On The Trustworthiness of News

Most times we sort of have a feeling for what source can be considered trustworthy, sometimes we can't. Some argue that this "trustworthiness detector" might be influenced by the person's intelligence, even though I wouldn't want to generalise this. Personally, I think it has more to do with education and one's own interests.

Studies (especially page 7) show that it's easier for people with a higher education to differentiate what news source can be considered reliable. This could be explained by taking a look at their news consumption in general. Most people with a higher education are granted a more thorough understanding of politics and history which in turn tends to heighten their interest in these topics making them more likely to regularly consume news. And those who regularly consume news tend to know the bigger news sources better and get acquainted with their reporting style, thus unintentionally learning to understand what is considered good news.

What makes us believe that a news source is trustworthy, what makes news "good news"? 

Well, for one, it's that simple: fame and reputation. Most bigger papers such as the New York Times are well-known enough for people to know their name without ever reading them. But, as I already said some posts ago, even the bigger news sources are increasingly showing a tendency towards newstainment, towards "trashier" articles on soft topics. Which is at least partly understandable but I fear that it will damage their reputation in the long run. Which brings me to my next point: fame alone isn't enough to be considered trustworthy, reputation is what really qualifies a news source as good. The Bild, for example, is one of the best-known German papers but very few (educated) people would call their articles trustworthy and reliable because their reputation is that of a tabloid paper. While some political blogs may be lesser known, their reputation among the"initiated" makes them seem more reliable.

Knowing a news source, in turn, also plays a bigger role in how it is perceived. You could criticise that fame and knowing something is quite the same, but I'd argue that their is quite a difference between having heard of a news source and consuming it regularly, maybe knowing some names of the regular authors. By watching a news source over a longer time and consuming it quite often you will start to understand the paper's political attitude and will thus be able to determine when something has changed or does not fit the paper's overall image at all.

So after all, a paper's trustworthiness strongly depends on the people who consume it. A person who is not "media-literate" at all won't be able to tell the difference. And this so-called media-literacy strongly depends on the kind of education a person receives in my opinion. While school does not teach you how to consume critically (they tried but failed miserably, at least at my old school), it gives you the tools to analyse, to see it all in a broader context. Most of this happens subconsciously and there are many exceptions. A person might be educated but if they lack the interest for media and politics, they won't learn to consume critically (arguably you might refrain from calling them educated in that area because media literacy strongly depends on your own will to "study" it). Another person might not be as academically educated but have a strong interest for politics and is thus willed to learn more about media and news.

So, to make myself clear: when I'm saying "educated" I don't necessarily mean school education but what we like to call "self-study". Education matters, folks.