Chillin’ Effects of Fake News: Changes in Practices Related to Accountability and Transparency in American Newsrooms Under the Influence of Misinformation and Accusations Against the News Media

Fake News and Journalism in the New Mediascape

Fake news is not a new phenomenon (Standage, 2017; Tandoc et al., 2018). It has been a part of the history of the news media for centuries before the digital era. But the term has only gained attention in the public and political discourse in the months of Brexit and the U.S. presidential election in 2016 (Hirst, 2017). Prior to that, “fake news” was used to refer primarily to TV shows that broadcast political satire and news parody content (Ha et al., 2019). Different accounts have defined fake news in slightly different ways. According to the American Dialect Society, fake news is “disinformation or falsehoods presented as real news” or “actual news that is claimed to be untrue.” Collins Dictionary’s Word of the Year in 2017 defined fake news as “false, often sensational, information disseminated under the guise of news reporting” (see Ha et al., 2019 for more details). Within the current mediascape, fake news, to many, is much more about a wider discontent with the information landscape—including news media, politicians, and platform companies (Nielsen & Graves, 2017). To politicians like Donald Trump and others, who have relentlessly weaponized the term to attack the mainstream press, fake news simply means the coverage that they do not like (McNair, 2017). Levi (2017) labeled this strategic use of the term as “fake” fake news.

Scholars have attempted to provide classifications of the term, hoping to help fight against fake news. Lazer et al. (2018) emphasized intent as an important aspect to distinguish between the two broad terms: mis- and disinformation. Fake news, according to the team, can overlap with both as it is defined as fabricated information that mimics news media content in form but not in organizational process or intent (Lazer et al., 2018, p. 1094). Molina et al. (2019), however, suggested a comprehensive taxonomy of online content with several dimensions for identifying fabricated information. They include (a) message and linguistic (e.g., message quality, rhetorical elements, factuality, evidence, and lexical structures), (b) sources and intention (e.g., sources of the message, intentionality, independence, and pedigree), (c) structural (e.g., URL, about us section, contact us section, uncommon journalistic practices, and comments), and (d) network (e.g., personalization and customization, social media shares, author, and meta data).

No matter how it is defined both “real” and “fake” fake news have caused conspicuous damages to journalism. First, fake news is created often with an intention to deceive, which is directly in conflict with journalism, a profession that is built on fact-checking, truth-telling, and verification procedures (Balod & Hameleers, 2019). Second, fake news, which has been spread by chatbots at an astonishing speed, polluting the information environment, require journalists to learn more skills to avoid misreporting. For example, according to a report on Nieman Lab, The Wall Street Journal has begun training its reporters on sophisticated techniques and developed guidelines on how to spot deepfakes, a new type of synthetic media that can be difficult for journalists to verify (Marconi & Daldrup, 2018). Fake news today presents a powerful threat as it often comes in unimaginably excessive amounts (Bessi, 2017; Bessi & Ferrara, 2016). In addition, enhanced technologies with the proliferation of chatbots and social media platforms can now enable psychometric targeting, information floods, and filter bubbles, allowing for fake news to tap into an audience with escalating polarization, extremism, and distrust (Levi, 2017).

But, in the fight against fake news, journalists are expected to do more than just debunking some limited numbers of pieces of falsehood. Fake news or the discourse against journalists popularized by politicians, together with large amounts of false information, has induced distrust in the news media, ruining the credibility of the independent press (Levi, 2017). The use of the term as a rhetorical device to silence the news media has put more pressure on journalists (Balod & Hameleers, 2019). Journalists are now charged with a new mission to gain back the audience trust by objective, accurate reporting “as a way to counterbalance the fake news creeping its way across social media feeds” (Nelson, 2017, p. 1).

