Are journalists projecting their own opinions onto the public?

Plus: Finding sustainable revenue for nonprofit news, what the local news crisis has done to political scandal coverage, and how photojournalists view AI

Welcome to another edition of RQ1! For those who are new, we are Mark Coddington and Seth Lewis — two former journalists turned academics, now teaching and researching at Washington and Lee University (Mark) and the University of Oregon (Seth).

In trying to keep pace with all the new research about news and journalism, we hope to give you each month (or so) a quick breakdown of a notable piece of new research, and also to highlight other interesting work you might want to check out. We can’t cover it all, of course, so consider this a sampling of some of the most interesting findings in news research.

To help keep up with all this research, we’ve added a third journalist turned academic to our team: Tamar Wilner, who teaches and researches at the University of Kansas. Tamar is passionate about addressing the gap between research and journalism practice, and she’s excited to use RQ1 as a way to help do that. This month’s edition was written by Mark and Tamar.

If you have ideas or suggestions, please shoot us a reply — we’d love to hear from you. And if you enjoy this, please share the newsletter with your colleagues so they can sign up. If someone has shared this email with you, then you can subscribe here:

Journalists and ‘social projection’ of public opinion

Journalists often think about news judgment or newsworthiness as a gut feeling, an internal gauge that a journalist just has after years of experience. But as researchers have found for decades, journalists’ sense of what’s news and why has a deep sense of the audience’s opinion baked in. When journalists think about what’s news and how it should be covered, they’re thinking on behalf of a public, and to do that they need a sense of what that public thinks.

But where does that sense of public opinion come from, and is it accurate? When most people estimate public opinion, they’re susceptible to the phenomenon of social projection — when we infer public opinion based on our own views, and thus tend to see public opinion as more like our own views than it actually is.

Politicians have been found to do this, and studies in decades past have found that journalists do it too: One 1972 study found that journalists overestimated the similarity between their own opinion and the public’s, and another 1996 study found a relationship between journalists’ partisan beliefs and their ideas about which issues were most newsworthy to their audiences.

But it’s been a long time since researchers looked directly at the degree to which journalists project their own opinions onto their views of public opinion. A new study in the journal Journalism does just that, authored by a team of researchers from several European countries: Fabian Prochazka, Karolin Soontjens, Kathleen Beckers, David Nicolas Hopmann, and Andreas Schuck. They used a survey of 371 journalists from Belgium, Switzerland, and the Netherlands to find out whether that social projection was present, and for what types of journalists and issues.

Their method was pretty straightforward: On eight different policy questions (nine for the Swiss respondents), they asked journalists to estimate the percentage of people in their country who had no opinion or were undecided about the policy proposal, and then the percentage of people who would be in favor or opposed. They then asked whether the journalists themselves agreed or disagreed with the policy proposal on a 1-5 scale.

They found that as you might expect, journalists across all three countries had perceptions of public opinion across the issues that correlated with their own opinions on the issues. (It’s possible, of course, that the influence went the other way, and journalists were calibrating their own opinions to the perceived opinion climate, though the authors noted that previous research has found that this direction of influence is much less likely than the one posited in social projection, especially for short-term judgments such as this.)

What was most interesting in their findings was the differences across journalists and issues. Journalists who described themselves as right-leaning were more likely to project their opinions onto the public than those who identified as left-leaning. This finding might be, the researchers surmised, “that left-wing journalists are more aware of the differences between their own opinions and public opinion because they are frequently criticized for their leftist views and how these views influence their reporting.”

Journalists were less likely to project their own opinions onto the public on two types of issues: The first was when they thought that many in the public would be undecided or have no opinion, which might indicate caution by journalists in the face of uncertainty.

The second was on issues where journalists perceived themselves to have expertise. Here, the authors concluded, the journalists could rely on their knowledge of the issue to develop a (presumably more accurate) perception of public opinion, rather than leaning on their own opinion as a proxy in lieu of more specific information.

The study’s findings call for caution and introspection for journalists as they seek to become more aware of their own biases in assessing public opinion on the issues they cover. The authors also note that their final finding on the role of expertise in reducing projection might suggest that specialization among journalists “could reduce the risk of skewed reporting and improve accuracy in portraying public sentiment. However, in reality, journalists are often forced to become generalists, and in-depth expertise is declining.”

