experiences. The semi-structured format allowed the facilitator to delve into a topic or ask follow-up questions.
Focus Groups
We conducted eight focus groups with a single moderator with 32 participants nationwide (ages 20 to 68, 19 women and 13 men). Five focus groups were conducted with participants representing different audiences: youth, older adults, and adults engaged in civil society. The other three focus groups were conducted with journalists representing the diversity within Chile’s media industry: national media reporters, local news directors, and journalists working in institutional communications departments.
Focus Groups: Journalists
Group 1 comprised seven journalists from national mainstream media outlets. They were selected through open calls and represented a radio station, a TV station, and an investigative journalism website. Group 2 consisted of two local newspaper directors who supervise and do journalistic work, recruited through Chile’s National Press Association. While the response to the call was low, we pursued the focus group with two participants to incorporate perspectives beyond the capital city, Santiago, which predominantly houses Chile’s media organizations (Núñez-Mussa Citation2021). Group 3 comprised three journalists engaged in institutional communications departments. In Chile, journalists working in institutional or corporate communications share professional backgrounds and norms with those in news media (Mellado and Hanusch Citation2011). For gender and age distribution details of each group, see Table 1.
Table 1. Journalists focus groups, characterization by age and gender.
Focus Groups: Audience
Group 1 comprised university students recruited from majors in social and health sciences. Populations between 20 and 29 years old, despite high exposure to social media, exhibit varied verification skills and trust levels in content (Figueira and Oliveira Citation2017; Herrero-Diz, Conde-Jiménez, and Reyes-de-Cózar Citation2021; Pérez-Escoda et al. Citation2021).
Group 2 had civil society participants recruited through the Civil Society Council of Chile’s Transparency Council, which includes organizations that promote citizen participation. This choice was grounded in the role of third-sector organizations as non-elected but influential voices, promoting democracy and monitoring state actions (Ghaus-Pasha Citation2004; Lewis Citation2005) and their capacity to represent the voice of marginalized populations (Kaldor Citation2003).
Group 3, composed of older adults, aimed to contrast perspectives, addressing their vulnerability as identified in previous focus groups. Their participation was facilitated through a township, guided by age profiles. Previous research has shown bias regarding their media and digital literacy skills (Martínez-Costa et al. Citation2022) and that they are cynics towards the news media (Munyaka, Hargittai, and Redmiles Citation2022). For gender and age distribution details of participants, see Table 2.
Table 2. Audience focus groups. Characterization by age and gender.
In-Depth Semi-Structured Interviews: Editors
We conducted five in-depth semi-structured interviews with news editors; these included the political editor of a TV station with the highest online and offline reach in the country, the editor-in-chief of the website affiliated with the country’s most listened-to radio station, and the third most visited news site; the editor-in-chief of a local news site; the editor-in-chief of the country’s longest-standing independent news website; and a talk radio editorialist and former editor of a fact-checking project. Following the focus group sessions, we recognized the value of gaining deeper insights into how information is verified from the perspective of those overseeing news production routines. Their perspectives are pertinent as figures making content decisions and engaging with the audience (Ferrer-Conill and Tandoc Citation2018; Lamot and Paulussen Citation2020). Refer to Table 3 for participant details on gender and age.
Table 3. Characterization by age and gender of editors from semi-structured interviews.
Analysis
Two research team members carried out a three-stage coding process of the interviews and focus group transcriptions, following a protocol of description, interpretation, and presumption (Adu Citation2019). In the first stage, codes were identified according to the research questions, which had previously shaped the interview and focus group structure. This process identified expectations and evaluations of journalism when facing misinformation, verification practices, and reasons for accepting or rejecting journalistic content and misinformation. Coders were free to identify other themes of interest to address the questions. This initial coding was independently conducted in the Atlas.ti software. The codes were constantly compared (Glaser Citation1965), repeatedly returning to the transcriptions.
Once the initial coding was complete, both coders met to discuss the codes and to establish interpretation categories consolidated in a shared spreadsheet with quotes exemplifying each. This document was presented and discussed with the rest of the research team to incorporate their interpretations.
