Three Things for May 27, 2021

Tim Eby | Public Impact Group

Welcome to the May 27th edition of the Three Things newsletter for public media leaders from the Public Impact Group. With Memorial Day weekend approaching, we’re publishing on Thursday to give readers a little extra time before escaping for the long weekend. Here’s what’s up this week:

1. Competition Note: The expansion of Axios Local

2. A recent study notes that most of the public do not fully embrace key principles of journalism

3. What can journalists and news organizations do about the problem of trust?

THING ONE: The Network Effect of Axios Local

A few weeks ago¹, I shared info on a couple of startups (6 AM and City Cast ) moving into local markets with a newsletter and/or podcast strategy. These efforts are designed to fill in gaps in the local news ecosystem, similar to public radio’s focus to expand our local journalism.

On Monday, Axios Local announced its expansion into eight more markets², adding to the six it rolled out earlier this year. An article in AdWeek detailed the process that Axios Local is taking in each market.

In each outpost, Axios Local hires two reporters who work in tandem to produce a daily newsletter. While the final products differ slightly, most newsletters feature six content sections, called “cards,” and at least one piece of original reporting. The journalists curate reporting from other local news affiliates, striving for a mix of long- and short-form material that balances gravity and levity.

The newsletters have attracted 350,000 subscribers in the first four months of operation and, with this expansion, are on pace to generate $5 million in revenue this year. That number is still minimal compared to the corporate sponsorship revenue from the public radio stations in those 14 markets. However, if you peel back to the digital revenue generated by those stations, the number looks to be much more impressive.

The approach that Axios Local is taking by delivering an early morning newsletter to audiences that are very similar to the public radio’s core is worth paying attention to:

1. Axios Local is building a habit-forming loyalty in the morning in much the same way that public radio has done in broadcast with Morning Edition.

2. By having the network effect of Axios Media handling the business and technology activities, the local overhead costs in each Axios Local market are minimal compared to place-based media organizations like a public radio station.

3. In the digital space, it’s difficult to distinguish our mission and our products from our commercial competitors.

A couple of thoughts to consider that stations should think about to counter these competitive threats.

• Make mornings your priority to serve your digital audiences. If you’re doing a daily newsletter or podcast, deliver no later than 6 am. These products need to have a unique voice that reflects your digital presence. This will probably require some workflow changes with content staff, so think about how you can best approach those disruptions. KUOW in Seattle is an excellent example to follow with its morning podcast.

• Think about how you can effectively message these morning products to your broadcast audience, particularly during afternoons, evenings, and weekends. Also, of course, don’t forget your social media channels as well.

• Consider how you can effectively package these products to new clients that are looking for digital buys.

• And most importantly, don’t wait.

The competitive environment is such that we can’t spend a year starting a new product or program. Be thoughtful, be smart, but be nimble and quick. Our competitors see the opportunity to capture audiences seeking local news and information in various ways, and we can’t be complacent about our efforts to innovate with new ideas.

THING TWO: Do Americans Share Journalism’s Core Values?

I’ve written a lot about trust in the early days of this newsletter because it seems to be so vital to journalism, and in a larger sense, the state of our democratic society.

So I was excited to tune on Tuesday to the National Press Club Journalism Institute’s webinar³ that provided an overview of a study released last month from the Media Insight Project⁴ looking at the issue of media trust.

The conversation centered on the findings that many Americans are skeptical of what journalists consider their core mission. What was shared is that people’s moral values -- not political bias -- may be key to understanding the news industry's trust crisis.

The study revealed that only 11% of Americans unreservedly endorse five core journalism principles (oversight, transparency, factualism, social criticism, and giving voice to the less powerful⁵) tested in a study.

The results of the study show people’s views toward the media are connected with deeper feelings they have about basic moral values and which of those values they view as most important.

“This study opens up a new way of thinking about trust in the news media, and it offers fresh ideas for how to address the problem,” said Tom Rosenstiel, executive director of the American Press Institute. “The findings show journalists may be able to win the trust of skeptical audiences by reexamining some basic notions of what is important and what basic values are emphasized in news coverage.”

What’s so interesting about this research is that it isn’t clearly distinguished by political party or ideology. The researchers explain that the findings are more linked to differences in five key moral instincts or values: care, fairness, loyalty, authority, and purity. These values cut across demography and ideology.

For example, people who most value loyalty and authority are much less likely than others to endorse the idea that there should be a watchdog over those in power. Meanwhile, Americans who most value care and fairness are more likely to think society should amplify the less powerful voices.

The study found significant differences in support of journalism values depending on people’s partisanship, ideology, race, and education.

Researchers found that ideology and partisanship relate closely to the core journalism values that journalists define as part of their mission. That finding by itself may help explain why journalists often argue they are just doing their job, and some conservatives will see bias.

To put it simply, liberals are more likely than conservatives to consider the five journalism values important. There are numerous examples. Nearly half of those who described themselves as liberal in the study (41%) think it’s important to spotlight problems to solve what is wrong in society. Only 8% of conservatives put the same value on such social criticism.