To be fair, audience trust in the news media, particularly in developed countries, had been eroding even before 2016 and has shown no sign of improving (Kohring, 2019). Unvetted information that takes the conventional and unconventional styles of news is widely spread on popular social media platforms and is easily accessible, competing directly with content produced by professional news organizations (Waisbord, 2018). Scholars and journalism experts alike argued that to win back the audience, increasing traditional journalism norms like accountability, transparency, balance, and/or independence is among the most viable solutions (Babcock, 2014; Borden, 2012; Fengler et al., 2015; Hedman, 2016). Thus, since 2016, journalists have been urged to adopt new practices or intensify what they have been doing (Geisler, 2017; Graves, 2018). Some have begun to adopt new routines. For example, The Kansas City Star, a major regional news outlet in the Midwest, has launched its Frontline project to spearhead several new initiatives to increase transparency in the organization’s news production process, hoping to connect and engender more trust with its audience. In addition to fact-checking or vetting with lawyers, the team has also uploaded raw materials (e.g., interview transcripts or original video footage) online for interested parties (Blanding, 2018). Scholars and media experts have predicted that multiple new skills (e.g., working with AI, memes, social networks, new technologies in podcast, and video production) or new tools that did not exist in traditional newsrooms would be needed for journalists to do their job in the rapidly changing new media environment (Cummings, 2017; Nieman Lab, 2018). All of these have put more pressure on newsrooms in keeping up with changes in the mediascape.

Transparency and Accountability in Journalism

In studying changes in the Philippines’ journalists’ perceptions of their roles, Balod and Hameleers (2019, p. 12) identified two challenges news workers in this country are facing including distinguishing themselves from un-credible news sources and also defending “themselves against accusations of spreading mis- and disinformation.” The challenges may have different implications on newsrooms’ adaptation strategies. We also argue that the two major aforementioned types of influence may lead to journalists’ adoption of different practices. Recent scholarly accounts have suggested journalists strengthen the accountability and transparency aspects of their work as a way to counter mis- and disinformation (Balod & Hameleers, 2019; Karlsson & Clerwall, 2018). There are many other important journalistic norms including independence or balance. However, in this study, we examine practices related to transparency and accountability, the two norms that have recently received heightened attention (Newton et al., 2004; Vos & Craft, 2017).

The concept of accountability is broadly used to mean the ability of an individual or organization to be held responsible for the actions they have done (Schedler, 1999). Newton et al. (2004) defined press accountability as answerability. In a similar vein, McQuail (2003, p. 19) suggested that “accountable communication exists where authors (originators, sources, or gatekeepers) take responsibility for the quality and consequences of their publication, orient themselves to audiences and others affected, and respond to their expectations and those of the wider society.” Babcock (2014, p. 4) argued that news media accountability is “the process by which the media should or could be expected or obliged to report a truthful and complex account of the news to their constituents.” Anderson et al. (2016) provided a more detailed description of newsroom activities in “the process” that Babcock mentioned, to maintain accountability, which includes fact-checking, digging into data, and aggressive beat coverage to reveal as much as possible about what is really going on.

Traditionally, accountability instruments can be built into three types of mechanism: external (e.g., journalism reviews, opinion surveys on media, media literacy campaigns, consumer groups, etc.), internal (e.g., media reporters, internal memos, codes of ethics, etc.), and cooperative (e.g., letters to editor, ombudsmen, etc.) to avoid or investigate malpractices by newsroom members (Bertrand, 2000). However, these mechanisms seem to have exerted limited influence on journalists’ daily practices (Fengler, 2003; Fengler et al., 2015; Newton et al., 2004). When credibility is at stake, journalists are obliged to avoid making mishaps which may betray the audience’s trust in news production (Borden, 2009). And perhaps the best way is to increase the quality of journalists’ performance by adopting or intensifying the verification of information. This also aligns with increasing accountability through boosting responsible performance.

Transparency, according to Borden (2009, p. 79), “is clearly explaining one’s choices so that they are readily understood.” In journalism, this means revealing to audience members the process of creating news product, which may include various types of information related to gathering, reporting, presenting, and disseminating news (Borden, 2012; Gade et al., 2018). As such, increasing transparency provides opportunities for those from outside or inside newsrooms to monitor, criticize, and influence in the journalistic process (Deuze, 2005). Karlsson (2010) equated transparency to openness and argued that there are two types of transparency including disclosure (i.e., being open about how news is produced) and participation (i.e., communicating with the audience). Disclosure transparency is about providing information on news production, while participatory transparency is concerning interacting with audiences and encouraging them to participate in newsgathering and reporting.

