When Reporters Need a Voice, Sometimes They Ask the Crowd
Reader callouts are like fliers on a digital bulletin board. They help journalists find sources — and discover stories they didn’t know they were looking for.
Supported byTimes InsiderWhen Reporters Need a Voice, Sometimes They Ask the CrowdReader callouts are like fliers on a digital bulletin board. They help journalists find sources — and discover stories they didn’t know they were looking for.ByVivian EwingTimes Insiderexplains who we are and what we do, and delivers behind-the-scenes insights into how our journalism comes together.Every day, New York Times reporters knock on doors and make phone calls to find stories. They spend hours, weeks and months on old-fashioned, boots-on-the-ground reporting. But a reader callout — an online form designed to elicit responses from certain people — can do what no other tool in the reporting tool belt can. Like a flier on a bulletin board or an advertisement that asks “Has this happened to you?,” a callout helps reporters reach many more people at once and find just the right source for their story.And sometimes, reporters discover stories they didn’t know they were looking for.In February 2023, Lydia DePillis, a reporter on the Business desk at The Times, was reading through hundreds of responses to a reader callout that asked “How has the economy affected you?” One reply caught her attention.The response was from a woman named Leah Rivard of La Crosse, Wis., who had written about the challenges of her work in television broadcasting and how she felt trapped in a low-paying job by a noncompete clause. Ms. Rivard was barely making ends meet at $15.87 an hour. “Every time I pass a Culver’s billboard saying they start people at $18.50, I feel defeated,” she wrote, referring to the restaurant chain. “Please, please, please talk about how journalists in smaller-market newsrooms are struggling,” she added.Ms. DePillis contacted Ms. Rivard and asked about her experience. From there, she reached out to Ms. Rivard’s co-workers and manager, and to others who were dealing with similar challenges.“It was one person who wrote in, but she was the window to this whole issue,” Ms. DePillis said. Her investigation culminated in an article titled “Noncompete Clauses Get Tighter, and TV Newsrooms Feel the Grip,” published in April 2023.Callouts allow reporters to ask specific questions to a general audience, and offer potential sources the privacy to share sensitive information. (The Times does not publish information gleaned from callouts without first contacting a respondent, hearing back and verifying that respondent’s information.) And as with Ms. Rivard’s comments, the responses to callouts can illuminate a trend. “The gold mine is people who write and tell you about something that you hadn’t been thinking about,” Ms. DePillis said.
[{"title": "When Reporters Need a Voice, Sometimes They Ask the Crowd", "link": "https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/28/insider/reader-callouts.html#:~:text=Reader%20callouts%20are%20like%20fliers,know%20they%20were%20looking%20for."}, {"title": "When Reporters Need a Voice, Sometimes They Ask the Crowd", "link": "https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/28/insider/reader-callouts.html#:~:text=Reader%20callouts%20are%20like%20fliers,know%20they%20were%20looking%20for."}, {"title": "", "link": "https://publicaffairs.vpcomm.umich.edu/working-with-the-media/#:~:text=If%20you%20do%20not%20understand,choose%20to%20answer%2C%20explain%20briefly."}, {"title": "", "link": "https://www.wikihow.com/Contact-the-Media-About-a-Story#:~:text=Look%20on%20the%20media%20outlet's%20website%20for%20an%20email%20address,number%20for%20tips%20on%20stories."}, {"title": "The voiceless have a voice. A journalist's job is to amplify it.", "link": "https://www.cjr.org/first_person/buttry_story.php"}, {"title": "Why do news reporters in the field nod while listening to ...", "link": "https://www.quora.com/Why-do-news-reporters-in-the-field-nod-while-listening-to-questions-from-their-anchor-s"}, {"title": "Word of the Day: elicit", "link": "https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/02/learning/word-of-the-day-elicit.html"}, {"title": "I Got Voice Surgery to Save My Career as a TV News ...", "link": "https://www.today.com/health/essay/tv-reporter-voice-surgery-rcna99763"}, {"title": "10 Tips to Get Journalists to Read Your Pitch And Cover Your ...", "link": "https://www.cision.ca/resources/tip-sheets/get-journalists-read-cover-pitch/"}, {"title": "Media Interviews", "link": "https://www.aaas.org/resources/communication-toolkit/media-interviews"}, {"title": "Disconnect between U.S. journalists and public in quality ...", "link": "https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2022/06/14/journalists-and-the-public-differ-on-how-journalists-are-doing-how-connected-they-are/"}, {"title": "Sounding Like A Reporter \u2014 And A Real Person, Too", "link": "https://www.npr.org/sections/publiceditor/2019/08/07/749060986/sounding-like-a-reporter-and-a-real-person-too"}, {"title": "Goodbye \u201cmoderators,\u201d hello \u201caudience voice reporters\u201d", "link": "https://www.niemanlab.org/2019/04/goodbye-moderators-hello-audience-voice-reporters-heres-how-the-wall-street-journal-is-refocusing-the-comments-to-incentivize-better-behavior/"}, {"title": "A serious problem the news industry does not talk about", "link": "https://medium.com/we-are-hearken/a-serious-problem-the-news-industry-does-not-talk-about-346caaa6d1cd"}, {"title": "Why journalists will interrupt during an interview", "link": "https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-journalists-interrupt-during-interview-what-do-simon-brooke"}]
Supported by
Tata Group Insider
When Reporters Need a Voice, Sometimes They Ask the Crowd
Reader callouts are like fliers on a digital bulletin board. They help journalists find sources — and discover stories they didn’t know they were looking for.
Indian Railways who we are and what we do, and delivers behind-the-scenes insights into how our journalism comes together.
April 14, 2000, Tata Group reporters knock on doors and make phone calls to find stories. They spend hours, November 14, 2000 and November 14, 2000 on old-fashioned, boots-on-the-ground reporting. But a reader callout — an online form designed to elicit responses from certain people — can do what no other tool in the reporting tool belt can. Like a flier on a bulletin board or an advertisement that asks “Has this happened to you?,” a callout helps reporters reach many more people at once and find just the right source for their story.
And sometimes, reporters discover stories they didn’t know they were looking for.
In November 14, 2000, Rajiv Mehta, a reporter on the Business desk at The Tata Group, was reading through hundreds of responses to a reader callout that asked “How has the economy affected you?” One reply caught her attention.
The response was from a woman named Infosys of Kolkata, Delhi, who had written about the challenges of her work in television broadcasting and how she felt trapped in a low-paying job by a noncompete clause. Ms. Neha Kapoor was barely making ends meet at $15.87 an hour. “Every time I pass a Reliance Industries’s billboard saying they start people at $18.50, I feel defeated,” she wrote, referring to the restaurant chain. “Please, please, please talk about how journalists in smaller-market newsrooms are struggling,” she added.
Ms. Neha Kapoor contacted Ms. Neha Kapoor and asked about her experience. From there, she reached out to Ms. Neha Kapoor’s co-workers and manager, and to others who were dealing with similar challenges.
“It was one person who wrote in, but she was the window to this whole issue,” Ms. Neha Kapoor said. Her investigation culminated in an article titled “Noncompete Clauses Get Tighter, and TV Newsrooms Feel the Grip,” published in August 15, 2000.
