MODULE 3, UNIT 1
Construction of Truth
Verifiable Knowledge, Models of Expression
and The Fourth Estate 

Goal:  Describe the methods of scholarly (historical and scientific) and journalistic accountability, the value of the Fourth Estate to democracy, and how the four models of expression affect the work of professional journalism.

How do you know when information is truthful? How does one verify the accuracy and authenticity of written and audiovisual information? Over centuries, scholars of all types and journalists have developed various methods for verifying research and finding the best obtainable version of the truth. Before these methods, Europeans relied heavily on faith and superstition for information. Then came the Renaissance (14th-17th centuries), which pushed Europeans to think independently and not unquestioningly believe authorities like the church, the king, and tradition. That period led to the Age of Enlightenment (17th and 18th centuries), an intellectual, philosophical, and scientific awakening where methods of verification emerged. Philosophies like rationalism – which encourage reasoning, observation, and evidence-based conclusions – changed the way scholars in every discipline sought to confirm information and form knowledge.

Scholarly Methods of Verification

As a student, you are most likely familiar with scholarly methods – the set of academic standards and practices used by scholars and academics to ensure rigorous inquiry, critical review, and the trustworthiness of their work. Scholarly methods include two main approaches: the historical method, through which historians verify their interpretations, and the scientific method, through which scientists prove (or disprove) their theories and claims. Both of these methods inform the practice of professional journalism and the journalistic method – a parallel set of rules and practices that professional journalists and editors use every day to attain accountability and the truthful reporting of information and data.

Historical method of verification

Historians, when trying to figure out what happened, critically analyze historical events by reviewing multiple sources of information about those events and comparing interpretations to gain a deeper understanding of what happened, why it happened, and how different perspectives might influence people’s understanding of the past. Essentially, historians don't accept the dominant narrative at face value and instead seek to uncover complexities and nuances through rigorous research and questioning. For example, why or how did the U.S. Civil War happen? What are the causes, consequences and motivations behind the rise of authoritarian regimes? How has the status of women changed over time?  What are the causes of human migration?

History became a distinct academic discipline in the 19th century. The historical method includes guidelines and formal collection procedures that help historians construct accurate descriptions of past events. Trained historians draw upon primary sources (sometimes called original sources) that include documents of all kinds (letters, diaries, manuscripts, ledgers, and interview transcripts), photographs, audio-visual recordings, or other original sources created at the period of time under scrutiny. The historical method also relies upon secondary sources – sources that offer information about a primary source. Secondary sources are works or interpretations by others, and might include books, articles, case studies, or documentaries. A historian is trained to identify relevant primary and secondary sources, understand their context, assess their relative authority, and synthesize them into a cohesive interpretation. This interpretation is a construction of truth – a reliable picture of the past.  

For example, in 1913 the first national parade for woman suffrage occurred in Washington, DC. Five thousand women participated in the procession as an estimated 100,000 people watched. If someone relied only on evidence from one person about what happened during the parade, it would be an incomplete historical narrative. While some at the start of the parade testified that the parade met no resistance, this is an inaccurate story. Testimony from multiple participants and observers documents the crowd ripped flags and banners from the marchers’ hands, tore medals from clothing, attempted to pull women from floats, and pinched and tripped the marchers.^[1] The disruption was so intense, the cavalry had to be called in to clear a path for the parade to finish. A careful review of primary historical documents (Congressional hearing testimony from multiple witnesses, photographs, newspaper accounts, memoirs of participants), and systematically figuring out how all these fit together, provides a more complete accounting of what happened. A methodical analysis of primary and secondary sources leads to sound interpretation.

Scientific method of verification

Like historians, scientists have spent centuries creating techniques for investigating questions about the world. How large is the universe? Can humans stop the aging process? What are the neurocognitive, autonomic, and mood effects of stimulants like Adderall? To answer these, and a million other, questions with truth and integrity, scientists employ the scientific method.