Research roundup

An island of trust: Public broadcasting in the United States
Christopher Ali, Hilde Van den Bulck, and Jonathan Kropko
Journal of Communication

Academics and journals are often accused of dismally long lead times, which diminish the chances of intervening in real-world problems. This article, however, makes a timely appearance as U.S. public broadcasters fight for their survival.

The study begins with an inconvenient fact: That while critics of public television service PBS seek to eliminate its federal funding, with the White House decrying the institution as “woke propaganda,” PBS has not only polled as the only the most trusted news source in the U.S., but even as the most trusted institution. The authors’ questions, therefore, are: Why is PBS so trusted, and how has it maintained this trust?

To find out, they surveyed 1,500 people who engage with PBS for at least one hour per week. The study found that respondents trusted PBS in large part for its organizational structure and its local organizations. Looking at the kind of PBS programming people valued, news and children’s TV stood out — perhaps surprisingly, given that the PBS flagship news program NewsHour reaches just a fraction of the viewership of its commercial counterparts. Even more surprising, political leaning did not have much impact, with 54% of “extreme conservatives” and 58% of “extreme liberals” in the survey considering PBS a major source of their news. The study also documents what the authors call a “Mr. Rogers’ effect” — the tendency of many participants to refer to either childhood nostalgia or current children’s programming, or both, in explaining why they trust PBS. (For those who might not be familiar, Mr. Rogers was a red cardigan-wearing children’s TV host who, for over 30 years, entranced children while espousing neighborliness and responsibility. He was also a Republican.)

The study’s findings provide fodder for those who might speak against supposedly ideology-driven campaigns by the Republican Party, given how trust in PBS cuts across political divisions. Not only that, but the authors also argue that PBS could be uniquely poised to serve a public navigating a media ecosystem that’s largely commercial, abundant with misinformation, and lacking in trust.

However, they note that PBS’s levels of consumption and engagement do not reflect the trust that viewers place in it. To address this, the authors recommend more funding flexibility and multiple-year funding contracts; changing the service’s remit to allow it to more fully embrace digital platforms; and they also urge PBS to invest in local journalism, which most public TV stations do not currently carry. Perhaps anticipating critique, the authors argue that none of their recommendations require PBS to be reinvented, but only require a “doubling down” on the service’s existing mandates. The stakes are high, they note, as healthier democracies tend to be associated with well-funded public media systems that can fulfill the media “watchdog” function.

The local news crisis and political scandal
Danny Hayes
Political Communication

Speaking of watchdogs: In his latest paper, Hayes points out that a large body of literature has linked a robust news media with more responsive behaviors by those in government. For example, a 2010 study found that more news coverage “makes voters better informed, which increases monitoring and induces politicians to work harder, which, finally, produces better policies.” Such associations have become pressing study questions given the decline of local newspapers, in terms of number of publications, newsroom size, and number of stories covered.

But when it comes to accountability for government officials, particularly those embroiled in scandal, Hayes says the evidence has been lacking. In his study, Hayes used journalist Nathaniel Rakich’s database of 211 political scandals involving members of Congress and statewide elected officials. The scandals include everything from corruption and financial impropriety to sexual misconduct, drug possession, and dressing in blackface. Hayes then searched relevant state and local newspapers for keywords related to each scandal.

Plotting stories over time, Hayes finds that the average number of stories about each scandal is today about 25% of what it was in the 1990s (excluding the outlier of Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal). There was an especially steep decline in the last decade. But to examine the data more rigorously, Hayes factors in the size of the “news hole,” or total number of stories the paper published during the scandal period, along with a number of factors that offer alternative explanations for the decline. The analysis shows that as news holes shrink, so does scandal coverage. Overall, politicians today can expect to see a lot less ink spilled over their crimes and misbehavior.

What does it matter? Hayes finds that when there is more scandal coverage, the chances that the official in question will leave office are higher. Since the amount of scandal stories has fallen greatly, it’s likely that scandals are forcing fewer politicians out of office. What’s more, Hayes finds that the average scandal-laden incumbent in the last decade is about 6 points better off than one in the first decade of the 2000s. “These patterns suggest that the decline of local news represents a gift to politicians who find themselves embroiled in a scandal,” Hayes notes.

Hayes notes there are some limitations to this analysis – perhaps most importantly, he did not establish a strict causal link, given limitations of the data he used. He also focuses on newspapers, and does not account for the hundreds of local news startups, mainly digital. And importantly, he notes that accountability journalism isn’t just about what politicians do wrong, but what they do right. Weakening local coverage of that sort could have its own deleterious effects.