Finally, the original two coders revisited the transcriptions with the categories in mind. They added new notes and examples in a shared document and, in a final meeting, drew conclusions considering the relationship of the categories with the literature.
Findings
RQ 1: Expectations and evaluations of journalism facing misinformation
The main expectation of journalism for all three audience segments is to be informed. The interpretation of what it means to be informed varies within each group. In the case of the youth, the concept of objectivity is rejected. Instead, they seek news that reflects a commitment to social issues. Civil society participants explain that being informed is distinct from receiving sensationalistic media coverage, particularly crime reporting. Older adults consider crime reporting a means of staying protected, viewing it as valuable information.
Assessing journalists’ work, some participants consider news organizations to be part of the misinformation problem. Criticisms are primarily directed at television, but in discourse, they tend to encompass the entire journalistic field. A participant from the civil society group expresses that the news media manipulates information:
“The issue is not that information is untrue, but about the perspective they present. The emphasis. How they communicate it, and how they exclude everything else. The way they manipulate information is astonishing, so the crux of the matter is framing” (Participant 1, civil society group).
The youth also exhibit skepticism. However, they direct their concern toward the individual motivation of journalists. A youth focus group participant says journalists are primarily focused on: “maintaining their employment or striving for more prestige within the media” (Participant 3, youth).
Journalists and editors of national media concur on a normative standpoint concerning what they perceive as audience expectations from journalism in tackling misinformation: the pursuit of truth and the employment of verification as the practice for attaining reliable information. However, there is duality in their discourses as the three focus groups that included journalists share a perspective of audiences as passive and with little critical discernment in their daily engagement with news, impacting their ability to assess content’s credibility. “We work with the truth. There is another issue: How much do people care about the truth today?” asks a former fact-checking editor. The audience’s responses in this study show that being informed with truth is relevant to them. However, the intention behind journalists’ work is distrusted. Interviewed editors agree that despite the data provided by their news organization’s social media, they intuitively deduce audience motivations but lack systematic tools to understand people’s needs and expectations.
Local news directors and institutional communications journalists critically evaluate national mainstream journalism as needing to fulfill their mission with the audience. The argument is that in its pursuit of generating social media engagement, national mainstream media neglects verified information. A local news director voices this sentiment: “I firmly believe that our role is pivotal in the battle against a Goliath-like adversary; our responsibility lies in disseminating authentic and dependable information rather than succumbing to the pursuit of attention” (Participant 2, local news director’s).
The criticism over a commercial motivation in journalism underscores television’s news coverage. The former fact-checking editor suggests that the pursuit of marketable stories perpetuates the notion that “sensationalist” topics have the power to captivate audiences. To illustrate this, the editor refers to social media videos extracted from television content, shared as abbreviated clips lacking sufficient context, leading to the propagation of misinformation. A reporter working in television stands as the sole advocate of the medium: “I believe the connection between television and misinformation on social media emerges from television being the most widely embraced medium in our nation—this is natural, considering its larger audience” (Participant 4, national mainstream journalists).
RQ 2: The challenges of verifying facts
Within the discourse of journalists, there is a consistent emphasis on verification as a hallmark of professional identity and epistemic standing when conveying news:
“What are the usual ways for verifying information? Without a doubt, for us as journalists, it is the source it originates from—the sound bite. Almost by eye, one can discern which information carries a certain seriousness, making it suitable for citation” (Participant 1, local news directors).
“Journalists follow a scientific method of work (…). I believe that we are a distinct audience compared to those who spread fake news virally. We have the scientific rigor of communications sciences to check, verify, and disseminate information; we will never operate oppositely” (Participant 2, journalists from institutional communications departments).