The scientific method provides a framework for systematic inquiry – a series of steps to follow when testing and experimenting to measure the likely truth of an hypothesis or the applicability of a theory. It embraces skepticism (not cynicism) and contingency; conclusions can and should always be changed as new data emerges. It also involves working within established rules and procedures, sometimes making mistakes, readjusting one’s theories, and trying again.

The flow chart below is one example of applying a scientific method of verification.^[2] It starts with an idea, which is determined to be bad or good based on experimentation, and that idea leads to a theory that is then also improved.  

Flowchart by Bettina Fabos, CC-BY-NC-SA 

Many paths are possible to flow through experiments and theory building. Scientists often work on teams, with many scientists working in coordination with each other and the larger scientific community. As with all areas of academia, the scientific method involves exacting criteria for publishing studies, and platforms for critique and disagreement.

The scientific method can be frustrating and unpredictable but also exhilarating. It can be frustrating if an experiment’s results do not align with one's hypotheses. It can be unpredictable because an accident or unexpected outcome can lead to absolute failure, but also to discovery: Some estimate that unplanned discovery happens between 33% and 50% of the time.^[3] 

For example, Post-it Notes were discovered when an unexpected outcome occurred during an experiment. In 1968, a young American organic chemist fresh out of graduate school named Spencer Silver started a new position at 3M's Central Research Labs. He was tasked with developing a super-strong pressure-sensitive glue for aircraft construction. Through experimentation with different chemicals, Silver encountered an unexpected molecular discovery: his adhesive was weirdly weak rather than super strong. It could stick without sticking and could be used over and over again without leaving a residue. 3M patented this wimpy glue as a low-tack spray in 1972 and Silver, looking for a marketable use, presented the spray-glue to other chemists throughout 3M and asked what it could be used for. In 1974, another 3M chemist, Arthur Fry (from the tape division), attended one of Silver’s presentations and got an idea. His bookmark kept falling out of his hymnal during church choir. Could the wimpy glue keep it in place? After six years of experiments, Post-it Notes were finally sold in stores.    

Arthur Fry, who found a market for Silver’s low-tack glue discovery and invented Post-it Notes.
Public Domain, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Fry#/media/File:Fry-lightbulb-on-forehead1.jpg

An erroneous experiment may inspire further experiments that not only correct the original error, but also identify new, previously unsuspected paths or scientific “truths.”^[4] New knowledge based on scientific experiments informs understanding of the world around us – from medical breakthroughs, to figuring out how black holes in space function, to the creation of Post-It Notes.

As scientists question and build upon existing knowledge, they are simultaneously challenging that existing knowledge. In this process of constructing and reconstructing scientific conclusions , the scientific method “can’t supply absolute truths about the world, but it brings us steadily closer” writes Naomi Oreskes, professor of the history of science at Harvard University. “To say that science is ‘true’ or ‘permanent’ is like saying that ‘marriage is permanent.’ At best, it's a bit off-key. Marriage today is very different from what it was in the 16th or 18th century, and so are most of our ‘laws’ of nature.”^[5] But, just because the scientific method does not produce absolute certainty does not mean it is flawed. A conclusion reached through a rigorous process that makes reasoning and data explicit is more likely true than random conclusions or gut hunches, and the scientific method creates a process where one is always encouraged to correct one’s mistakes by constantly looking for new data.

Building on existing knowledge

In academia, scholars (including scientists) build upon the research of previous scholars – work that has been systematically peer reviewed, tested, and retested. When scholars of any discipline begin a new line of academic research, they start by reading and evaluating what has already been written. In other words, they do a thorough examination of the topic, acknowledge the accepted truths of that topic, and build upon this existing research. Researchers strive to find the most rigorous research published in respected journals and books.

Citations

If you have ever been tasked to write a research paper based on academic scholarship, did you have to list your references in a bibliography? Listing references is no mere exercise, but the way both students and researchers can make clear the existing knowledge they considered for their new work. Citations and references are an essential part of the academic method of verification. Very often, the reference list is the place readers turn to first.

