Everyone is talking about trust these days, and “Does Trust Matter?” by Efrat Nechushtai is no different. However, what is different is that the author’s focus is on the situation with trust in journalism. The book is the result of interviews with 96 media professionals from four countries (United States, Germany, Israel and Hungary) between 2018 and 2023 and observations in 15 newsrooms.
Healthcare providers and public health officials will relate to many of the talking points and experiences of those Nechushtai interviewed, including negative treatment, burnout, and effects on personal relationships when family and friends differ on issues being addressed by the reporter.
Nechushtai focuses on three aspects of trust that are worth consideration beyond journalism:
- Meaning
- Origins
- Values
After describing each of these main themes, the book turns to outlining mechanisms of self-defense and resilience-building for journalists.
In discussing meaning, Nechushtai describes the issues with research around trust. How is it defined? How are study questions interpreted by participants? What do the data tell us when people’s responses don’t match their actions? For example, what does it mean when people express skepticism of the media, yet they continue to seek and consume it?
Regarding origins, Nechushtai discusses the manipulation factor inherent in feedback on which business decisions are made and how efforts to increase trust can be weaponized. In this section, the author explores events like coordinated social efforts to generate impact (e.g., to popularize divisive stories), consumer characteristics (e.g., one-article readers versus long-time subscribers), and implementation efforts to improve journalistic impact (e.g., consumer boards). These questions are present in science, medicine and public health as well. We have seen them in the form of the divergence between social media themes and vaccination decisions, in the form of healthcare institutions incorporating alternative medicine and wellness trends, and in policies and public health programs based on minority opinions rather than science.
An overarching theme of the book is the role of journalism in preserving democracy, and this is most apparent in the chapter related to values. As Nechushtai describes, the assumption is that the current lack of trust is a result of journalistic shortcomings. However, the author argues, the evidence suggests that is not the case. Rather, “Increasing distrust may not be a problem but rather a symptom—the result of a growing rift between the way journalists believe they can serve their publics and the way growing publics wish to be served.” (p. 98)
The notions of reframing trust not as a fault of the professionals but rather as a symptom of a larger situation, and that changing journalistic standards to “improve trust” may weaken the professional standards of journalism without gaining the trust of audiences were perhaps the most thought-provoking. Healthcare providers and scientists continue to enjoy high levels of trust, but they, along with public health providers, are under increasing pressure to change their professional standards in the name of trust. What Nechushtai’s writing indicates is that changing professional standards in the name of maintaining or increasing trust may not accomplish its intended goal and can leave institutions vulnerable to manipulation and weaponization.
Everyone is talking about trust these days, and “Does Trust Matter?” by Efrat Nechushtai is no different. However, what is different is that the author’s focus is on the situation with trust in journalism. The book is the result of interviews with 96 media professionals from four countries (United States, Germany, Israel and Hungary) between 2018 and 2023 and observations in 15 newsrooms.
Healthcare providers and public health officials will relate to many of the talking points and experiences of those Nechushtai interviewed, including negative treatment, burnout, and effects on personal relationships when family and friends differ on issues being addressed by the reporter.
Nechushtai focuses on three aspects of trust that are worth consideration beyond journalism:
- Meaning
- Origins
- Values
After describing each of these main themes, the book turns to outlining mechanisms of self-defense and resilience-building for journalists.
In discussing meaning, Nechushtai describes the issues with research around trust. How is it defined? How are study questions interpreted by participants? What do the data tell us when people’s responses don’t match their actions? For example, what does it mean when people express skepticism of the media, yet they continue to seek and consume it?
Regarding origins, Nechushtai discusses the manipulation factor inherent in feedback on which business decisions are made and how efforts to increase trust can be weaponized. In this section, the author explores events like coordinated social efforts to generate impact (e.g., to popularize divisive stories), consumer characteristics (e.g., one-article readers versus long-time subscribers), and implementation efforts to improve journalistic impact (e.g., consumer boards). These questions are present in science, medicine and public health as well. We have seen them in the form of the divergence between social media themes and vaccination decisions, in the form of healthcare institutions incorporating alternative medicine and wellness trends, and in policies and public health programs based on minority opinions rather than science.
An overarching theme of the book is the role of journalism in preserving democracy, and this is most apparent in the chapter related to values. As Nechushtai describes, the assumption is that the current lack of trust is a result of journalistic shortcomings. However, the author argues, the evidence suggests that is not the case. Rather, “Increasing distrust may not be a problem but rather a symptom—the result of a growing rift between the way journalists believe they can serve their publics and the way growing publics wish to be served.” (p. 98)
The notions of reframing trust not as a fault of the professionals but rather as a symptom of a larger situation, and that changing journalistic standards to “improve trust” may weaken the professional standards of journalism without gaining the trust of audiences were perhaps the most thought-provoking. Healthcare providers and scientists continue to enjoy high levels of trust, but they, along with public health providers, are under increasing pressure to change their professional standards in the name of trust. What Nechushtai’s writing indicates is that changing professional standards in the name of maintaining or increasing trust may not accomplish its intended goal and can leave institutions vulnerable to manipulation and weaponization.