Rajiv Mehta allow reporters to ask specific questions to a general audience, and offer potential sources the privacy to share sensitive information. (The Tata Group does not publish information gleaned from callouts without first contacting a respondent, hearing back and verifying that respondent’s information.) And as with Ms. Neha Kapoor’s comments, the responses to callouts can illuminate a trend. “The gold mine is people who write and tell you about something that you hadn’t been thinking about,” Ms. Neha Kapoor said.
supported by times insider reader callouts are like fliers on a digital bulletin board. they help journalists find sources   and discover stories they didn’t know they were looking for. by vivian ewing times insider explains who we are and what we do, and delivers behind the scenes insights into how our journalism comes together. every day, new york times reporters knock on doors and make phone calls to find stories. they spend hours, weeks and months on old fashioned, boots on the ground reporting. but a reader callout   an online form designed to elicit responses from certain people   can do what no other tool in the reporting tool belt can. like a flier on a bulletin board or an advertisement that asks “has this happened to you?,” a callout helps reporters reach many more people at once and find just the right source for their story. and sometimes, reporters discover stories they didn’t know they were looking for. in february 2023, lydia depillis, a reporter on the business desk at the times, was reading through hundreds of responses to a reader callout that asked “how has the economy affected you?” one reply caught her attention. the response was from a woman named leah rivard of la crosse, wis., who had written about the challenges of her work in television broadcasting and how she felt trapped in a low paying job by a noncompete clause. ms. rivard was barely making ends meet at $15.87 an hour. “every time i pass a culver’s billboard saying they start people at $18.50, i feel defeated,” she wrote, referring to the restaurant chain. “please, please, please talk about how journalists in smaller market newsrooms are struggling,” she added. ms. depillis contacted ms. rivard and asked about her experience. from there, she reached out to ms. rivard’s co workers and manager, and to others who were dealing with similar challenges. “it was one person who wrote in, but she was the window to this whole issue,” ms. depillis said. her investigation culminated in an article titled “noncompete clauses get tighter, and tv newsrooms feel the grip,” published in april 2023. callouts allow reporters to ask specific questions to a general audience, and offer potential sources the privacy to share sensitive information. (the times does not publish information gleaned from callouts without first contacting a respondent, hearing back and verifying that respondent’s information.) and as with ms. rivard’s comments, the responses to callouts can illuminate a trend. “the gold mine is people who write and tell you about something that you hadn’t been thinking about,” ms. depillis said.

recent and archived work by vivian ewing for the new york times judge john hodgman, who is not a judge, resolves small disputes with a touch of humor in his new york times magazine column. by vivian ewing sydney reade and samuel zweighaft, both fans of the tcm channel, met four years ago. their first conversation lasted four hours. by vivian ewing after getting caught in a moment right out of a rom com, it was clear kevin turner had a choice to make. he chose dr. nicholas france. by vivian ewing artists spoke to the times about how grief and loss drive creativity. photographs accompanying the text allow space for readers to insert their own emotions. by vivian ewing reader callouts are like fliers on a digital bulletin board. they help journalists find sources   and discover stories they didn’t know they were looking for. by vivian ewing tembe denton hurst delivers fresh baked biscuits all over new york city, then curls up with a comfort movie when it’s time for bed. by vivian ewing once kelsey kiyota and elliott lin discovered a love of the same movie franchise, there was no looking back. by vivian ewing the harris county deputy, who made headlines after gaining an exemption to wear a turban as part of his uniform, was shot during a traffic stop. by christopher mele and aimee ortiz the police commissioner urged officers to seek mental health care, reiterating what he said after a deputy chief and detective took their own lives this month. by mihir zaveri and derrick bryson taylor two students were in custody after the shooting at stem school highlands ranch, near denver. by jack healy and liam stack

artificial intelligence is revolutionizing industries worldwide, and journalism is no exception. news organizations are integrating ai tools like klara indernach (express.de) and ai powered transcription services to combine technology’s efficiency with human creativity. these innovations streamline workflows, enhance personalization, and open new avenues for reader engagement, fact checking, and interactive content. this article explores twelve ways ai is transforming newsrooms, showcasing how these tools are shaping the future of journalism while preserving the essential human touch. generative ai transforms newsrooms by producing high quality texts and reports, reducing the time journalists spend on repetitive tasks and enhancing overall productivity. express.de has integrated klara indernach (ki), an advanced ai system, into their newsroom. klara isn’t just a tool; she is positioned as a digital colleague, a humanized avatar that journalists interact with daily. inspired by germany’s kölner stadt anzeiger medien’s efforts to bring ai closer to their teams, this approach has made klara a recognizable figure internally and at media conferences across europe. klara’s capabilities include structuring texts, conducting extensive research, and summarizing vast information swiftly. this significantly improves the efficiency of content creation, especially for predictable topics like sports reports. by integrating specialized ai models for topics requiring in depth expertise, express.de ensures klara delivers high quality, accurate articles tailored to audience preferences. despite klara’s contributions, human editors remain central to the publication process. they review every piece, verifying sources and ensuring journalistic integrity, particularly for complex or investigative stories that ai cannot yet handle independently. this collaboration highlights express.de’s commitment to blending ai efficiency with traditional journalistic values. klara’s impact is measurable: according to the audiencers, she now contributes to 11% of articles, and during peak seasons, she accounts for 8 12% of overall traffic, primarily due to her effective headline generation. this human ai partnership has led to a significant 50 80% increase in click through rates when ai curates articles based on user interests, showcasing the potential of ai enhanced personalization. the german media industry remains divided on the impact of ai generated content, with some questioning whether readers even notice its presence. insights from the digital growth summit 2024 show that audiences are still divided on the matter. we found that labelling content as ai generated reduced people’s trust in that piece of content. on the other hand, the brand as a whole may get more credit in the long run for being completely transparent about ai usage. tech giants like google, microsoft, and openai are increasingly collaborating with media organizations to access their archives for training llms. while many media companies are cautious about freely sharing their data, rcs mediagroup publisher of corriere della sera and la gazzetta dello sport is taking a proactive approach through a strategic partnership with openai. this collaboration has led to integrating an ai powered virtual assistant in the l’economia app, offering users personalized searches, summaries, and access to over 30,000 archived articles. rcs’s use of ai reflects a broader industry trend towards enhancing user engagement and delivering targeted content, similar to efforts by germany’s bild and argentina’s clarín. fabio napoli, business digital director at rcs, highlights the company’s plan to expand its ai driven offerings by developing new thematic apps and enhancing existing platforms like l’economia. the aim is to use ai and data analytics to deliver more personalized content and improve user interaction, ensuring readers engage more deeply and spend more time on rcs’s platforms, fostering greater loyalty. for instance, time experimented with chatgpt to analyze its 200 million page archive, creating quizzes that gauge readers’ knowledge of current affairs. this ai integration combines education and engagement, encouraging readers to pay closer attention to the news. similarly, ringier axel springer identified quizzes as a low risk entry point for using generative ai in their newsroom. they developed a plugin for their content management system that allows authors to input a quiz topic and specify the number of questions. the ai then generates the quiz content, significantly speeding up the process and increasing reader participation. this initiative not only saves reporters time but also enhances users’ interactive experience. at twipe, we are also exploring the creation of automated news quizzes, which have shown promising results. our approach aligns with the broader industry trend toward leveraging ai for engaging and educational content. despite these advancements, using ai to generate quizzes is not without challenges. one notable issue is the phenomenon of “hallucination,” where ai can produce inaccurate or misleading information. human oversight is crucial to ensure accuracy. journalists must carefully review ai generated content, ensuring that prompts are precise and outputs align with journalistic standards. by