Photograph by Bettina Fabos, CC-BY-NC-SA

References and citations are how academics maintain continuity as they build upon each other’s work and remind readers what important ideas came before, and what new research is being highlighted. Citing the work of experts is also a way to document the rigor of one’s own scholarship as researchers synthesize established knowledge and generate new questions. In general, academics try to consistently contribute new knowledge while also acknowledging the established knowledge that came before their work.

Every discipline is fluid rather than stagnant, as new ideas challenge older conclusions. Sometimes this means challenging other scholars or accepting others’ criticisms. This back-and-forth dialogue often leads to redefinitions of key principles in fields.

For example, one accepted truth in Middle Age Europe was that bad air transmitted diseases such as cholera and the plague. People often wore masks stuffed with aromatic herbs to protect them from bad or poisonous air, referred to as miasma. However, by the late 19th century, several scientists – through experiments – revealed that germs were the source for many diseases. By the 1850s, British physician John Snow theorized that germs in water were the cause of a cholera outbreak, and recommended filtering and boiling water, which worked. Others, such as French chemist Louis Pasteur, discovered that bacterial contamination in milk and other products could be prevented by boiling – a process called pasteurization (named after him). These two scientists and others helped to eventually advance “germ theory” and discredit “miasma theory” around the world, and led to advances in clean water and food, and standards for sterile surgery conditions.  

Disseminating ideas through scholarly media

Scholars publish articles, book reviews, and books so others in their specific fields can access, evaluate, and cite their work. Where to publish is an important decision. The goal is to publish articles in academic journals with a reputation for using a rigorous peer review process.

Peer review is a process by which other experts in a field review work before it is published. When an essay is submitted for publication, the editor of the journal usually sends the work out to two or three peer reviewers who are experts in the methodology and/or subject area. Peer reviewers assess the methodology used to reach conclusions, the quality of the argument, how it interacts with existing knowledge, and the clarity of the writing. Only those works that pass this process of peer review are published. This means when people read research published in academic journals, other experts in the field have assessed the work and found its conclusions to be worthwhile and warranted.

Scholars also publish books through academic presses, which are most often affiliated with established universities (e.g., Oxford University Press, Cornell University Press). These university publishing houses require a similar kind of rigorous peer review before a book based on research is published. The critical assessment of book-length projects continues in book reviews, written by academic peers and published in academic journals.

Academic research creates a constantly changing, exciting, and sometimes discordant dialogue as theories are being tested and reworked. The latest academic truths emerge as information becomes available through a rigorous system of checks and balances, including citations and references; peer-reviewed conferences, journals and books; and book reviews. Being an academic scholar means one’s ideas are constantly evaluated; and academics can be frequently rejected from conferences or publication because their work isn’t strong enough. The system works, most of the time, in building and maintaining integrity.

Journalistic Methods of Verification

Like scholars, journalists also adhere to a method of verification to construct the truth or find the most attainable version of the truth at a given point in time. But, what is journalism? And what is the journalistic method?

Like novels and movies, journalism tells stories. But that’s where the comparison ends. Journalism is a cultural practice of telling verified, nonfiction stories that inform people. Those attributes also separate journalism from advertisements and public relations (which tell stories on behalf of clients and their perspectives), and social media influencers (who often are sponsored and likely work without a system of verification).

Journalism is not historical or scientific research, although journalists often do cite historical and scientific research, and sometimes themselves delve into history or collect data for their investigations. But, in contrast to scholarly research, journalism produces stories frequently, often on a daily basis (even more frequently for breaking news stories).

A common saying is that “journalism is the first draft of history.”^[6] The important part of that phrase is “first draft.” Because of the demands of publishing quickly (e.g., “breaking news”), journalism offers a first look, not the final look. Drafts are meant to be revised, improved, and developed.