As journalism has seen an increasingly detached audience (Batsell, 2015), scholars have suggested considering transparency as a new norm to develop a stronger connection between news providers and consumers (Chadha & Koliska, 2015; Meier 2009; Phillips, 2010, p. 7) recommended that newsrooms should increase transparency to demonstrate “trustworthiness by open self-reflection, building-up a relationship with the audience and binding the loyalty of the target audiences.” Online publishing and the proliferation of digital technologies have set off another push for transparentizing journalism (Hedman, 2016; Revers, 2014) in several ways. First, journalists’ adoption and use of social media platforms (e.g., Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram among others) as well as many interactive features of online news sites (e.g., comment, email, share, etc.) allow for more disclosure of information on newsroom daily practices (Lasorsa, 2012). Second, in the context of mounting market competition, journalism’s truth-telling needs to be based on transparency to distinguish journalism from other content producers (e.g., blogs, content farms) (Kovach & Rosenstiel, 2007; Revers, 2014).

Despite technological possibilities and increasing evidence of its positive effects of on news organizations’ reputation (Bélair-Gagnon, 2013), transparency has been adopted to a limited extent in newsrooms (Chadha & Koliska, 2015; Hedman, 2016; Hellmueller et al., 2013). This is because of the concern that adopting transparency may fuel the tension between journalism’s institutional logic and professional control (Lewis, 2012; Revers, 2014). Besides revealing their profile information on social media, journalists have been reluctant to further transparentize their work for fears that it may challenge their professional autonomy (Hedman, 2016; Plaisance, 2007).

Although transparency and accountability are two separate concepts, they are interrelated. Karlsson (2010, p. 537) posited that if transparency is achieved, it can have dual functions of “serving as a system of accountability and a way of increasing legitimacy with citizens.” Building on recent arguments many journalism scholars as well as professional organizations have made on the importance of transparency and accountability (Newton et al., 2004; Vos & Craft, 2017), this study investigates the new professional practices related to these two norms. We ask,

Democracies are sustained on an informed citizenry. The news media have been tasked with providing information to the public (Kuklinski et al., 2000). According to Gans (1998), the journalistic theory of democracy has three major parts including (a) the journalistic democratic role is to inform citizens, (b) more informed citizens tend to be more active in participating in politics, and (c) more citizens’ political participation strengthens democracy. In other words, journalism represents a critical component of any democracy. Misinformation, disinformation, and/or fake news, on the contrary, are the direct threat to such informedness of the public, and thus can possibly undermine democracy (Morgan, 2018). Based on this argument, this study hypothesizes that

Role Conception

Role conceptions have been referred to as “the normative and actual functions of journalism in society, a set of expectations, values, norms and standards, which define how news people and organizations should and do work” (Hellmueller & Mellado, 2015, p. 4). Cohen (1963) was among the first few scholars who conceptualized journalists’ perceptions of their professional roles. Cohen divided journalistic roles into two simple categories: neutral and participant. A decade after Cohen, scholars still classified journalists’ role perceptions using a dichotomous set of categories including gatekeeper or advocate, with the former focusing on objective reporting and the later emphasizing journalists’ change agent responsibilities (Johnstone et al., 1976). More recent scholarly accounts, however, have included a rather thorough description of the differences in journalists’ perceptions of their professional roles in society. For example, Weaver and Wilhoit (1986, 1996) identified a typology of journalism roles including interpretive, disseminator, adversarial, and populist-mobilizer which have been used widely in the studies of journalism.

The interpretive role is concerned with providing analysis and interpretation to aid the audience in understanding events and issues. The disseminator role is about getting information to the audience. The adversarial role, which is similar to the watchdog function of journalism, emphasizes skepticism and criticism of governments, businesses, and other types of news sources. The populist-mobilizer, however, considers giving ordinary citizens a voice as a central role of journalism (Weaver & Wilhoit, 1986, 1996; Weaver & Willnat, 2012).

Studies have used role conceptions in various contexts to understand how journalists operate professionally (Weaver et al., 2019). For example, Relly et al. (2015) found that Kurdish journalists see three roles including disseminators, interpreters, and populist-mobilizers as equally important. In examining how Filipino journalists see their role under the influence of mis- and disinformation, Balod and Hameleers (2019) discovered that the disseminator and watchdog roles have been strengthened as journalists perceived journalism credibility being threatened. Vu et al. (2020) discovered significant relationships between interpreters and populist mobilizers and their intention to adopt social media in their work. Other studies documented empirical evidence of the influence of journalists’ role conceptions on the content they produced (Raemy et al., 2019). In examining the link between American journalists’ role conceptions and personal values, Plaisance and Skewes (2003) found that journalists who were civic-minded, imaginative, and capable tended to value the interpretive role. More closely related to this research, results from Willnat and colleagues (2017)’s survey reveal that journalists who identified with the interpretive and adversarial roles were more likely to approve of aggressive reporting tactics (e.g., using hidden microphones or cameras; using confidential business or government documents without authorization; badgering unwilling informants to get a story, and; getting employed to gain inside information, among others). The richness of the literature also indicates this is an important area of research in the studies of journalism, as the way journalists perceive their roles can have implications in the way journalism is practiced (Donsbach, 2004). The emergence of misinformation and the discourse on fake news has threatened journalistic credibility and authority, two important aspects as to how journalists perceive their work. A question still exists about possible relationships between journalistic role conceptions and changes in professional practices in American newsrooms. As such, this study inquires

