Commentary on What Journalists can do to Stop the Spread of Misinformation

How Journalists Can Address Mistrust in Pandemic Coverage and Help “Flatten the Curve”

Crowdsourcing truth and how journalists can avoid spreading coronavirus misinformation: Q and A with MIT professor David Rand

In these two similar articles, there is two very different approaches. I want to first begin talking about article one by Melissa Bailey, I want to make quick notes on the format and site design, as it is important to the information shown. The cite is Nieman Reports in large bold letters and Harvard in the corner, cutting down some credibility at first glance of the average reader, but reveals the author's face and name to the side at it's own section, giving a face to a name increases trust with the reader. The words are large font with short paragraphs with subtitles throughout the entire article, making it significantly more user friendly than that of Journalist's Resource. This means that Nieman Reports is designed for non-journalist readers, those who want short, large, and simple information with plenty of hyper links to click on.

In this first article I notice that it holds back compared to the second article, it is simple and user friendly, almost speaking in Leyman's terms. It uses sources of sources, and multiple professionals to promote credibility. It understands the current common media consumption of keeping things short, simple, and easy to understand. The article doesn't have an easy to find date, but the information it provides can be helpful outside of even these times. 

It can been seen as talking to a specific demographic of people, but even that can vary based on background, the slight jab at the spread of misinformation of Facebook which are a demographic of 30 and above, a demographic that aligns similarly to the majority party voters of the president they mention as another main source of misinformation. An interesting note of that, is all the techniques they mention, when mentioned at it's basics, sounds as if one is talking to a kid. Keeping information simple, repeat it, use pictures, expect people to be too stuck in their ways to change for the better. What sounds like talking to kids, is also how one may talk to their grandparents when explaining how to use their new cell phone.

The last two sections differ from the pattern a bit in what they are for. They say to quote professionals rather than politicians, and that makes sense for one main reason, liberals don't trust conservatives, and vice versa. The polarization of the political parties make it where journalist must be careful who they quote or else they lose the trust of the opposite party, but when quoting well known medical and science professionals, you have a higher chance of gaining trust of both sides. Finally for the first article, the last section, explain your process. This is for one simple reason, they don't trust the media. Often times people will blame the media for panic and discourse, and by showing your process it makes them trust you more as it seems you are hiding nothing from them.

The talk for the second article will be short was I was using it as a comparison mostly, but this article shares many of the same information but with a key difference. It feels as if it was written for researchers and journalists, those who are serious about this and not a casual read. The Harvard logo is much bigger here to let you know where this is coming from, in the title there is the name of a MIT professor, giving all their credibility up front. This article isn't a compilation, it's an interview, a primary source.

The author is hyperlinked, the date is clear to everyone who needs to know, extra information is below, related articles are to the side, the information is almost crammed to add more space and to give an air of professionalism. Article two is not much for the common user scrolling through Facebook and shares after skimming through, this is a starting point or continuation for someone's research journey.