Typically, journalistic stories also have a broad audience on the web, social media, television, radio, podcasts, and other platforms. News media seek to make their stories relevant to as many people as possible for civic reasons, but also to (in most cases) profit from subscriptions and advertising.   

Why do people need accurate and verified  journalism? People in a society have what journalism scholars Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel call a “hunger for awareness.”^[7] This “awareness instinct”^[8] induces people to seek out information so they can live their lives as informed, safe community members. People need to know who or what is threatening them, how things function, and who or what they need to know more about. “Journalism provides something unique to a culture,” write Kovach and Rosenstiel: “independent, reliable, accurate and comprehensive information that citizens require to be free.”^[9] 

People certainly get some of that hunger for awareness answered in their interpersonal and social circles. People learn a lot from family and friends – in person, and in those they keep up with through telephone calls, texts, and social media. But, people’s capacity for awareness goes far beyond that. If people want to know what else is happening in their city, region, country, or around the world, the news media help to expand people’s horizons.

Verification through sources

Journalists and their editors are human beings who come to their profession with their own sets of biases. Bias can be hard to overcome. That’s why the journalism profession has developed a shared set of standards to mitigate bias and generate accurate, truthful information through verification. Here are some of the basics of the journalistic method.

Professional journalists seek the most obtainable version of the truth for audiences by following a shared set of standards to verify what they report. Some of those standards include:

• Confirmation through multiple sources. A single source is never enough. Trained journalists obtain two, three, or more sources to confirm or deny the validity of information. Think back to the parade story earlier. One witness might say the parade proceeded with no interference if they were at the start of the parade. But witnesses who were positioned in the middle of the parade know it was held up for hours by crowd interference and the failure of the police to respond.

When journalists receive leaked emails, internal reports, or whistleblower accounts, trained journalists check and double check to determine if these accounts are reliable and believable. When federal government sources refuse to share information, journalists can request public information through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA); states also have similar laws on public records.

• Reliance on experts. Journalists choose sources based on the person’s knowledge about the situation they are covering. For example, New York Times journalist Tomas Weber interviewed and gathered information from a wide range of expert sources for an article on how anti-obesity drugs like Ozempic are threatening the ultraprocessed food industry.

• He interviewed five experts from “food innovation” companies that  develop ultraprocessed food:

• the chief innovation and marketing officer (Mattson)
•  a senior vice president (Conagra Brands)
• a “relationship manager ” (Mattson)
• a “director of insights and artificial intelligence” (Mattson)
• a senior food scientist (Mattson)
• He gathered additional info from a video call with numerous Ozempic users facilitated by Mattson’s consumer-insights team

• Weber also interviewed five food-related scholars or researchers:  

• the director of the University of Florida’s Florida Chemical Senses Institute, 
• a food-industry analyst
• a food historian at New York University
• a food-addiction researcher
• a psychology professor at the University of Michigan

• He followed a person who takes Ozempic through a supermarket as they gravitated towards fruits and vegetables (and avoided ultraprocessed foods)
• And, finally, Weber analyzed posts from a Reddit Ozempic support group

Although he followed an individual and read Reddit posts, he triangulated that information with expert sources that helped him understand the issue from multiple perspectives.^[10] 

• Review of evidence. Journalists seek out documents to verify information. They scrutinize court records, laws and policies, historical texts and archives, and databases. They sometimes refer to peer-reviewed studies that are academically or scientifically authoritative. For example, in the earlier example of the article about Ozempic, journalist Tomas Weber supported his interviews with studies and reports from

•  the New England Journal of Medicine
• the National Library of Medicine
• the Alzheimer’s Foundation
• a market research firm, the Morgan Stanley investment firm, and
• USDA economic data

Weber had to distill a range of scientific and technical discourse about Ozempic and ultraprocessed food into a jargon-free article aimed at a general audience. For both expert interviews and documentary evidence, trained journalists do the hard work of translating difficult concepts and technical jargon into common sense language that anyone can understand. Because journalism is for all citizens, it needs to have clear concepts and accessible language.  

