In recent years, there have been renewed challenges to the credibility of news. Journalists and their way of knowing have been contested on a number of fronts and trust in news in the United States, and beyond, is in decline. Against this backdrop, several pertinent questions have been posed: How can we trust what journalists say? How do we know that it is true? What makes news valid? These are important epistemological questions that have not been fully addressed in the literature on news credibility. With this in mind, the purpose of this dissertation is to explore what makes news, from an audience perspective, credible or not. It does this by exploring credibility through an epistemological lens, considering audience views on news as a form of knowledge and journalism as a way of knowing. The central argument is that the epistemological beliefs that individuals hold with respect to journalism matter when it comes to perceptions of news credibility; that beliefs about the nature of valid knowledge and knowing in journalism inform perceptions of what are 'good' and 'bad' journalistic practices.In light of this, the present dissertation explores three key questions: 1) What are individuals' epistemological beliefs as they relate to news and journalism? 2) How is the epistemology of journalism, as it is practiced, viewed by individuals? 3) How do the epistemological beliefs and perceptions of individuals relate to or shape views of news credibility? To examine these questions, I draw on data from semi-structured interviews with 65 people from diverse backgrounds in the United States.I find that, first, most people articulate core beliefs which see valid news as certain, simple, primary-sourced, and justified by a correspondence between factual claims and reality. However, these beliefs shift according to the epistemological context. As news contexts become more interpretive, individuals emphasize how journalists ought to balance relative truths rooted in different perspectives, sets of facts, or ways of knowing. These beliefs constitute an idealized form of straightforward objective, impartial, and balanced news which may not necessarily be attainable but which individuals compare real news to. Second, I find there is often a disjuncture between the idealized beliefs of individuals and the perceived epistemological approaches of news sources. Journalists are often seen to diverge from audience expectations, failing to remain objective, include all relevant information or perspectives, and demonstrate how the claims made match with the facts of the external world. Third, I observe that this disjuncture - an epistemic incongruency - has important implications for news credibility. Journalism, as a profession and institution, relies on credibility for its legitimacy, authority, and social and political relevance. But this credibility is both under threat and in decline. I argue this occurs because of an incongruency between what audiences say they want (their epistemological beliefs) and what they see journalists doing (their epistemological perceptions). The findings suggest that, based on what audiences say, to gain credibility, journalism may need to pull back from interpretive or evaluative styles of news, instead revisiting more traditional notions of objectivity, impartiality, and balance. On the other hand, audiences may need to recognize issues in their beliefs and idealized views of news, tempering their expectations and acknowledging the epistemic limitations of journalism and of traditional norms. Findings point to possibilities for both journalistic and audience reflection and education at a time when questions have been raised about notions of fact and truth.
Read