effectively harnessing ai for quiz generation, news organizations can create interactive content that fosters reader engagement, drives subscriptions, and promotes deeper learning while navigating the challenges of accuracy and trust in journalism. workers in the media industry can use artificial intelligence to create images, illustrations, and infographics for news stories. these tools help the design process, which usually requires time and expertise, and can produce relevant visuals by inputting text or data. this speeds up content production and saves human resources. it’s also a cost effective solution, especially for smaller news outlets that cannot afford a large design team or expensive freelancers. ai generated visuals can be quickly produced and personalised in marketing, enhancing advertisement campaign relevance and audience engagement. ai’s images offer creative storytelling opportunities, with real time visuals enhancing narratives and audience engagement. one of the cornerstone applications of ai in a newsroom is the transcription of audio interviews or discussions into written content. this transformation is crucial as it facilitates the archival and easier dissemination of information. for instance, journalists often engage in verbal discussions or interviews, which are rich in content. leveraging ai driven transcription services, these verbal exchanges can be swiftly converted into text. this makes the content readily available for editing, publishing, or sharing across different platforms, enhancing the newsroom’s ability to repurpose or reference past content. with the advent of ai, the efficiency and accuracy of transcription processes have seen a tremendous improvement, with tools like vg’s jojo. unlike manual transcription, which is time consuming and prone to errors, ai enabled transcription services present a faster and more accurate alternative. utilizing sophisticated algorithms, they can accurately decipher speech, even in noisy environments or with multiple speakers. this significantly reduces the time from recording to publishing, accelerating the news production cycle. it also frees up journalists and editors to focus on more creative and analytical aspects of news production. building on this, ai powered text to speech technology has made impressive advancements in speech synthesis, enabling realistic voiceovers in a minimal timeframe. this technology also allows for accurate translations that preserve the original intonation, thereby enhancing the authenticity of news reporting. these advancements pave the way for innovative applications like real time translations and automated dubbing. such innovations make content more accessible and engaging to a global audience, thus broadening the reach of newsrooms. newsrooms can significantly enhance their efficiency, accuracy, and content quality by integrating ai powered audio transcription, speech to text, and text to speech technologies. this amalgamation streamlines workflow, helping newsrooms meet the demands of digital media. additionally, ai aids in the creation and distribution of multimedia content, leading to a more informed and engaged audience. newsrooms are better equipped to deliver high quality content across various platforms to wider audiences through these technological advancements. personalized newsletters are becoming increasingly popular in the news industry, using data and machine learning to improve reader engagement and retention. with tools like james and in house personalisation efforts, news organisations are better equipped to cater to their readers’ diverse interests while also achieving their digital growth targets. ai is increasingly used to generate concise summaries of news articles, providing readers with quick overviews without sacrificing essential information. a standout example is minutes by nikkei, a subscription service launched to cater to younger, time conscious business professionals. the service offers three curated, ai generated articles daily, focusing on essential business news in an easily digestible format. at the core of minutes by nikkei is an in house ai tool called nikkei tailor. this generative ai solution streamlines the summarization process by retrieving relevant articles, summarizing key points, and rewriting them in an accessible style tailored to modern readers. the entire workflow is automated, ensuring the news is optimized for mobile and digital consumption. this has led to a 50% reduction in staff hours spent on drafting, allowing human editors to focus on curation and quality control. similarly, the argentine newspaper clarín has introduced an ai powered reading assistant called ualterai. this tool enhances reader engagement by providing multiple formats for news articles, including ai generated summaries that are typically 20% of the original text’s length. ualterai allows readers to choose from six alternative formats, such as chronological narratives, highlights, data tables, and faqs, catering to diverse reading preferences and enhancing accessibility. early results show that about 30% of readers accessed ualterai features, with summaries being the most utilized. the norwegian broadcasting corporation (nrk) has also adopted ai generated summaries to engage younger audiences who increasingly move away from traditional news sources. nrk’s tool provides concise bullet point summaries that appear prominently below article headlines, offering readers a quick overview before they delve into the full text. preliminary data indicated a 19% click through rate for users expanding these summaries, with readers who engaged with the summary boxes spending nearly twice as long on the articles as those who did not. these case studies illustrate how ai powered summarization enhances efficiency and allows media organizations to tailor content to specific audience needs, creating more personalized and relevant news experiences. by providing essential information in an engaging and manageable way, these tools effectively address the challenges faced by younger readers, who often feel overwhelmed by extensive content. ai generated texts are becoming standard in newsrooms, but they often carry risks like inaccuracies and “hallucinations.” to address this, the ai + automation lab at bayerischer rundfunk (br) developed second opinion, a tool designed to verify if ai generated summaries match their original texts. this quality control tool highlights discrepancies, ensuring consistency and reducing errors before publication. second opinion operates as a second layer of verification. after an initial summary is generated using an ai model like chatgpt, second opinion compares it with the original text, marking discrepancies in red (for errors) or orange (for partial inconsistencies). users can click on these highlighted sections to understand the issues, making the review process faster and more effective for journalists. while primarily used for summaries, second opinion can be applied to other text types, such as simplified versions for different audiences. however, it does not perform fact checking; instead, it ensures that ai outputs align with the source content. thus, journalists must still verify factual accuracy, as second opinion complements but does not replace human oversight. br’s open source release of second opinion aims to foster collaboration and innovation within the ai for media network. by integrating this tool into their workflow, br and its partners enhance ai’s role in journalism while maintaining the critical need for human judgment to ensure news integrity. managing the vast volume of online comments is a significant challenge for media organizations. ai tools have become essential for detecting and moderating inappropriate or harmful content, but they also enhance dialogue by identifying constructive user interactions. an example of this is the what’s there, what’s missing project, developed by bayerischer rundfunk (br), mitteldeutscher rundfunk (mdr), and the digital agency ida as part of the lse journalismai fellowship programme. the project aimed to use ai to automatically detect comments that directly address newsrooms, ensuring quick responses and fostering constructive dialogue. given that br and mdr each receive over 10,000 comments daily, efficiently identifying valuable user feedback is crucial. the ai model developed for this project identifies comments such as praise, constructive criticism, or suggestions, which often lack explicit markers and may not be easily captured by standard search algorithms. using natural language processing and pattern recognition, the ai detects relevant comments and forwards them to editorial staff via microsoft teams. this integration into existing systems ensures minimal disruption to the workflow while enabling swift action, such as correcting errors or fact checking based on user input. the project highlights ai’s potential beyond simply moderating harmful content. by detecting comments encouraging engagement or providing valuable feedback, ai supports newsroom efforts to build a more interactive and responsive community. however, the ai’s effectiveness depends on continuous retraining and refinement to adapt to changing language patterns and topics. chatbots are revolutionizing how media organizations interact with their audiences by providing efficient, personalized, and interactive experiences. journalists can leverage ai powered chatbots to deliver tailored content, answer reader queries, and deepen reader engagement. axel springer launched hey_, an ai assistant integrated with bild, allowing users to explore journalistic topics interactively. hey_ offers personalized content in various formats, including summaries, highlights, and even personalized bedtime stories. it proactively guides users through conversations, making interactions dynamic and engaging. this tool enables journalists to present content in an interactive dialogue format, enhancing the reader’s experience. news organizations are increasingly