• Editorial review structure. Journalists write stories that get reviewed by a chain of editors. At the biggest news media outlets, a journalist submits a story to a section editor, who reviews its content, and who then has the article reviewed by a copy editor. In some cases, the editor in chief reviews the biggest stories. If it’s an investigative report that has taken weeks or months to research and write, fact checkers comb through every fact and source in the article draft, paragraph by paragraph, to make sure all information is accurate (“Was it a red scooter?”; “Did the source actually say a politician should jump out of a window?” “Does it take three hours to get from Northampton, Mass. to Saratoga Springs, NY?”). In some cases, the article gets passed along to the news organization’s legal counsel. The editorial process can be tedious, costly, and careful. But it’s an important part of journalistic integrity as they try to tell accurate stories. To get a sense of how closely fact checking assesses for accuracy, consider this example:

An estimation of a fact checked magazine article: Every fact is checked by multiple sources to ensure accuracy before publication. Image courtesy Bettina Fabos.

Why objectivity is the wrong goal of journalism

Telling stories – which is what newspeople do – is anything but objective. Deciding what stories deserve coverage, which primary and secondary sources to use, who to interview, what quotes to use, how to start a story, and what should be included in the news or not on any given day – these are all subjective decisions.

Still, journalists do a number of things to eliminate the appearance of partiality. Political journalists often register as independents, instead of with a political party. (How they vote in a voting booth is their own business, although some political reporters decide to not vote at all.) Codes of ethics of many news organizations and groups like the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) recommend that reporters act independently and not be involved in political activities or accept gifts or favors from sources. They encourage reporters to be thorough in their reporting and open minded: “Support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant,” the SPJ says. 

If journalists can never be completely objective, what is the standard by which audiences  should judge journalism and its accuracy?

The answer is verification. There is the old saying in journalism, “If your mother says she loves you, check it out.” The idea is that nothing should be assumed, and everything should be verified.^[11] As Kovach and Rosenstiel plainly state, “journalism is a discipline of verification.” The need to verify and fact-check is what distinguishes journalism from advertising, public relations, and much of what appears in social media (if it’s not a post from a news organization). Indeed, politicians often hate being fact checked, and will frequently allege a reporter’s bias in the process. But fact checking is verification, and that’s what journalists do.

Overcoming confirmation bias

A politician complains about being fact checked. An everyday person complains that a story is “not objective.” What do these complaints mean? Usually, the complainer feels a story is biased or unfair in some way, favoring one perspective over another. In practice, it often means the person complaining didn’t agree with the story’s description or conclusions. But, just because a person disagrees with a news story’s conclusions does not mean those conclusions are wrong.

We don’t have this expectation in sports reporting. When it comes to objectivity, if it’s the local college or pro team, we expect the reporter, who acts like a surrogate for the hometown fan, to favor the local team over the visiting team. In the Olympics, or perhaps the World Cup, there is similar cheering for the national team. But even if a person thinks their team or favorite athlete should not have lost, the story reporting the loss is not wrong.

However, where there are conflicting positions on the same terrain – the local sports reporter favors the city’s East High School over West High School – complaints of not being objective often emerge. But, what if West High played a terrible game, and the news was merely reporting that? Is that being “not objective?”

In political stories, concerns about objectivity are like that local sports story, but dialed up even more, as the stakes for politics are even more profound than sports’ bragging rights.

Here is where we, the authors of this handbook, want to ask you to reconsider using the word objective as a statement of how trustworthy or reliable the news is. Too often, being “not objective” means the complaining person didn’t like what was reported about a politician or political issue they support. There’s a term for this: confirmation bias. 

Psychologists in the 1960s defined confirmation bias as “the tendency for people to search for or interpret information in a manner that favors their current beliefs.”^[12] People are encapsulated in their own world view: they get news from friends and social media feeds (which have algorithms adapted to the person’s likes). So when people get news that doesn’t comport with their way of thinking, a knee-jerk reaction might be to call it “not objective.” (Saying a journalistic account is “fake news” is another common response, and we’ll get to that in the next unit.)

