����vlog����

What’s the Issue?

Trust in the news has weakened in the United States. Polls find that people’s concerns about biased reporting and the spread of false information have undermined the perceived trustworthiness of the media. Younger people now trust social media more than traditional news coverage. This declining trust threatens to erode collaboration across political divides. To address this issue, researchers  have tested whether news organizations might build back public trust by changing the language they use in articles.
 

What does the research say?

Recent studies have shown that conversational receptiveness (using language that demonstrates engagement with opposing views) can help defuse conflict between individuals. People who use receptive language in one-on-one conversations are often seen as more reasonable and more trustworthy—a dynamic that increases the likelihood of ongoing dialogue. Building on these findings, scholars at Harvard Kennedy School and Georgetown University tested whether journalists could use conversational receptiveness to increase engagement with readers who disagree. The bottom line: Researchers found that opinion articles that demonstrate active engagement with opposing views do help build trust in the media. 

The study was conducted by doctoral researcher Dilan Tulan and professors Julia Minson and Nancy Gibbs, all at the Harvard Kennedy School, and Charles Dorison, a professor at Georgetown. The authors recruited 5,574 online participants for the experiment; these readers were presented with the first 100 to 200 words from 600 different opinion articles from CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the New York Post, Fox News and the Wall Street Journal (three liberal-leaning and three conservative–leaning outlets). The researchers analyzed the opinion columns for levels of conversational receptiveness: those with words that found common areas of agreement or used hedges (“I understand, I agree this might be difficult”) were considered more receptive than those using language of negations or disagreement (“never, terrible”).

Participants then evaluated the articles for trustworthiness, perceived accuracy, fairness and truthfulness. “Our main finding was that higher levels of conversational receptiveness were associated with greater reader trust,” the scholars found. The readers did not rate articles higher simply because they agreed with them. Rather, what was decisive for readers, regardless of their politics, was the degree of conversational receptiveness in the article. 

The authors conclude that journalists could adopt conversational receptiveness to help bridge divides and rebuild trust in their news organizations, and win back reader trust at minimum cost, “even in today’s highly charged media environment.”

“A columnist who sincerely weighs the arguments of opponents is more likely to appeal to wavering readers by addressing their doubts or concerns,” the authors write. “Such initiatives could be enhanced by incorporating training or editorial policies designed to increase conversational receptiveness into their ongoing activities.”