The editors delineated the verification practices employed in their respective news organizations. While the description is succinct in some instances, in others, editors expound on a multifaceted process involving several reviews by more than one editor. The editor of a radio’s web portal, known for its frequent news updates, describes a verification process that he deems optimal:
“The investigation has to be fast to keep pace with the spread of misinformation. This often requires dedicating two or three people (…) We try to check information with as many authorized sources connected to the case as possible. (…) At least four or five editors must review the article and say it seems exhaustive. If any doubts arise, we rectify the issues and sometimes choose not to publish” (Web editor of a radio station).
Insights from interactions and responses in the focus groups and interviews reveal that journalists predominantly turn to public entities, authorities, and experts to validate information. National media reporters who have experienced the recent social changes in Chile recognize a substantial challenge in trusting official sources: their tendency to misinform. This involves blending accurate information with exaggerations, whimsical interpretations, or content taken out of context. A journalist states:
“Authorities are liars. I am not talking about the Government but leaders or spokespersons, such as certain parliamentarians and trade union leaders. Some weeks ago, I spoke with one of them and had to fact-check nearly half of the quotes twice over. I looked for what he told me, and it was a lie. (…) It is commonplace among elected officials or leaders to spread false information without verifying it. (…) I have been working in radio for a year and see this trend becoming more prominent” (Participant 2, national mainstream journalists).
The same journalist explains that while acknowledging this challenge, the routine often hinders verification:
“I would lie if I claimed to fact-check every statement provided by an authority (…) There is no intention to disseminate anything less than 100% accurate information, but there is also no intention, desire, or resources to verify everything before sharing” (Participant 2, national mainstream journalists).
Other journalists recognize that their verification practices require structural support to fortify journalism’s epistemology in the face of misinformation. One of the reasons for this is that staying ahead of misinformation imposes a temporary strain on their work. Other challenges, such as competition with rival outlets and the need for real-time information updates during unfolding news stories, compound this. Audiences also recognize the temporal constraints linked to the culture of scooping news stories. However, their discourse is ambivalent: while skepticism prevails regarding journalist’s ability to unearth truth amid competitive pressures, they also believe that specific verification processes, like fact-checking statements during a presidential debate, should be expedited.
An editor points out that truth in a news story is continually evolving, carrying an inherent fragility. For instance, the editor of a hyper-local website alludes to presenting known facts under the heading “preliminary information” when faced with unfolding information. This process is recognized as susceptible to publishing erroneous information that could misinform.
The audience expects more journalists to recognize their mistakes. As an illustration, an older adult shared her disappointment after witnessing a journalist’s on-air error; she wished the station would admit they were wrong. A television news editor emphasizes that acknowledging mistakes connects with the audience: “The media do occasionally make mistakes, and when these errors occur, they should be acknowledged explicitly. We must improve to avoid the public’s distrust” (Television news editor).
Another challenge mentioned by journalists to improve verification practices is the need for specialization on complex stories. Some reporters cover various stories throughout the week and even multiple news daily. This dynamic engenders a heightened reliance on external sources to comprehend complex phenomena.
RQ3: Acceptance of misinformation and rejection of journalism
Youth and civil society groups mention “confirmation bias” as the reason for accepting misinformation: “Some individuals actively seek out misinformation that reinforces their existing beliefs. This is why it is easy to believe misinformation when it resonates with my opinions; questioning it becomes challenging” (Participant 2, civil society group). Also, digital literacy appears to be a concern, with all groups unanimously identifying older adults as the most vulnerable demographic.
Youth acknowledge that their primary information source is social media, exhibiting skepticism towards the content they encounter. The group mentions news literacy practices such as consulting specialized fact-checking websites, scrutinizing dubious information through online searches, and relying on validated sources. Additionally, they refrain from sharing content when they suspect malicious intent.
A similar trend emerges among civil society participants keenly interested in verification, declaring to actively corroborate sources and assert their ability to discern falsehoods at first glance. Moreover, within online communities, they declare being confident in verifying and correcting their peers. An awareness of algorithmic personalization also surfaces: “I think what comes to me is what looks like how I think” (Participant 3, civil society group).