Shifting the gaze? Photojournalism practices in the age of artificial intelligence
Gopolang Ditlhokwa, Lyton Ncube and Allen Munoriyarwa
Journalism Practice

AI is affecting every corner of the journalism world, and photography is no exception. The emergence of both generative AI that simulates photography, and of AI-assisted camera equipment designed to aid the photographer, raise questions about ethics, professionalism, labor, and more. Not all observers are fearful of these changes. Some scholars have argued that AI tools can improve photography’s use of color and depth, ultimately making better photographs.

In this piece, the authors explore the ways AI-driven technologies are affecting photojournalism practices, particularly in Botswana and Zimbabwe. These countries present an interesting setting because of their sizable number of photojournalists, working both independently and for news organizations, combined with their status as net importers of AI technology. Interviewing 13 professional photojournalists, the authors find that photojournalists are under significant pressure to embrace AI technologies, which have transformed all aspects of photography, from production to distribution and consumption. Many photographers in Botswana and Zimbabwe are already using AI-driven technologies. They praised such innovations for improving photo quality, saving time, and even enhancing creativity.

At the same time, interviewees noted that such technologies are expensive and hard to acquire in their markets. Maintenance and servicing can be a problem, and local training is scant. These economic conditions allow “interlopers” — those privileged enough to get high-end equipment, but lacking in training and professionalism — to enter the labor market and drive down earnings. AI has also allowed companies to do their own visual strategic communications, where they previously would have contracted with photographers. And, not surprisingly, participants complained about the ethical and legal issues AI poses, raining from authenticity and deception to intellectual property and copyright, and privacy violations in the case of drones.

Responding to these sentiments, the authors highlight how technological disruption is often felt differently in different country contexts. While innovations might often be assumed to drive commercialization, the conditions on the ground in Zimbabwe and Botswana create very different outcomes for photojournalists there. The authors also reflect that the meaning of “authenticity” in photography has always been a blurry one. Arguably, photography constructs reality rather than just holds a mirror to it. But the growth of AI images perhaps fulfills the assessment of the French sociologist Jean Baudrillard, who described a culture of “simulacra,” in which images lose connection with substance and meaning. Today, “reality has disappeared into simulation,” the authors write. Surviving these threats to photojournalists’ livelihoods could start with watermarks in AI-generated images, interviewees suggested.

Strategizing sustainability in nonprofit news: Revenue preferences of newsroom leaders
Katherine Fink
Digital Journalism

Foundations, journalism support organizations, and some scholars have urged nonprofits to diversify their revenue streams to improve their sustainability. But studies beyond the journalism industry have found both benefits and costs to non-profits increasing their revenue diversity. And in the news world, the picture seems muddy as to whether revenue diversity really leads to financial stability.

Against this uncertainty, Fink wanted to understand what revenue sources local non-profit news leader prefer. Interviewing 23 such leaders, Fink found that participants valued revenue diversity as a general principle of “not putting all of one’s eggs in a single basket.” They were concerned that leaning too much on one source made their financial well-being precarious and could lead to media capture, or undue influence over their mission and coverage. But diversifying revenue wasn’t a top priority for them, and they didn’t have specific goals for revenue diversity at their organizations.

Fink found participants articulating three principles for the type of revenue streams they preferred, which echoed the findings of a previous study of (not news-specific) nonprofits. First, the nonprofit leaders liked revenue sources that acted as “catalysts” for other revenues, such as the donation-matching NewsMatch program run by the Institute for Nonprofit News. Second, they preferred revenue sources aligned with their missions. This meant different things to different interviewees — for some it meant individual audience member donations, for others community foundations or even advertising. And finally, participants prized renewability. Foundations were seen as a not very renewable source of funding, compared with audience membership programs or, for one respondent, local businesses.

Reflecting on the findings, Fink suggested that funders who require more funding diversity may want to more thoroughly explain how they define such diversity, and how it actually relates to sustainability. At the same time, foundations could examine how they act more like catalysts. She hinted at a caveat, however: While the interviewees had high praise for NewsMatch, it’s worth thinking about how that aids revenue diversity and what else might need to be done. Notably, NewsMatch uses philanthropy to bring in more philanthropy. “Is it enough?” Fink asks.

Spread the word

That’s it for this issue. If you like the newsletter, please consider forwarding it to friends and colleagues so they can sign up as well. And, as always, if you have ideas for things you’d like to see included, just hit reply and let us know. Thanks!