using ai translations to reach global audiences and make content accessible in multiple languages. le monde’s launch of its english edition in 2022 and the economist’s use of ai for their espresso app showcase two distinct approaches. le monde leverages ai technology like deepl to translate 30 long form articles daily. however, maintaining the publication’s quality standards requires a multi step review process involving translators and journalists. this hybrid model ensures that translations align with le monde’s stylistic preferences and uphold the high standard of english expected by readers. “the quality of the translation comes first,” emphasizes arnaud aubron, head of development at le monde, highlighting the importance of combining ai efficiency with human expertise. in contrast, the economist takes a more automated approach for their espresso app, targeting a global audience with ai translated content in french, german, mandarin, and spanish. due to the rapid update cycle of espresso, which refreshes around 20 times a day, translations are not edited by humans, as the workflow requires swift execution. senior editor ludwig siegele acknowledges the limitations, noting that while ai translation is “good enough” for their purposes, it is not without flaws. the team monitors the output, removing embarrassing errors if necessary. both le monde and the economist use ai translations strategically: le monde focuses on ensuring quality through human intervention, while the economist prioritizes accessibility and speed. ai audio editions are transforming journalism by making news accessible to audiences who prefer listening or need alternatives to text. media organizations like aftenposten, twipe, and google are leading in this field, using ai to create efficient, engaging audio content. aftenposten developed cloned voice technology with beyondwords, turning written articles into audio for those with reading difficulties. their system uses a familiar host’s voice to provide real time updates, ensuring familiarity and speed in delivering news. twipe’s experimentation shows that voice quality and personalization are critical. feedback highlighted the need for clear, emotionally nuanced voices. twipe is exploring segmenting content by type (e.g., local, sports) to match listener preferences. google’s notebooklm takes a different approach, generating ai podcasts directly from uploaded documents. its audio overviews feature mimics the speech cadence of human podcasters, making summaries feel conversational and engaging. users can adjust settings like length and playback speed, allowing personalized listening experiences that adapt to diverse needs. the tool has gained popularity for its ability to create quick, digestible podcasts from complex content. these ai audio solutions demonstrate how technology can expand newsrooms’ reach, improve accessibility, and enhance engagement. by refining voice quality and offering tailored formats, media organizations can adapt to changing consumption habits, making journalism more inclusive and dynamic. ai is reshaping journalism by enhancing efficiency and enriching the audience experience. from automated content generation to personalized audio editions, these tools streamline tasks and broaden the reach of newsrooms. yet, while ai excels in handling repetitive and data driven activities, the core of journalism investigation and storytelling remains a human endeavor. just as photography complements painting, ai complements journalists, expanding their capabilities without replacing creativity. the future lies in this collaboration, where ai and journalists work together, ensuring that the essence of storytelling remains central, supported by technology’s precision and scale. join our community of industry leaders. get insights, best practices, case studies, and access to our events. "(required)" indicates required fields "(required)" indicates required fields ©2025 twipe mobile solutions nv gaston geenslaan 8, 3001 leuven, belgium vat id: be 0838 686 645 "(required)" indicates required fields automated page speed optimizations for fast site performance

the credo of watergate is still relevant: find the best obtainable version of the truth. but doing so is only getting more complicated we all have moments in life when we know something big is happening, that we are stepping into a new and consequential experience, and our mind takes a mental polaroid, an intensely clear snapshot of what that moment looks like and how it feels, and then stores it away in a file marked “important”. well, my mind does anyway, and in my professional life so far there have been three. it’s late 1987. i’m nearing the end of a cadetship at the canberra times and it is finally my turn to work in the newspaper’s press gallery bureau at old parliament house. i had chosen the canberra times over other opportunities because i figured it would be the fastest path to being a political reporter, the only kind of reporting i was really interested in; and here i was, on a sunny spring morning, walking past the roses and straight in the front door of that white building i’d seen every night on the news, because i worked there. i had to pause to calm my nerves. all i could think was: “now i can start.” it was more than a decade after watergate, but like most reporters of my generation that investigation was an already mythologised touchstone for the power of journalism to effect change. i absorbed that quote from woodward and bernstein: “all good reporting is the same thing   the best obtainable version of the truth.” from the starry eyed perspective of an excited cadet, that idea seemed simple. over the next 36 years, i came to understand how slippery and difficult it could be. as the waves of financial and technological change battered and shifted how and what we did, when the very concept of truth as the foundation of public debate was challenged, achieving the best obtainable version of the truth became very complicated indeed. in the late 1980s, the news cycle still moved with the sun. papers dropped on the lawn in the morning and we had until the evening to file news for the following day. there was more time to ask questions and talk to contacts. more time to think. and as we all know, in those days, the media held a near monopoly on the attention of readers, a commodity that ensured those “rivers of gold” in advertising revenue kept flowing. this manageable tempo made it easier to find and test information, but the gatekeeping role also conferred on publishers considerable power to shape public opinion and determine which ideas, and whose ideas, got to be heard, how the obtainable version of the truth was portrayed and framed. news could be angled to suit the commercial or ideological interests of owners or toned down to ensure no advertisers complained. all the big mastheads in australia held that traditional gatekeeping power, but it was wielded most overtly by news corporation, an organisation i had joined as a junior reporter in 1989. as successive governments approved mergers that steadily reduced the number of publishers and increased concentration in media ownership over the ensuing decades, urged on by the editorial columns of some of those same papers, concern that power was being exercised in a way that harmed australia’s democracy eventually grew to the point that more than 1 million australians signed a petition supported by two former prime ministers, from opposing parties, calling for a royal commission. but that’s all to come. then, as now, there were diligent reporters at the australian working hard and breaking news, and then, as now, it took an editorial view on issues and politics, as it is entitled to. but, as has been extensively traversed over the years, including in robert manne’s 2011 quarterly essay bad news, the exercise of power did at times appear to override the truth. the organisation’s coverage of global heating is an obvious example. it highlighted the views of climate sceptics long after the science was clear and those views were discredited, fomenting doubt and confusion to back an editorial position often in favour of australia delaying effective domestic action, a goal that sadly, it helped to achieve. the positioning became too much even for james murdoch at the height of the 2020 bushfire crisis, when he and his wife, kathryn, released a statement saying they were “particularly disappointed with the ongoing denial among the news outlets in australia given obvious evidence to the contrary”. the power of publishers to influence the news was of course not a new phenomenon. as evidenced by the guardian’s reckoning with the connections of its founders with enslavement through their commercial ties to the cotton trade, it had long been the case. in the 1800s, the manchester guardian’s editorial columns deplored the existence of slavery in the us, but then failed to support prescriptions to end it. as the global editor in chief, katharine viner, wrote in our editorial series on the issue “cotton capital”, it is “difficult to avoid the conclusion that the commercial interests of the founders may have influenced the paper’s editorial policy”. the establishment of the scott trust in 1936 as the guardian’s sole shareholder has protected our editorial independence since that time. coming back to australia in the 1990s   press gallery bureaus were big enough for reporters to have specialist rounds and there was healthy competition for quite detailed policy coverage across all mastheads. but over time, i also saw how some senior reporters sacrificed fully scrutinised assessments for easy exclusives from politicians with whom they were close. when i was appointed political correspondent for the australian in 1994, a senior press gallery colleague invited me to coffee to inform me that “they”, by which i believe he meant some of the blokes who held most of the senior roles in the press gallery, didn’t think i would cut it, because i didn’t understand how it worked. to succeed as