Older adults actively use social media for information, yet they harbor skepticism. This showcases news literacy at the consumption and distribution levels that contradict the preconceived notions associated with their demographic:
“I am careful about what I see on Facebook, and I do not share or publish many things (…) I do not follow the chain because if I am unsure, why would I be spreading.” (Participant 2, older adults).
In addition to the reasons for accepting misinformation, the youth and civil organization members argue that journalistic content is rejected from the belief that political and commercial interests underlie editorial decisions, particularly television: “Television lies, and we all know it” (Participant 2, youth).
To explain why misinformation is accepted, journalists comment on the audience’s lack of initiative to verify information, delegating that responsibility to a third party, whether journalism or social media platforms. Some editors and journalists suggest that audiences possess limited tools for such verification, mentioning experiences with their close relatives.
“I believe that if you were to ask most people (…), I doubt many like misinformation or do not care about receiving it. Nobody wants false information. Nevertheless, being able to distinguish it or trying to differentiate between information and misinformation is very different” (Web editor of a radio station).
“My family forwards me what they read or come across, and I believe they often do not take time to verify if it is true. I do so for professional reasons. I go directly to a source or attempt to corroborate its authenticity. However, I do not think people, in general, are interested in verifying information’s accuracy” (Participant 2, journalists from institutional communications departments).
Editors and journalists are aware of the audience’s criticisms of the media. Nevertheless, they point to unethical journalistic practices by third parties that lead to the negative characterization of the entire field making the audience reject their work:
This malicious or ill-intentioned editing of information often upsets people – they think – ‘this is not like that; they are trying to deceive me’- and they put everyone in the same bag. That is what happens with the press. (Editor in chief online news site)
Discussion
RQ 1: Expectations and evaluations of journalism facing misinformation
The findings that answer the first research question present an audience with the general expectation of being informed but with diverse assessments regarding the information they need. While young people value information with some form of social justice, an ambiguous term that can be tailored to individual perspectives, the older population considers crime-related information informative, which civil society participants classify as sensationalist. This illustrates how audience expectations are shaped by differing epistemologies, with journalism facing a scenario with limited potential to meet all expectations, resulting in a correspondingly diminished capacity for a widespread positive appraisal from the audience.
This resonates with the concept of epistemological communities for understanding and interpreting information (Waisbord Citation2018) and indicates that instead of generalizing about the audience and its relationship with journalism and misinformation, it is necessary to consider how different audiences interact with news. An essential part of the epistemic challenge that misinformation poses to journalism (Carlson Citation2017) lies in the capacity to fulfill informational expectations for specific groups. This study exposes that content with certain indicators of sensationalism or deviating from traditionally objective coverage, often mentioned as misinformation alerts, may not necessarily arouse general suspicion in the audience. The challenge is primarily for informative journalism seeking to serve a general audience, posing a disadvantage against misinformation.
Journalists rely on the social media engagement of their stories and their close circles to learn about the audience, aligning with the results from a previous study (Coddington, Lewis, and Belair-Gagnon Citation2021). As suggested for the American context (Robinson Citation2019), regularly incorporating qualitative methods such as focus groups into the newsroom is a feasible step toward learning about the audience. It can also show how the audience knows and evaluates the practices used to produce news. While this may only partially address journalism’s ability to meet the general public’s informational expectations, it can narrow the epistemological gap between journalists and the public.
The evaluation of journalists’ ability to confront misinformation is negative. The public’s evaluation assumes that journalism is motivated by political and commercial interests or to boost individual journalists’ careers, even intentionally spreading misinformation. This evaluation is discursively presented as the status quo: “Television lies, and we all know it” (Participant 2, youth). Audience members and journalists critique television, an evaluation that responds to a context where participants recognize the prominence of the medium in Chile. However, despite epistemological nuances in different journalistic formats (Ekström Citation2002; Ekström and Westlund Citation2019), the audience’s discourses about television news are extended as a critique of all journalism.