Partisan differences also showed up when it came to how much importance people put on the need to have oversight of the powerful and how important it was to amplify the voices of the less powerful. At least 3 in 10 Democrats (30%) were among those who ranked such oversight and giving voice to the less powerful (35%) as top values. Just 6% of Republicans fell into the highest quartile when giving voice to the less powerful and 13% for oversight.

The research segmented groups into four distinct clusters based on their responses:

• The Upholders (35% of Americans) have a strong emphasis on moral values and authority

• The Moralists (23% of Americans) show strong support for both moral and journalistic values

• Journalism Supporters (20% of Americans) place high importance on moral values of care and fairness.

• The Indifferent (21% of Americans) are more skeptical about moral and journalism values.

What is interesting is that these groups do not break strictly along partisan or demographic lines. For instance, Moralists, who tend to have some but not unqualified trust in the media, include a large number of people who identify as politically conservative as well as many Democrats and people of color. Meanwhile, Upholders include a mix of political moderates and conservatives as well as people with varying levels of education.

And Journalism Supporters, the group most trusting of the press, make up the most educated and youngest of the groups. While many are Democrats, a large proportion—roughly a third—describe themselves as politically moderate. The Indifferent are very politically diverse with a mix of Democrats, Republicans, and independents.

There’s a lot to unpack from this study. I also encourage you to read Joshua Benton’s NiemanLab post criticizing the research. It’s an interesting debate.

THING THREE: Some Ways for News Organizations to Rebuild Trust

The Media Insight Project research also presents some tactical ideas that journalists might think about to broaden the moral appeal of the stories to reach people in all of the groups we identified in Thing Two. The study took some basic news stories and wrote each of them in two different ways. In some instances, the revised stories that highlighted additional moral angles were more appealing to all types of people.

For example, significantly more people considered a revised version of a story about election security to be balanced (62% vs. 44%). More also considered the revised story trustworthy (78% vs. 70%).

It will be interesting whether journalists would consider these types of tactics to widen the appeal of stories. Reporters and editors are sure to challenge this approach as a form of pandering to one audience. Yet, the study showed that even people who already trust the press tended to like stories more when those stories were revised to broaden their appeal.

Worth noting that Tom Rosenstiel, Executive Director of the American Press Institute, stressed during Tuesday’s webinar that the study does not suggest:

• That journalists should abandon their professional standards & values

• Or that the public’s values are in opposition to core journalistic principles

• That journalists should stop telling stories aligned with values like social criticism

But it does suggest that many Americans have reservations about journalism. Those doubts are not just ideological or demographic. And that those doubts can be addressable, in part, with widening the framing of stories.

A final benefit from the research focused on revising marketing messages to broaden the appeal of a news organization to a larger constituency. The survey tested different messages asking respondents to support a local news organization financially. The findings suggest people’s moral leanings definitely influence what kind of messaging about journalism they find appealing.

• People who most emphasize care or fairness, for instance, were more motivated by a message that highlighted the outlet’s commitment to protecting the most vulnerable through their news coverage.

• People who emphasized authority and loyalty preferred a message about the outlet’s long-term service to the local community.

In the webinar, two examples of marketing messages were offered.

• The message, “We look out for our most vulnerable. Support us today,” had a strong appeal to those who most value care.

• A second message, “We’ve served our community since 1906. Support us today,” effectively connected with those who value authority.

The findings suggest that news organizations should further explore whom their marketing messages appeal to and whom they do not. As discussed earlier, many of the journalism values more strongly resonate with people already supportive of journalism, often liberal-leaning Americans. Yet people who most value authority, which is often a more conservative value and often held by people more distrustful of the press, may respond favorably to different messaging.

While we’ve always sought to utilize various messages in our fundraising appeals, this research adds an additional tool in our toolkit as we look to expand our reach to a broader audience both to consume our content and financially support it.

Thanks for reading this week’s newsletter. Have a terrific Memorial Day. If you’ve not yet done so, please subscribe to have Three Things delivered to your inbox each week.

1. See Thing Three: Habits Are The Heart of Our Digital Future

2. The expanded markets are Atlanta; Austin, Texas; Chicago; Columbus, Ohio; Dallas; Nashville, Tenn.; Philadelphia; and Washington, D.C.

3. The panel featured Tom Rosenstiel, Executive Director of the American Press Institute; Jennifer Benz, Vice President of Public Affairs and Media Research at NORC at the University of Chicago and deputy director of The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research; Emily Swanson, Director of public opinion research at The Associated Press; and Tom Huang, Assistant Managing Editor for Journalism Initiatives at The Dallas Morning News. Lisa Nicole Matthews, President of the National Press Club, moderated the conversation.

4. The Media Insight Project is an initiative of the American Press Institute and the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research

5. Oversight - a journalist’s job is to act as a watchdog

Transparency - society is better if things are out in the open

Factualism - the more facts people have, the closer they will get to the truth

Giving voice to the less powerful - amplify the voices of people who aren’t ordinarily heard

Social criticism - spotlighting problems helps society solve them