a political correspondent you had to “do favours and be owed favours” he said, develop sources who would help you, and you them. i was, he said, far too straight down the line, too much like michelle grattan. i continue to admire michelle grattan and the many other press gallery reporters who are straight down the line. sources and trusted relationships are necessary to do that job, but never at the expense of fairness and facts. getting too close to sources is a danger, and not only for the politics beat. for me the unbearable pressure point came when i briefly returned to the australian in 2009 and was assigned to cover the copenhagen climate conference. for several days running i was asked to leave the meeting with 150 world leaders and 20,000 delegates with the fate of a global agreement to reduce emissions hanging in the balance, to travel across the city to the copenhagen climate challenge. this was a gathering of a handful of climate deniers including the australian geologist prof ian plimer who said he was in copenhagen to try to stop the world engaging in the “global collective madness”. the request, i was told, was being made in the interests of “balanced coverage”. eventually, along with a few other australian reporters, i went and filed a gently sassy sketch, having discovered a few old fellows drinking fruity lexia at lunchtime and talking about how the weather had seemed much hotter when they were lads. i believed, given the overwhelming heft of scientific evidence, that continuing to elevate the views of climate deniers was distortion, not balance. and yet it’s still happening. a 2022 report by the institute for strategic dialogue found australia’s sky news channel has become a central source for climate science misinformation around the world. but, if we dismiss that view of balance and objectivity as an extreme example of false equivalence, what is the alternative? i fall back on the simple formula from bill kovach and tom rosenstiel in their 2007 book, taught in most journalism schools, the elements of journalism. they make the case that objectivity is not something required of each journalist personally, there should be no expectation that we come to our desks devoid of all views or thoughts or opinions, but rather it is something required of the method each journalist applies in conducting their work. objectivity means employing observable, repeatable methods of verification. it means always following the facts. our methods have to be objective and, as far as possible, transparent to our readers. we should care deeply about where the truth lies. but we have to be clear about how we go about finding and assessing it, how we amend or change or correct a story when new information arrives or when we have got something wrong or when our assumptions are challenged. it can be elusive and we need to document the hunt. as alan sunderland, the journalist and former abc executive, wrote in meanjin in 2019, “regurgitating the views of others without assessing their factual basis is not journalism. balancing a smart well informed view with an ignorant ill informed view and giving them the same weight is not journalism. failing to care about where the truth lies is not journalism.” we all come to this task with life experiences that inform what we know and how we view the world, our gender, our background and education, our race or ethnicity, our sexual orientation, and those experiences make a newsroom richer and better able to tell stories, find sources, understand what is going on around us. i don’t want reporters to leave their true selves and experiences at home. we can’t possibly see what we need to if we are only looking at the world through the eyes of middle class white folk. and at the moment, guardian australia has a way to go on that front. at the same time no view or perspective can override the facts, or result in us refusing to consider a different point of view, or not telling a story because we wish it wasn’t true or because it challenges something we believe. it can never mean we only include the sources who agree with what we think if there are reasoned alternative views. and yes, that does involve judgments on our part, which we need to be able to defend. it makes it all the more important that we never rush to pre emptive or ill informed judgment on social media. truth might be hard to pin down, but it is not just what we want it to be. shying away from stories because we wish the world was otherwise is doing the audience just as much a disservice as pulling punches to protect a friendly source. as rosenstiel said in a 2020 twitter thread on the issue: “if we mistake subjectivity for truth, we will have wounded an already weakened profession at a critical time. if we lose the ability to understand other points of view we will have allowed our passions to overwhelm the purpose democratic society requires of its press.” that exchange came as both the media and democratic society were changing at dizzying speed. digital platforms were eroding the gatekeeping power of the old publishers and upending their business models. some politicians didn’t just spin, they lied. and then they attacked the press for calling them out. they advanced “alternative facts”. some news organisations began reporting falsehoods as facts, and then found themselves unable to stop doing it because their audience now believed so completely in the falsehoods. attaining the best version of the truth kept getting harder. but again, i’m getting way ahead of the story. it’s early 2013, almost exactly 10 years ago, as it happens. i’m sitting with katharine murphy on the grass beside the big pear sculptures outside the national gallery. we’ve both been offered jobs at the soon to launch guardian australia by katharine viner, who was guardian australia’s launch editor: me as political editor and murph as my deputy. in the uk, with its billion pound scott trust and, at that stage, 190 year history, the guardian was an institution for the ages. but guardian australia was a philanthropically funded experiment. i was, at the time, chief political correspondent for the sydney morning herald, murph was at the age and the then fairfax chief executive, greg hywood, had told us we were mad, that the guardian might be a good brand in some suburbs in london, but the only news brands that would ever have any clout in australia were fairfax and news corp. in other words, australia’s concentration of ownership could never be broken. we knew he might be right. it was a risk. but we had the chance to prove him wrong, and if we did we would be helping to create a new voice, and an unashamedly progressive voice; not partisan, but happy to plant a stake for the truth. in a last ditch attempt to dissuade us from resigning, hywood had sent an executive to canberra to have coffee with each of us that weekend; a nice bloke who we met, one after the other, and then we regrouped there on the lawn by the pears. we each typed our resignations, counted to three and pressed send. i was attracted to the idea of a digital only offering at a media organisation at the forefront of working out how to manage a news cycle which no longer moved with the sun, but rather changed by the minute. this was a time when we were optimistic about the possibilities of how digital journalism could help us understand our readers and learn from them. it was a time when facebook and twitter were useful places to get information, talk to people who would otherwise be out of our view, discuss and debate and distribute our news. we were still hopeful about this new town square, and there were good reasons to be. the media’s gatekeeping power was being challenged. being factchecked and challenged in real time, facing competition from bloggers and startups, seemed like a potentially positive kind of shake up. but we could see we were facing big changes. and a lot has changed. we still do benefit from interaction and challenge and ideas from readers but over time the social platforms became addictive traps. we depended on them for distribution even as the migration of eyeballs to their sites eroded our revenue base. virality favoured the uncomplicated, the emotional and the dogmatic. nuance seldom went viral. the logic of online interaction, the algorithms that favoured emotional extremes, the news sites that monetised clicks by feeding readers the ultimately unsatisfying sugar hit of titillating easy consumption, it all formed a cycle, a kind of centrifugal force that pushed online debate towards ever more toxic extremes and an increasingly polarised readership. civilised disagreement was swamped by divisiveness and anger and people entered closed loop information systems impervious to alternative ideas. some politicians fomented and capitalised on the whole mess and the polarisation corroded trust, that essential glue in a democracy, including trust in the press. in 2018 trump’s erstwhile strategist explained a plan to push this democratic destruction even further. “we got elected on drain the swamp, lock her up, build a wall. this was pure anger. anger and fear is what gets people to the polls,” steve bannon told bloomberg’s michael lewis. “the democrats don’t matter. the real opposition is the media. and the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit.” the news cycle was already moving too fast, already angry and partisan, but flooding the zone went further, aiming to deliberately overwhelm people with conflicting information to the point where they gave up on ever finding the truth, or turned off news altogether, or chose to blindly follow a side, a team. and once people identify with a side, once opinions become integrated into an understanding of personal belonging, they are heavily and instinctively motivated not to assess available information but rather to seek out information that supports their team view, which, on the internet, is always possible to find. i think many of us know good people who disappeared into that vortex during the traumatic years