Considering that all groups of journalists are skeptical about the audience’s ability and interest in distinguishing truth, these results show a contradictory imagined audience that reveals the fragility of defining the concept (Litt Citation2012). The discourse depicts an audience who values verified information and is interested in commercial content. Additionally, the audience is portrayed as lacking the initiative to pursue accurate information.
RQ 2: The challenges of verifying facts
The findings that answer the second research question show tension between the professional ideal of verification and the description of the professional circumstances in which it occurs. Verification appears discursively as the practice that bestows authority on journalistic information, being the guarantor of the truth being reported, even likened to the scientific method. Therefore, it is a distinctive practice of professional identity (Kovach and Ronsenstiel Citation2010). A discourse reflecting a view of the profession previously criticized in the literature for its competence to reach the truth (Waisbord Citation2018) and for equating verification with truth without considering a critical reflection on what truth means (Parks Citation2022).
The tension arises in describing the information-gathering processes provided by journalists and editors. Firstly, there is an imbalanced source selection structure between official sources and other potential sources that may have authority on a story (Díaz and Mellado Citation2017; Gitlin Citation1980). It is also evident that the relationship with official sources is not entirely trustworthy, and there has been a recent increase in distrust towards them, necessitating alternative verification processes. Expanding the concept of an official source to an authorized source could create room for enhanced representation and foster external pluralism within the news media by defining which questions they are empowered to respond to. As journalists are adept at ascribing value to sources (Michailidou and Trenz Citation2021), the central question during the verification process could be: Who is ultimately the source of knowledge for this story?
Journalists demonstrate critical thinking by recognizing that not all sources are reliable. However, the agency to act in line with that perspective is constrained by time, specialization, and the human resources of the media outlet. While one editor describes a meticulous verification process in their organization, this differs from the typical response among the interviewed journalists and editors. Although truth remains an ideal, practical challenges are significant structural factors in generating journalistic knowledge. As the epistemic foundation of journalism is rooted in verifying information (Kovach and Ronsenstiel Citation2010), relying increasingly on unfiltered sources reduces journalism’s epistemological authority. Also, when these sources permeate journalistic discourse, they decrease the ability of reporters and editors to ascertain an appropriate evaluation of their veracity.
In a context of professional precariousness (Núñez-Mussa Citation2021; Ruggiero et al. Citation2022), where these factors depend not only on the individual capacity of journalists, the responses suggest that one of the practices where journalists can execute agency toward the audience is transparently explaining the challenges of their process (Broersma Citation2010; Citation2019). For example, an expression such as “preliminary information” (Editor of a hyperlocal website) requires the audience to understand that the information might not be entirely accurate or exhaustive. An alternative is explaining why confirming the facts and telling the whole story is unfeasible. Uncertainty is unnatural for journalists (Eldridge and Bødker Citation2019) because it challenges their identity as verifiers. Therefore, a point that is not contradictory to the epistemological foundation of the profession is that the public can understand how information gathering and verification are carried out, recognizing logistical challenges. This does not suggest a naive attitude regarding the interests of media company owners but to approach journalist’s work with a nuanced perspective.
RQ 3: Acceptance of misinformation and rejection of journalism
The findings that answer the third research question, aimed at understanding the discourses on the motivations journalists and audiences perceive in accepting misinformation and rejecting journalistic work, once again reveal a mutual negative assessment.
Journalists and editors claim that the audience, including their close circles, lacks initiative and tools to verify information on social media platforms and seeks information that confirms their beliefs. While there is a normative interest in preventing the audience from falling into misinformation and encouraging more initiative and verification, journalists emphasize verification as a core tool in their journalistic process; therefore, it is also a way to establish the professional authority that differentiates them from the public.
Youth and civil society participants describe verification practices in their information consumption. However, most of the populations participating in this study are from the most educated segment of the country, having a university education. Skepticism towards social media also appears in the population of older adults, considered by journalists and other audience groups in this study as the most vulnerable segment. Older adults do not mention verification practices, suggesting potential vulnerability and acknowledging gaps in technological skills that require assistance. Therefore, the epistemological gap between journalists and audiences does not arise from ignorance of social media platforms’ functioning and potential risks. From the audience’s perspective, this comes from distrust toward news organizations and journalists. In the case of journalists, there is an underestimation of the audience’s abilities in their relationship with information. Knowing each other appears critical for journalistic content to be accepted.
