In most countries we cover, trust in "news I use" and "news overall" is significantly higher than trust in news found via search engines and news on social media.
But not everwhere, for example Chile (and some other countries), where trust is similar across the board #DNR20 2/6
And while in e.g. the United States, people on the political left trust news much more than people on the political right, in e.g. Mexico, the pattern is the opposite (and the difference much smaller), with people on the right trusting news more than people on the left 3/6
Similarly, in most countries, we find large majority of people who say they prefer news that advances no particular point of view, and many fewer who want news that share their own point of view.
But in for example Brazil, difference is much smaller, the groups about equal
4/6
And while in, for example, the US, people on the left are more likely to blame politicians for misinfo, and people on the right blame journalists, in Argentina, people on the right are more concerned about politicians, and people on the left more concerned about journalists
5/6
We also see differences for platforms -- across 40 markets we look at, Facebook is the platform most people name as one where they fear potentially false and misleading information, but in 3 of 4 Latin American countries we cover, WhatsApp is more widely named. #DNR20 6/6
Thread summarizing 5 key global #DNR20 findings is below, along w/links to full report, website, more slides
We always find important country-to-country differences too, and hope to expand report further in 2021, including more countries in Latin America
What might an AI-mediated information ecosystem look like?
Shuwei Fang @OpenSociety & @StructStories asked for scenarios. Mine, on interplay btw AI pragmatism, AI experimentalism, & AI incrementalism, draws on @risj_oxford research & more
My starting point? Public uptake will be one of the most important driving forces shaping the AI-mediated information ecosystem and, by extension, journalism & news media’s place in it. Demand is sometimes overlooked in discussions that tend to focus on actors on supply side 2/14
Extrapolating from public approach to previous digital technologies a likely approach might be "AI pragmatism", combination of (a) abstract concern about impact, (b) scepticism towards many of the institutions using AI, & (c) a practical appreciation of many AI applications 3/14
AI cannot reliably identify false news (let alone lies), despite what sales reps and boosters may claim. Too many false positives, false negatives, issues of bias, (let alone perceiving "entire meanings")
Because so much of the most potentially consequential misinfo, including false news and lies, is fundamentally political, there is real and perceived conflict of interests when govs' want to play role as arbiters of truth.
This is even more pronounced in low-trust contexts. 2/4
For years, experts have argued govs' and public authorities' most constructive role is indirect - convening whole-of-society responses and providing funding for independent fact-checkers, journalists, researchers, civil society
Second, what is crucial is not volume but influence. As @hugoreasoning and others have pointed out, attempts at mass persuasion mostly fail! . But one thing that often influence people is elite cues from politicians they support 3/7press.princeton.edu/books/hardcove… cambridge.org/core/books/nat…
Beyond inadverdently disseminating disinfo bcs of business-as-usual editorial practices, there are also parts of the media (e.g. some pundits, broadcast hosts) who are parts of what @sobieraj called "outrage industry" - even when working for news media global.oup.com/academic/produ… 2/6
Whether as sources (for news reporters), guests/subjects (for hosts and pundits), or important users and advertiseres (for platforms) - or just doing their own thing - some domestic political elites sometimes contribute to mis- and disinfo problems academic.oup.com/book/26406 3/6
Trust in news: the good, the bad, and the ugly - spoke about @risj_oxford Trust in News Project at #WNMC22
The GOOD news, from publishers' POV, is the "trust gap" between news in general and news on various platforms - news media stand out from just "stuff on the internet" 1/7
BAD news, in already difficult context facing political attacks, competition from platforms, & much more, is that negative perceptions are very widespread. Half or more of survey respondents say they think journalists try to manipulate the public to serve powerful politicians 2/7
UGLY news is that, when we talk to journalists trying to address low trust and overcome negative perceptions, the things they focus on (e.g. transparency, audience engagement) are very different from what audiences focus on (relevance, familiarity, reputation for integrity) 3/7