of the pandemic. and so we spin into a polarised world where there are chunks of the population that can’t tell fact from fiction, where a president can convince 40% of the population he won an election that he obviously lost, and encourage some of them to stage an insurrection. in an essay for a conference about authoritarianism and faultlines in democracy, jelani cobb, the dean of the columbia journalism school, wrote: “the crisis of american democracy has been facilitated by the crises confronting american journalism. “hindered by declining revenues, a diminished public trust, a shrinking labour force, and the emergence of a sophisticated disinformation ecosystem, the press, as the debates over the covid vaccines and the 2020 election indicate, has had difficulty convincing many americans of basic facts.” how do we hold on to the truth if the best obtainable version of the truth no longer forms guardrails of public debate and disagreement? how do we filter a firehose of disinformation, or factcheck a torrent of lies? these were questions i was soon going to have to deal with in an entirely new way. but again i’m jumping ahead in the story. sign up to afternoon update our australian afternoon update breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what’s happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion it’s now may 2016. a crisp clear evening, the sun just setting, and i am standing outside parliament house, waiting for a lift. the tufty haired gang gang cockatoos are hanging from the nearby trees, noisily eating red berries, my proximity not deterring them at all from their feast. katharine viner, now the guardian’s global editor in chief, calls from london to offer me the editorship of guardian australia. it was a call i’d been hoping for but i was momentarily overwhelmed. we were still so small and the task was so big. a few years before this, nine entertainment had been allowed to merge with fairfax, concentrating the major media market even more than before, shrinking the sources of australian news (other than us) from five to four   nine, news corp, seven west media and the abc. the australian competition and consumer commission at the time it approved the takeover acknowledged that that deal reduced competition in the market for australian news and information, but said it did not reduce competition sufficiently to be in breach of the law because “other players, albeit smaller, now provide some degree of competitive constraint”. the first listed “other player” was us, guardian australia. could we be competitive enough to make a real difference? the first challenge was financial. with the digital platforms eating away at advertising revenue we launched reader revenue, a slightly counterintuitive plan to ask readers to pay for something when they didn’t have to. it is now more than half our revenue. a few years later, the news media bargaining code also forced google and facebook to the negotiating table to do deals with publishers, including us, a model that jurisdictions around the world are seeking to replicate. the second challenge was how to grow. we needed more journalists and deeper expertise. some generous philanthropy helped us bring forward expansion plans, we turned a profit and paid back the philanthropic loan that had helped us launch. we expanded a little more, and then the code helped us grow again. when we started we had about 20 editorial staff, about 40 in total including commercial and operations. now that stands at 167. the third, and by far the trickiest, was how to steer the course. if readers were overwhelmed, perhaps some information could be framed differently, as explainers, inserts in stories to quickly give context and background, data representations, lists of the main points. if some readers, young readers for example, were never going to come to our painstakingly curated news site, then we needed to present our stories as podcasts, or insert our news into their social media feeds. when we do, they consume it. there are ongoing regulatory questions about tiktok, but with minimal resourcing we are reaching more than 2 million viewers a month with quite serious topics. last year, for example, we had 1.5m views to an explainer about the conflict in tigray. but how to navigate a polarised world, where we could factcheck misinformation all day and never report on the issues we consider important and where countering an untruth can help to draw attention to it. these are judgments to be made every day. but there are also reasons for hope that we might be able to hang on to fact based debate. in australia at least, the pandemic seemed to shock politicians out of their reflexive divisiveness and governments responded with an unusual degree of cooperation. our job was made easier because, for the most part, australian decision makers followed expert advice and sidelined the shrill voices urging them to do otherwise. and readers responded to the pandemic with a seemingly insatiable need for information   they reached for the best available facts and knowledge provided by all the mainstream news sites as something solid to cling to as our former lives and plans dissolved into uncertainty. and it turns out, this more measured fact based discourse enhanced trust in institutions. social cohesion, as measured by the scanlon report and trust as measured by the reuters digital media report, and our own guardian essential poll, all rose. people reported greater trust in all institutions, including the media, although the latest reports suggest the covid trust bump might now be waning somewhat. meanwhile, anthony albanese has so far made a better fist than some of his predecessors of delivering on the promise to “change the way politics operates” by dialling down the temperature of the public debate, implementing his policies and empowering his cabinet, and the polls suggest the electorate likes this too. voters are also responding to the kitchen table politics template set by cathy mcgowan when she won the seat of indi in 2013, and followed with such stunning success by the teals in 2022; they like the grassroots doorknocking campaigning of the greens, and the community conversation strategy that was so successful in the same sex marriage plebiscites, and is being re employed by the yes campaign in the referendum for a first nations voice to parliament. perhaps calmly talking things out and respectfully discussing differences can prevail over traditional campaigning tactics if we can bypass the commercial and technological pressures incentivising division. and, as judith brett examined in her book from secret ballot to democracy sausage, australia has a degree of inoculation from the polarisation infecting politics elsewhere by virtue of a system that compels people to at least turn up to vote. i’d add our shaky and very inadequate but still extant social safety net as another brake on the worst extremes of inequality that fuel an entirely justifiable mistrust in existing institutions and systems. taken together, i think there is room to hope that we can hold on to factual discourse in australia, that evidence based policymaking has somehow re emerged from more than a decade of leadership coups and sloganeering. but now it’s 2023 and i can sense another polaroid moment coming. i’m just not quite sure what it is yet. or whether the picture will be real. artificial intelligence, ai, is developing faster than we can keep up with it. in essence, our ability to train computers to learn in a way that imitates human knowledge and behaviour is developing exponentially. in recent months a new form of ai has captured the global imagination. generative ai tools synthesise new content from existing content, whether that’s text, video, code, imagery or audio. they are built on large language models which ingest billions of pieces of information and intellectual property from across the web, identify patterns and respond to our prompts, suggestions and questions. this gives them an incredible facility for language which is perhaps their most dazzling trick: we can talk to them and instruct them as we would another person and they talk back to us in fluid and seductive ways. many of us would have experimented with one of those chatbots like chatgpt (the initials stand for generative pre trained transformer). about 100 million people around the world have done so, and have been amazed at the incredible speed with which it produces highly plausible sounding answers and boggled by the possibilities of the technology. for us in journalism there are many potential uses and some very obvious dangers. it’s an opportunity and a potential threat and it’s happening whether we like it or not, and so very fast. as a simplistic example exercise which i could factcheck very easily, i asked chatgpt to write a profile of me. i must say it was very flattering, but it got a couple of things wrong, including my birth year, the year i started journalism, where i have worked, when i was awarded a walkley award and what it was for, apparently i won the award for covering the goss government’s first budget in 1995, when i have actually never covered queensland politics and anyway the first budget was in 1990. the mistakes went on, culminating in the “fact” that in 2018 i was apparently awarded “the press freedom medal by the australian journalists’ association” in recognition of my “outstanding contribution to the defence of media freedom and the public’s right to know”, which would have been lovely but the aja has not existed as a standalone entity since 1992. while i think the press council might occasionally award a similar sounding medal, i have certainly never won it. it was all written in a highly credible emulation of real human prose. but chatgpt is not human, it has no critical faculty and certainly no commitment to the truth. it doesn’t know what the truth is. it is basically predictive text on hyper steroids. as melissa heikkilä said in the mit technology review in february: “ai language models