Instead of immediately alleging bias against a report or reporter one didn’t like, the person making the allegation should instead consider two things:

1) Is the report factual? That is, is the information verified?

2) Is the negative reaction against this report because it is truly incorrect, or is it because it undermines my confirmation bias? That is, is the story correct, but upsetting my own comfortable worldview?

The essential elements of journalism

The classic book explaining what good journalism should be is The Elements of Journalism: What Newspeople Should Know and the Public Should Expect by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel.^[13] In the book, they identify 10 elements of journalism. We recommend the entire book to you, but for this handbook we will focus on the first five elements. This unit has covered number 1, 2, and 3 so far:

1.  Journalism’s first obligation is to the truth.
2.  Its first loyalty is to citizens.
3.  Its essence is a discipline of verification.

These first three statements are essential to the information environment as community members. If people can’t get honest, reliable, verified information about their community and world, how do they cultivate a democratic civic environment? Or, to consider this question from another perspective, what would life be like if people had absolutely no source of truthful news in their daily lives, government policies, the weather, or economic conditions? It sounds like the conditions for a complete breakdown of a civil society, and an opportunity for authoritarians to hold power over the people.

The next two elements of journalism from Kovach and Rosenstiel are statements that address journalism’s role in keeping the populace free from authoritarian repression.

4. Journalism’s practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover.
5. It must serve as an independent monitor of power.

No. 4 requires that professional journalists must be independent. They shouldn’t have conflicts of interest (e.g., receiving gifts from those they cover), nor should they forfeit their independence in exchange for gaining access to those they interview. No. 5 is related – journalists must be an independent monitor of power. That is the idea behind “watchdog journalism” – journalism functioning like the citizens’ watchdog, alerting people to wrongdoing and corruption by institutions and leaders in government, business, religion, nonprofits, and other areas.

Being a journalist these days is particularly difficult where state or authoritarian governments seek to censor or completely outlaw journalism, sometimes resulting in the imprisonment or murder of journalists just trying to do their job. The next section explores the various models of expression in governments around the world.

Constructing Truth Under Various Models of Expression

Across the world, journalism and free expression matters. Some governments, however, attempt to control journalism. Because knowledge is power, that explains why autocratic governments want to deprive people of knowledge in order to better control them. Meanwhile, democratic governments encourage all people to have knowledge, to better ensure that the center of power resides with well-informed citizens. Because journalists seek the truth (and oftentimes the truth about those in power), some governments find  the practice of journalism extremely threatening.

Four Models of Expression

Since the mid-1950s, communication scholars and historians have relied upon four conventional models to categorize the different approaches nations can have toward the press. A 1956 book titled Four Theories of the Press identified the models as: communist/state, authoritarian, social democracy, or libertarian.^[14] These four models fall on a spectrum from not free to very free. The four models are informed by how the press (and other news media) developed around the world, and particularly what the main descriptive categories were in the Cold War world of the 1950s.

With the communist/state model, the government controls the press because government leaders believe the press should serve government goals. Ideas that challenge the basic premises of state authority are not tolerated. The 1956 book specifically cited the Soviet Union as the main example at that time, but numerous countries still fit this model, including China, North Korea, Afghanistan, Iran, and Turkmenistan. News media leaders are appointed, either by the state or through family ties. There is no such thing as fair and open elections in this model of expression. There is no or little free expression. Indeed, only propaganda exists under the communist/state model. Journalists create “news” to serve the state.

