When we put out our second annual Fake News survey late last year, the challenges were clear: an overwhelming 93% of journalists believe fake news has a negative impact on their profession.

Less clear, however, was what exactly should be done about it. Our respondents, comprised of over 100 journalists, said – perhaps a bit predictably – that journalism was the answer. Yet their optimism was not exactly overwhelming. Only 14% said their efforts had a significant impact on lessening the spread of fake news.

They’re not the only ones who are skeptical. When former White House correspondent and political reporter Marc Ambinder wrote about our survey for MSNBC, he expressed disbelief that fake news could be fixed by more journalism. With democracy in retreat, he wrote, more media will just lead to more “anti-media” attacks. He suggests instead that, “What is needed is more relentless, sophisticated and unyielding pressure on the superspreaders of misinformation.”

While how and who might apply that pressure remains to be seen, Ambinder’s thinking does at least present another solution to the problem. Nieman Lab’s Predictions for Journalism 2022 series, which we’ll dig into below, offers more. As we’ll see, media institutions, editors, and journalists aren’t the only ones who need to play a role. In a world where CEOs are increasingly more trusted than media and government, business and expert authorities can (and should) contribute as well.

Insights from Nieman Lab

Each year, Nieman Lab “asks some of the smartest people in journalism and media what they think is coming in the next 12 months.” This time around, many (unsurprisingly) addressed fake news. Though each piece in the series is worth a read, we’ve gathered a few key insights.

Diagnosing the Root Cause  

Several Nieman Lab contributors begin by addressing the underlying problems with today’s news media: namely, structural misallocations and the so-called “infodemic” – “a deluge of information so overwhelming that it becomes impossible for ordinary people to figure out what is or isn’t credible information.”

Several Nieman Lab contributors begin by addressing the underlying problems with today’s news media: namely, structural misallocations and the so-called “infodemic” – “a deluge of information so overwhelming that it becomes impossible for ordinary people to figure out what is or isn’t credible information.”

For instance, Izabella Kaminska, outgoing editor of the Financial Times’ Alphaville blog, writes that mistrust in media stems largely from “structural, economic, and bureaucratic forces that have come to underestimate editorial risks and misallocate resources in a bid to maximize returns from reach, digitalization, and standardization.” These forces, she goes on, favor “predictable clicks drawn from knee-jerk, and often erroneous, takes that ride the consensus wave, while sensationalizing content and narrowing the public debate spectrum.”

This is in part what happens when news tries to keep up with the shift to online – from the pre-digital notion that information is finite, to the infinite nature of today’s news. As Shalabh Upadhyay, founder of NEWJ in India, puts it:

…why rely on a journalist if your peers have the same access to the same information from the same source? News organizations are increasingly moving from being a primary source of information to being a source of validation of already-consumed news. With the presence of multiple media players, one of them is bound to validate your version of the consumed information, making the rest of the organizations seem misguided. Hence the emergence of the post-news world and the general erosion of trust in journalism and journalists across the globe.

Finding Solutions

To combat these problems, Nieman Lab contributors offer several solutions:

• A collaborative and open model of journalism – powered by technology and focused on credibility

“In a world of information overload, credible information – or credibility itself – is the opportunity gap for journalism to rally around to create a sustainable value proposition,” Upadhyay writes.

But given the subjective nature of credibility, especially amid rampant polarization, the process by which journalism achieves it must change.

One of the ideas Upadhyay suggests is “transparent processes that provide the general public with the means of validating their work.” Technology and collaboration can help here. Raney Aronson-Rath, executive producer of Frontline, cites Nobel Peace Prize-winning journalist Maria Ressa’s efforts on this front in the Philippines, including a “fact-checking consortium among news groups to try to help identify online disinformation in near real-time” that also works with “civic engagement, legal, and academic partners.”

Rath also cites the Pandora Papers as evidence of technology’s ability to enable “hundreds of reporters around the world to join forces in secure ways, and to tell a global accountability story with implications that continue to reverberate.”

• More curation, less noise

Another commonly articulated solution: Focus on quality and curation – not just clicks. Simon Allison, co-founder and editor-in-chief of The Continent, Africa’s most widely distributed newspaper, says that in the context of a universal “information-rich environment … journalism now functions to condense, contextualize, and curate the sheer volume of information that is out there and accessible to all – to stand between readers and the abyss of the infodemic.”

The news product that does this the best, he says, is the old-fashioned newspaper, which is tightly edited and carefully ordered. The worst is the news website, which offers a “dizzying array of stories” and contributes to decision fatigue. Yet focusing on quality content is easier said than done. It’s a matter of aligning the right incentives and resources to combat engrained structural forces that prioritize the sort of “predictable clicks” Kaminska talks about.  

With that said, Tamar Charney, consulting senior supervising producer for NPR’s Throughline, thinks that in a lot of ways, we’re getting there. “Daily news podcasts and newsletters are a growing way people are getting their news. Most daily news podcasts are relatively short, meaning that in 10, 20, or perhaps 30 minutes you can walk away feeling like you are pretty well informed. Newsletters also give you that sense of ‘Okay, I’m caught up,’ so you can turn your attention to something else.”

• Community engagement is key

“If local newsrooms are going to rank alongside direct service providers seeking support from the same philanthropic people and institutions, newsrooms will have to show that they are listening beyond their existing audience and taking steps to strengthen the community, not just report on it,” writes Ariel Zirulnick, senior editor for community engagement at Southern California Public Radio.

As an example, she cites her team’s work “hosting listening sessions and researching the information needs of Angelenos underserved by journalism.” Collaboration here is key – not only between a newsroom’s audience and engagement teams, but with local, civic and academic organizations.

Other Nieman Lab contributors echo these sentiments, whether they’re discussing going beyond data and into local communities, the importance of face-to-face reporting, or collective impact models that can strengthen and redefine local news.

How Businesses Can Help

If there’s one takeaway from all this, it’s that no one journalist, editor or media organization can beat back the tide of fake news alone. In fact, according to Edelman’s 2022 Trust Barometer, it’s businesses – and, to a lesser degree, NGOs – that should help provide societal stability in an era when media and government are viewed as increasingly divisive.

For instance, business’ trust score is 61, government’s is 52, and media’s is 50. More people trust their own employer than their government or news sources, and the majority of respondents now want business leaders to speak up about societal issues.

At Greentarget, we believe that business leaders who see the need to speak up should do so by developing effective positions of authority. That means speaking on timely, relevant issues that executives are experts in; crafting distinct points-of-view and/or tangible guidance that provides utility; participating intelligently in ongoing media conversations; and supporting or supplementing trusted news outlets, journalists and editors with expert commentary and insights.

Their role is to supplement and support traditional journalism and add expertise to important discussions – bolstering journalists’ efforts, when appropriate. And when they do participate, they shouldn’t just follow consensus or add to the noise. This is what Kaminska thinks is missing in today’s media landscape: “…contrarian quality reads that might be slower to come to market but are much harder to discredit over time because they have been properly researched, considered, and tested.”

There may be no one-size-fits-all solution to fake news, which is why now is not the time to be short-sighted or, worse, cynical. More than ever, we all have a responsibility to play a part in providing and supporting credible, quality news people can trust.