Conclusion
Online misinformation highlights trust problems between journalism and audiences from an epistemological perspective. With disruptive agents delivering alternative versions of reality that some audiences accept, it is logical to question how journalism is evaluated, what is expected from it, what challenges reporters and editors face in verifying the information they publish, and why some people reject their version of events. By contrasting the discourses of the public and audiences on these topics, this study sought to understand the agreements and epistemological gaps in their ways of knowing journalistic information.
Using focus groups from different audience segments and journalists, along with in-depth interviews with editors, we observe that the counterpoint exercise effectively identifies arguments of convergence and mainly divergence, revealing unmet expectations from journalists and the audience that result in negative evaluations. While there is agreement among journalists and audiences in their explicit responses that misinformation stems from confirmation bias, their discourses reveal a structural issue of obliviousness between the groups.
From the perspective of journalists, an imagined audience emerges that expects journalists to deliver verified information while being passive regarding misinformation. On the other hand, the audience portrays journalism as having malicious intentions. Upon delving into the audience’s news consumption habits, they appear active and aware of the risks of misinformation. Journalists declare to be committed to providing truthful information but constrained by time, resources, specialized knowledge, and a growing distrust in official sources.
We understand that these differences and the misinformation problem do not have immediate solutions. Some solutions, such as a media outlet’s economic resources to invest in reporter specialization and include more editors in the verification process, are outside the journalists’ decision-making capacity. However, based on the findings, journalists, editors, and news organizations can take other measures to bridge the gap with the audience. The first suggestion is to understand better the audience’s diversity, needs, and expectations. The imagined audience in the responses still comes from vague impressions based on interactions in social media and people familiar to the study’s participants. Therefore, we recognize the value of listening to more voices and understanding that not all can be satisfied. Still, it can open perspectives in newsrooms on how to build a shared understanding with the audience. The second suggestion is to be transparent about the processes and challenges in obtaining information. Understanding how news is produced is a way to increase news literacy. While journalists defend verification as the core of their professional process, it faces severe problems in daily routines. By understanding these challenges, the audience can comprehend how this knowledge is developed and evaluate it fairly from its acquisition process.
We assume that these suggestions, while resonating with existing literature (Broersma Citation2010, Citation2019; Robinson Citation2019), stem from a study with limitations. The study takes place at a particularly volatile moment in the relationship between journalists and audiences in Chile during a political transformation. While this situation is not unique to other contexts (Cheruiyot and Ferrer-Conill Citation2021; Panievsky Citation2022; Van Dalen Citation2021), it can influence the gap between the two groups. It is also essential to consider that most participants have a university education, which may impact their news literacy level and affect the groups’ heterogeneity. Nevertheless, differences are noticeable, especially in the elderly group. While the representation of journalists outside the capital is small, it presents a valuable perspective, along with journalists working in institutional communications departments, providing intergroup heterogeneity to the study.
Future research potential lies in comparative investigations of how audiences and journalists engage with journalistic knowledge. Shared expectations on the core function of news media require deeper exploration to ascertain interpretations. Electoral contexts, where journalism’s role in democracy is critical, and cross-media system comparisons with varying normative roles of journalism may offer valuable insights. Acknowledging the diverse epistemologies within journalism and exploring the varied audience ways of knowing invites us to think of specific solutions tailored to producing and receiving knowledge for distinct journalism types and audiences.
Ethics Statement
The Research Ethics and Safety Unit of Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile reviewed and approved this study with number ID220811007. It was declared exempt from ethical and safety evaluation since it will not investigate sensitive data or tangible or intangible materials that are specially protected. The activities described are not considered risky or with agents that may put the subjects who participate, carry out, and/or intervene in the research and the environment at risk. All participants were anonymized and signed informed consent for the information provided in this study.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).