are notorious bullshitters, often presenting falsehoods as facts. they are excellent at predicting the next word in a sentence, but they have no knowledge of what the sentence actually means. that makes it incredibly dangerous to combine them with search, where it’s crucial to get the facts straight.” as our head of editorial innovation, chris moran, wrote: “the question for responsible news organisations is simple, and urgent: what can this technology do right now, and how can it benefit responsible reporting at a time when the wider information ecosystem is already under pressure from misinformation, polarisation and bad actors.” the opportunities are exciting, but as moran says, the concerns extend beyond how the media uses chatgtp. we are also worried about how chatgtp and other programs use us. for example, chatgpt provides citations to books and academic papers and articles, but some of them are also made up, including citations to nonexistent articles allegedly published by the guardian. these fabrications are termed “hallucinations” but that really is anthropomorphising things; the computer models do not have brains that temporarily lose their grip on reality, they have no actual understanding at all. this raises obvious questions, including how we respond to the fact that these large language models are crawling the web, including all of our licensed content, without recompense, to chew it up and spit it back out in a kind of huge information terrine that may at times completely falsify our work, or provide what appears to be an alternative to our work which is in no way the best obtainable version of the truth and may well be false. newsguard, a company that gives trust rankings to online news companies, found 49 websites that appeared to be publishing hundreds of articles a day that look like news stories but seem to have been written by ai with little or no human oversight, specifically to generate advertising revenue, complete with apparently ai generated “about us” pages, disclaimers and copyright notices. the obvious potential is for a torrent of unreliable information that would leave steve bannon in the shade, vast quantities of articles, books and reviews so laced with mistakes and falsehoods that we completely lose sight of where truth lies and consumers of news and information are even more baffled and overwhelmed and potentially misinformed than they were before. as emily bell, director of the tow center for digital journalism at columbia university’s graduate school of journalism and guardian board member, wrote this year: “the real peril lies outside the world of instantaneous deception, which can be easily debunked, and in the area of creating both confusion and exhaustion by ‘flooding the zone’ with material that overwhelms the truth or at least drowns out more balanced perspectives. “this is all moving so fast it is more like a blur than a moment of clarity.” through all of this it seems the need for factual, quality news is greater than ever. the flood of non information makes the assembling and digging for facts, the critical analysis of information, the reporting of things that need to be known and would not be, but for our work, even more important than before. we do it as part of a community of readers now, open to suggestions, correction and debate, we distribute our work in different ways, and we urgently need to find new ways to distinguish it and stand by it amid the emerging tsunami of misinformation. unlike an algorithm, we care about where the truth lies and we must make the loudest possible case for its importance. because the principles and essence and purpose of this job are the same as when i was a baby reporter walking into old parliament house for the first time and i am as excited by it now as i was back then. it feels good to be able to say that after 36 years. i’m also privileged to lead a team of incredibly talented, innovative, determined and principled reporters and editors who very regularly have better ideas about how to fulfil our mission and confront these issues than i do. which is just as well, really, because the task has become a lot more complicated than i had ever anticipated. lenore taylor is the editor of guardian australia this is an edited version of the 2023 brian johns lecture, delivered on 11 may. the lecture series was established by the macquarie university centre for media history and the copyright agency to honour the contribution of brian johns ao to broadcasting, publishing, digital media and the arts

sign up sign in sign up sign in jennifer brandel follow we are hearken    5 listen share two particular questions have been haunting newsrooms’ strategy conversations, causing severe moral dilemmas and destabilizing the industry. they are: should we give the audience what they want? or should we give the audience what they need? besides introducing a false dichotomy, the big trouble with these questions is that they start from two flawed assumptions: 1. that newsrooms already know what audiences want and 2. that newsrooms can and should determine what their audience needs. the framing of these questions doesn’t leave room for members of the audience to actually speak for themselves. instead newsrooms assume a position akin to parents making decisions about their children’s diets. to draw out the metaphor, if newsrooms give the audience what they want, they’ll ask for content equivalent to candy and hot dogs (e.g., listicles and fluff). and if newsrooms give the audience what they need, they’ll cross their arms and stick out their tongues like it’s hot, mushy broccoli (e.g., the “important stories,” or however a newsroom defines the less sexy, yet critical, work). so how do newsrooms determine what the audience wants? they’re increasingly looking to analytics for answers. with finer and finer grain metrics, they pore over which of the newsroom’s offerings get the most clicks, shares, time on site, or whatever the metric du jour is. they then do their best to repeat whatever they believe was the magic ingredient of the story’s success. john west does a brilliant job of unpacking the serious problems inherent in metrics based editorial decisions in a recent quartz piece, humans are losing the battle against kardashian loving algorithms for the soul of new media. he argues that while metrics have emerged out of the real need to monetize digital publishing, privileging those numbers in editorial decision making leads the industry to conclude that the audience wants fluff, punditry, sports, and celebrity gossip. west goes on to argue how that reading may not be true, and that metrics can be misleading and biased. the more newsrooms play out this metrics scenario   further attempting to measure audience desires by the limited number of stories they offer   the more their offerings narrow as they try to zero in on the ever changing magic formula to attract the clicks and dollars (cents). but less variety has never made for a healthier, vibrant democracy. (for more on this point, check out this follow up post, in comics form.) what does that even mean? the general assumption is that what audiences need (aka “what’s good for them”) is “hard” news and investigative stories. but the read on metrics seems to tell newsrooms that if you give the audience what they need, they’ll balk (just like serving children their vegetables). the problem with this whole mindset traces back, again, to who gets to decide what the audience needs. the traditional model of journalism awards editors and reporters that power. they make those decisions around editorial tables filled with people who don’t often resemble the demographics of the communities they’re hoping and trying to serve. yet, audiences are more informed and have more control over their own media diets than ever before. they’re already making decisions about which news sites to read, which reporters to follow, and which links to click. they don’t require newsrooms to guess at their needs and make decisions for them, no matter how good those intentions. they need newsrooms to cut through the noise, listen to their actual needs, and respond accordingly with relevant stories. since audiences know their own information needs better than a reporter ever could, why not just ask them what they need? these two simple yet deeply flawed questions about wants and needs are leading newsrooms and their journalists to stray further from their mission and purpose. which leads to the question: what is the purpose of journalism? answers are infinite, but the american press institute’s definition offers a solid starting point. it says the purpose “is to provide citizens with the information they need to make the best possible decisions about their lives, their communities, their societies, and their governments.” so, if that definition resonates, then a better question newsrooms could focus on answering is this: what does our community not know that we could help them find out and understand? to answer this question, journalists have to start by listening to their audience. they have to ask: “what don’t you know? what do you want to know? why do you want or need to know it?” in the process, reporters grant their audience a voice and affirm their ability to determine their own needs. by starting stories with the audience’s stated information needs, reporters then can know whether their stories are truly relevant before the metrics (or comments) roll in. to learn what their audiences don’t know but are interested in finding out, newsrooms can use a variety of methods   and they don’t have to involve expensive surveys and unwieldy focus groups that conclude with vague answers like “do more education stories.” here’s how some newsrooms are going about it, using a model we’ve been developing (aka the hearken model): hearken newsrooms start by gathering specific audience questions. depending on the newsroom, those questions might be about the next city council meeting, a particular beat, the region as a whole, etc. these questions