The Story Behind the Story: Examining Transparency About the Journalistic Process and News Outlet Credibility

ABSTRACT

This three-study project sought to test how news organizations can boost perceptions of credibility of their news outlet by improving journalistic transparency. Three experiments (Study 1: n  =  753; Study 2: n  =  599; Study 3: n  =  321) tested whether adding a transparency box to news stories that explained why and how journalists covered each story would improve credibility perceptions. Study 1 used a mock news site, and the box did not increase credibility perceptions. Study 2 made the box more prominent and used the real audiences of two news sites, USA TODAY and the Tennessean, and the box increased credibility perceptions. Study 3 used a less prominent box on the real audiences of three McClatchy newspapers, and the box did not increase credibility perceptions regardless of where it was placed on the news story. Results suggest transparency boxes may have limited influence on news outlet credibility, but they must be very prominent to have an effect and do not work consistently.

KEYWORDS:

• Credibility
• news
• journalism
• transparency
• disclosure
• newspapers

Acknowledgements

This project is an effort of the Center for Media Engagement in the Moody College of Communication at The University of Texas at Austin in collaboration with Joy Mayer, of Trusting News. The authors thank CME Director Natalie J. Stroud, the CME team, Mayer, Democracy Fund, and the American Press Institute for support of this project. We also thank USA TODAY and the Tennessean for being partners for Study 2. We thank McClatchy newspapers and the El Nuevo Herald in Florida, The Sacramento Bee in California, and The Wichita Eagle in Kansas for being partners for Study 3.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 A total of 1,031 people completed this experiment, but some responses were not used in our analysis. The survey was intended for adults living in the United States, so those who did not meet age or residency requirements were removed (n = 39). Others were removed because they were unable to view the article page (n = 48), participated in the experiment more than once (n = 11), answered in a way that indicated they were not reading the questions carefully (n = 9), or left responses to open-ended questions that did not make sense (e.g., “uyuytutuyu”; n = 138). In addition, we conducted an attention check where respondents had to correctly identify the topic of the news article they read in the study, and participants who failed (n = 33) were not included in the final analysis, leaving us with data from 753 participants.

2 For example, time elements and specific locations were removed from the stories, so that the stories would be equally relevant to participants throughout the United States.

3 Images of the transparency boxes not shown in Figure 1 are available upon request.

4 The data were suitable for an exploratory factor analysis because they returned a statistically significant value for Bartlett’s test of sphericity, χ²= 4158.45, df = 66, p < .001 and an excellent value of 0.93 for the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test that evaluates sampling adequacy.

5 In study 1, the question wording was: “Thinking of the news story you just saw, did the story contain a section describing why and how the news organization was covering the story?” The question was identical in Study 2, with the exception that “the news organization” was replaced with the actual name of the news outlet (i.e., USA TODAY or the Tennessean) used in the study. In Study 3, the question wording was: “Do you remember seeing a section titled ‘Behind Our Reporting’ on the article you just saw?”

6 For all three studies, we also tested interactions of exposure to the transparency box with pre-existing trust, political ideology, and online news use, but none were significant, so they were dropped from models in all analyses.

7 A total of 731 people began this survey (225 via USA TODAY and 506 via the Tennessean), but some responses were not used in our analysis. As in the previous study, the survey was intended for adults living in the United States, so those who did not meet age or residency requirements were removed (n = 7). Others were removed because they were unable to view the article page (n = 20), took the survey more than once (n = 41), answered in a way that indicated they were not reading the questions carefully (n = 4), or did not finish the survey (n = 97). In addition, after the experiment, we conducted an attention check, and participants who failed (n = 3) were not included in the final analysis, leaving us with data from 559 participants.

8 People whose household makes less than $30,000 per year were significantly more common in the condition exposed to the story without the transparency box (73%), compared to those exposed to the story without the transparency box (27%). However, no significant differences were found for any of the other three income categories, so random assignment was successful.

9 Data were suitable for an exploratory factor analysis because they returned a statistically significant value for Bartlett’s test of sphericity, χ² = 5634.91, df = 66, p < .001 and an excellent value of 0.96 for the KMO test that evaluates sampling adequacy.

10 Data were suitable for an exploratory factor analysis because they returned a statistically significant value for Bartlett’s test of sphericity, χ²= 3846.34, df = 66, p < .001 and an excellent value of 0.96 for the KMO test that evaluates sampling adequacy.

Additional information

Funding

Studies 1 and 2 were funded by Democracy Fund through the support of the Reynolds Journalism Institute at the University of Missouri School of Journalism, Trusting News, and the American Press Institute. McClatchy newspapers supported Study 3.