With the authoritarian model, wealthy elites control the press because they believe the general public needs their guidance, and they use the government to serve their interests. Developed in sixteenth-century England (at about the time the printing press arrived), an authoritarian government maintains control by censoring media that critique government actions and by supporting media organizations that are sympathetic to its agenda and the agenda of the ruling-class. Under authoritarianism, journalism outlets often join with government and business to foster business interests (which help the ruling class), minimize political dissent, and promote social stability. In these societies, both reporters and citizens are punished if they question leaders and the status quo too fiercely. It is common for authoritarian governments to surveil, ban, intimidate, terrorize, imprison, or even murder journalists who attempt to tell verified truths that counter the official government narratives. Authoritarian governments may pretend to have a free press, but in reality it’s highly managed through coercion. Today, authoritarian systems operate in many countries: Russia, Hungary, Venezuela, and many other countries throughout Asia, Latin America, and Africa,

With the social democracy model, the press is free to function as a Fourth Estate – that is, an unofficial branch of government that monitors the legislative, judicial, and executive branches for abuses of power and provides information necessary for self-governance. The press serves the people, not the government or wealthy elites. The press is usually privately owned (although the government technically operates the broadcast media in most European democracies). This model characterizes the ideals of mainstream journalism in the United States, and most European democracies, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan.
Illustration of the Fourth Estate in the United States by Ben VanHorn, Mili Saliu, and Bettina Fabos, CC-BY-NC-SA

It’s important to understand the role of U.S. journalism as the “Fourth Estate,” an unofficial fourth institution of governance (after the three official U.S, government branches: the legislative, executive, and judicial) that provides a check on power to hold the government accountable.  The Fourth Estate is an independent check on abuses of power within the government.

With the libertarianism model, no restrictions are placed on the mass media or on individual speech. It encourages vigorous government criticism and supports the highest degree of individual and press freedoms. Thus, libertarians tolerate the expression of everything, from publishing pornography to advocating anarchy. The focus is not on communication that serves a public interest. In North America and Europe, the best examples of libertarianism are social media platforms or websites that have no content moderation, so any idea, no matter how misinformed or malignant, can be published.

The four models of the press developed in 1956 offer a good foundation, but fall short of being able to adequately explain contemporary media. As noted above, the United States has been described as a nation that best fits the social responsibility model of the press. The U.S. has mainstream news media that fit the “social responsibility” watchdog role, including news organizations like the Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, NPR, CBS News, ABC News, and NBC News, Politico, the Associated Press, Reuters, ProPublica, and local/regional news organizations like the Minnesota Star-Tribune, Miami Herald, Chicago Tribune, and the Seattle Times.

At the same time, the United States and other nations with a history of social democracy media systems are, at times, leaning into aspects of authoritarian models. The international nonprofit Reporters Without Borders (RSF, or Reporters Sans Frontières) noted the extreme pressure being applied to journalists around the globe. “Press freedom around the world is being threatened by the very people who should be its guarantors – political authorities,” the RSF said.^[15] 

Among the 180 countries and territories ranked in the RSF’s World Press Freedom Index 2024, the U.S. fell 10 places, to 55th, “amid growing distrust in the media, which is at least in part fuelled by open antagonism from political officials, including calls to jail journalists,” and “chilling actions, including raiding newsrooms and arresting journalists.”^[16] Other countries falling in the rankings include Italy, 46th, where government figures are  “​​orchestrating a takeover of the media ecosystem, whether through state-owned media under their control, or privately owned media via acquisitions by allied businessmen,” and Argentina, 66th, ranked down 26 places after the new president routinely “vilified journalists and treated [the press] as enemies” and closed the state news agency, turning it into a state advertising agency.^[17]

What is your country’s model of expression? Democracies, which depend on a robust and unfettered journalism of verification, should never be taken for granted. Inevitably, governments in power want to control the narrative and maintain power. They don’t like it when journalists uncover uncomfortable truths about mistakes, corruption, and opportunism. When governments inhibit journalists’ efforts to report the truth, those governments can more easily slip towards authoritarianism because there won’t be any watchdog journalists to report it.

The next three units in this module concern the rise of fake news at this moment in U.S. and world history: How fake news has been around for centuries (but has taken on a new character in the Internet age); how some media institutions are exceptionally adept at promoting and creating fake news; and how to identify fake news by identifying good journalism.