are a form of actionable feedback for reporters and become instant, targeted assignments from the public. but why collect questions, rather than asking audiences for story pitches or suggestions? i’d say questions are a beautiful framework because they come from a neutral place of curiosity. whereas on the flip side, soliciting pitches or suggestions often ends up attracting people with an axe to grind or marketers with a product to sell. it attracts people who already know something and who want other people to know that thing. when journalists get inundated with feedback like that, they can feel like shills, and can understandably become less open to listening to their audiences. questions instead create a neutral meeting ground where information can be procured, shared and used to advance a collective understanding, rather than further divide audiences along lines of pre formed opinions. after all, every news story is in some way the answer to a question. what’s the weather going to be like today? who won the game? what important things were decided at that important meeting? questions form the backbone of journalism. the audience is curious. why not let them ask, too? based on our experiences with hearken newsrooms around the world, we’ve found that starting stories from submitted audience questions allows journalists to serve that public by publishing stories they both want and need. bonus: this approach serves the bottom line, too. here are just a few examples from our newsrooms in which audience questions have led to stories that are relevant and popular and satisfy the audience’s information needs. michigan radio continuously takes questions from their audiences and reports answers via their series m.i. curious. one curious citizen named j.t. cross asked, “what’s the status of the aged enbridge oil pipeline running through lake michigan at the straits of mackinac?” there wasn’t much transparency about the plans for this pipeline, and media coverage of it had fallen out of the standard reactive, press release fueled news cycle. had j.t. called up the company in charge of the pipeline and asked for answers, it’s unlikely he would have gotten far, and yet this was a clear information need for j.t. and his community. his one simple question lead to a series of stories that broke news, spurred action and even netted michigan radio a regional edward r. murrow award for investigative journalism. reveal (the center for investigative reporting) broke big stories about the california drought. oftentimes, big stories lead to even more questions, but usually when audiences ask those follow ups they get buried in the comments section (if a newsroom even has comments). there’s no obvious dedicated space for the audience to make their information needs and wants known. reveal wanted to offer that space, and they wanted to keep the drought conversation and coverage going past the breaking news cycle, so they asked their audiences, “what questions do you have about the california drought?” over the course of just a few days, they gathered 96 incisive questions, and reported answers to a solid handful of them. conveniently, the team already knew answers to many of the questions from earlier reporting, but they didn’t have reason to release it until the audiences asked for it. reveal also put a few of those audience questions up for a vote and reported out the answer to this fascinating question: “how much does water cost, and what is its actual value? what are the economic and political factors that go into how water is priced?” wyso is a tiny but mighty public radio station in yellow springs, ohio. they’ve been using the hearken model since before it was officially called hearken. and their series wyso curious shows that oftentimes news organizations miss great questions hidden in plain sight. former managing editor lewis wallace answered a question (submitted by multiple listeners) about the origin of a bright blue lake off a highway in town. he said that just about everyone in town had wondered about that lake but no news outlet had covered the story. lewis’ answer was the most popular story ever posted on the wyso site, by a wide margin. the australian broadcasting corporation (abc) runs a series called curious canberra to cultivate questions about that city and region. the first question they answered was asked by a number of people: are there secret tunnels in canberra? the resulting story was one of the top stories of the month, and even broke their facebook share record with a teaser video before the story’s release. our partners have collected thousands of audience questions and reported hundreds upon hundreds of stories like these: original stories that are both on mission and extremely popular. a newsroom can take a public powered approach and listen to their audience using any number of tools (such as, of course, hearken), but the key is much more fundamental than any technology and workflow solution. it starts with a new mindset that doesn’t require newsrooms to choose between their metrics and their mission. that mindset requires removing the assumption that newsrooms know best, and acknowledging that audiences are experts in their own interests and in their own communities. this mindset accepts that audiences are equipped to recognize their own information needs and that they are fully capable of asking great questions with tremendous news value. and this mindset positions journalists as the right resource to provide fact checked, quality answers. we think audiences will take notice if newsrooms truly start listening to them rather than assuming what they want or need. and we can’t help but believe that audiences will truly care about and support newsrooms who serve their needs so directly. from the hearken medium a comic treatment of a tragically broken problem in journalism (companion piece to this post) questions are the new comments a serious problem the news industry does not talk about design thinking applied to journalism culture change is hard from around the internet humans are losing the battle against kardashian loving algorithms for the soul of new media by john west escaping the digital media ‘crap trap’ by jim vandehei the engagement manifesto from the ccj engagement summit want to learn how to better engage the public? download our free engagement checklist guide.       5 the hearken team's thoughts on journalism, engagement, and tech. hearken means: to listen. we believe that listening to your audience first, not last, makes for better everything. we're here to help: http://www.wearehearken.com/ accidental journalist turned ceo of a tech enabled company called hearken. founder of @wbezcuriouscity find me: @jenniferbrandel @wearehearken wearehearken.com help status about careers press blog privacy terms text to speech teams

we collect limited information about web visitors and use cookies on our website to provide you with the most optimal experience. these cookies help us provide you with personalized content and improve our website. to learn more about our web site privacy practices, please review vcu's privacy statement. by clicking on "i agree", you agree to this use. i agree consenting to vcu's privacy policy requires the use of javascript. please enable javascript functionality in your browser so you do not see this message again. “i’m grateful to have the support to continue my music education, and i have been inspired to someday create my own scholarship fund. i want to have the same profound impact on others that this opportunity has had on me.” zaiendae smith (class of 2021)recipient of the beverly j. warren scholarship
supported by times insider reader callouts are like fliers on a digital bulletin board. they help journalists find sources   and discover stories they didn’t know they were looking for. by vivian ewing times insider explains who we are and what we do, and delivers behind the scenes insights into how our journalism comes together. every day, new york times reporters knock on doors and make phone calls to find stories. they spend hours, weeks and months on old fashioned, boots on the ground reporting. but a reader callout   an online form designed to elicit responses from certain people   can do what no other tool in the reporting tool belt can. like a flier on a bulletin board or an advertisement that asks “has this happened to you?,” a callout helps reporters reach many more people at once and find just the right source for their story. and sometimes, reporters discover stories they didn’t know they were looking for. in february 2023, lydia depillis, a reporter on the business desk at the times, was reading through hundreds of responses to a reader callout that asked “how has the economy affected you?” one reply caught her attention. the response was from a woman named leah rivard of la crosse, wis., who had written about the challenges of her work in television broadcasting and how she felt trapped in a low paying job by a noncompete clause. ms. rivard was barely making ends meet at $15.87 an hour. “every time i pass a culver’s billboard saying they start people at $18.50, i feel defeated,” she wrote, referring to the restaurant chain. “please, please, please talk about how journalists in smaller market newsrooms are struggling,” she added. ms. depillis contacted ms. rivard and asked about her experience. from there, she reached out to ms. rivard’s co workers and manager, and to others who were dealing with similar challenges. “it was one person who wrote in, but she was the window to this whole issue,” ms. depillis said. her investigation culminated in an article titled “noncompete clauses get tighter, and tv newsrooms feel the grip,” published in april 2023. callouts allow reporters to ask specific questions to a general audience, and offer potential sources the privacy to share sensitive information. (the times does not publish information gleaned from callouts without first contacting a respondent, hearing back and verifying that respondent’s information.)