
Reporter bios don’t improve readers’ trust in news outlets - hhs
https://www.niemanlab.org/2020/02/readers-dont-care-that-you-were-editor-of-your-college-newspaper-and-reporter-bios-alone-dont-improve-trust-in-your-news-organization/
======
beloch
Here's a study that might be even more interesting:

1\. Have a reporter write a series of stories on several topics.

2\. Label these stories with the same author name and have Group A read them.

3\. Label these stories with a bunch of different names and have Group B read
them.

4\. Have both groups rate the trustworthiness of each story as they read them.

My theory is that we tend to trust sources we _know_ more. I would expect that
Group A would report higher levels of trust for the last stories they read,
even if they disagree with the author, because they've been told they're
reading the same person's work.

The way I personally read news reflects this. There are many authors on the
news sources I frequent who I am familiar with. Some I consider to be heavily
biased or idiots but, being familiar with their shortcomings, I feel I can get
a better picture of the objective truth from their work than I can from
reading something written by someone I know nothing about. I trust authors
based on what I have read from them in the past rather than their biographies.

For this reason, bios and clearly visible author names/pictures may not
increase the reader's trust in isolated articles, but it may help build trust
with regular readers _over time_.

------
gonewest
No surprises there. Just yesterday, I saw someone comment online that a
particular opinion article was poorly researched and written like an amateur.
Where the author has a Pulitzer and a Gerald Loeb Award with decades in the
business at major periodicals and newspapers. It seems clear the judged
"quality" of the opinion has mostly to do with whether the reader agrees.

~~~
Nasrudith
Well aren't Pulitzers more about what you uncover than how well you write and
research in the book learning sense? A half illiterate crank who exposed real
and concrete evidence of a massive scandal say for a deliberately nonsensical
example "Microsoft is bribing the FBI to assassinate rivals" would dessrve it
even if half of his works were about lizard people.

Obviously being a crazy idiot doesn't help but being a good investigator and a
good writer aren't the same thing.

------
aeternum
Isn't this a positive? Society would be better off if we avoid appeal to
authority and instead focus on evidence-based decision-making.

~~~
shadowfox
> Society would be better off if we avoid appeal to authority and instead
> focus on evidence-based decision-making

While this sounds awesome in isolation (and is perhaps even a goal to aim
for), I am in two minds about the reality of it.

In our society as it currently exists, most people are not in a position to
collect, correctly understand and evaluate evidence for things outside their
expertise. And some, like me, have very limited spheres of expertise to begin
with. So people rely a lot on a "chain of trust" for informing their opinions
and decisions. This is of course gameable and is indeed often gamed.

But I am not sure this is avoidable. It does not seem possible today to teach
oneself to a point where as an individual you can form a fully independent
opinion, solely based on the study of evidence, in any reasonable time for
very many different things.

Maybe I am just pessimistic!

~~~
aeternum
I agree with you, and no one can take the time to research everything from
evidence. The chain of trust does have a place.

However I'd also argue that this is the only time in history that we have
almost the whole of human knowledge accessible at our fingertips from anywhere
in the world within fractions of a second. If there ever were a time that we
could look up actual evidence without expending inordinate effort, that time
is now!

~~~
amp108
> this is the only time in history that we have almost the whole of human
> knowledge accessible at our fingertips from anywhere in the world within
> fractions of a second. If there ever were a time that we could look up
> actual evidence without expending inordinate effort, that time is now!

This is also the point in time where we have the most _disinformation_
swimming around the internet as well. And it takes effort, possibly an
inordinate amount, to cull the bad information from the good. Or else we're in
the same conundrum as we always have been about whom to trust.

------
keanzu
I misread this as "bias" rather than bios. I must be predisposed to associate
the words "Reporter" and "bias".

~~~
BitwiseFool
My mind read it as "BIOS" at first and I figured it was a typo. Then after
reading your comment I finally realized "bios" is short for biographies.

------
mattkrause
I think the study is missing a condition.

Both of the biographies they used suggest that the article was written by
generic, if competent, journalist. Neither include details that might push you
towards trusting _this specific person_. Since the test article was about a
'superbug', imagine one profile said "Jim completed a masters in immunology at
Columbia University before moving to NYU'S Carter Journalism Institute."
Without that, it's hard to know whether readers just ignore these blurbs
altogether...

------
aaron695
Single human beings can no longer report.

The internet means they can be fact checked immediately. Which means they
immediately will be found in error, large or small.

No one trusts any reporter anymore, that time has passed.

------
zoonosis
>“Using a personal photo and including personal details in a reporter’s
biography made participants feel they knew the reporter better, but this
feeling didn’t influence readers’ attitudes about a news organization more
broadly,”

IME, people trust individuals more than institutions. So, their level of trust
for the news organization doesn't really matter if they trust the specific
journalist.

------
segmondy
Yes it does if they have earned our trust. For instance, I trust stuff from
Matt Levine. I don't trust opinion piece tho

------
jduwiuwjdhdh
No one with any real sense trusts journalists anymore. You can blame the
internet, the rise of sensationalism, or the total lack of effort to cover
politics in a neutral fashion, but the press lost its credibility a long time
ago and frankly I see no reason to trust them now. The biggest use of the
press in my life is to follow what the current popular talking points are.