Previous research has found that journalists in the United States and elsewhere have increasingly normalized the use of social media in their professional routines (Lasorsa et al., 2012). Besides reporting (Weiss, 2015; Willnat & Weaver, 2018), journalists have also used social media to build their personal brands (Brems et al., 2017). In other words, many journalists now have their own audience base through social media sites like Twitter or Facebook. In these emerging digital spaces, journalists engage with their audience through what Lewis et al. (2014 p. 229) called reciprocal journalism, which is “considered a key ingredient for the development of trust, connectedness, and social capital” to maintain the ties with the communities they have built. Reciprocal journalism, according to Lewis et al. (2014, p. 230), is a concept that captures “the range of dynamics through which journalists and audiences may exchange mutual benefit.” Undeniably, the spread of mis- and disinformation has mostly happened online through social media, exposing users of these digital platforms to falsehoods and inaccurate information. Perhaps, journalists who are deeply connected with their digital audiences—or feel that their social media audience depends on them for accurate information, are more concerned about their social media audience base as parts of the reciprocal relationship. Thus, this study asks,

Method

Data used in this study come from a national survey of journalists conducted between August 20 and September 15, 2019. Respondents were recruited using the database of Melwater, a media intelligence company, which has a comprehensive list of North American journalists’ contact details. Only those who define themselves as editors, journalists, and reporters were included in the sample. Using that criteria, we randomly sampled 10,000 cases to receive an invitation to participate in the survey and the link to take it via email. Out of the 10,000 emails we sent, around 1,700 emails bounced back, leaving the final number of journalists being contacted at 8,279. The survey was administered through Qualtrics (University of Kansas, Institutional Review Board Number MOD00027297). After four reminders, a total of 579 journalists responded to the survey, yielding a response rate of 7% (RR2, American Association for Public Opinion Research, 2016). Though this number might seem low, it confirms the tendency that response rates to online surveys, especially those that target journalists, have declined dramatically over time (Sax et al., 2003; Vu, 2014). Some of the respondents skipped too many questions, therefore were excluded. The final sample included 405 participants. To avoid different ways of understanding the connotation of the term fake news, in the questionnaire we provided a short definition of fake news as “inaccurate information intended to deceive.” When asking journalists about the practices that have recently been institutionalized, we also included in the questions a phrase that asks about “changes in the last three years since the discourse on fake news/misinformation became popular in 2016.”

Control Variables

Demographics

Journalists’ age (M = 50 years, SD = 13.8), and gender (1 = male, 57.6%) were asked in the survey. Journalists’ household income was measured with eight categories, from 1 (less than $20,000) to 8 ($150,000 or more; M = 4.8, SD = 2.1, Mdn = $60,000–$79,999). To measure ideology, we asked respondents to place themselves on a scale from 1 (very liberal) to 5 (very conservative). To measure education, journalists were asked about their highest level of formal education attained, which ranged from 1 (some years of high school) to 6 (Doctorate) (M = 4.2, SD = .55, Mdn = 4-year college/bachelor’s degree). In addition, we asked whether they had a journalism degree (1 = journalism, 62%). To assess the representativeness of the sample, we compared it against that of Willnat et al. (2017) on the above-mentioned demographical variables, except for income, where we asked about journalists’ household instead of personal income. Willnat et al.’s surveys have been conducted multiple times in the past few decades to provide information on the journalist population in the United States. Overall, the two samples were similar in all dimensions (see Table 1 for more details), confirming the representativeness of the sample of this study.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Comparing the Sample of this Study Against that of Willnat et al. (2017).

Willnat et al. (2017)	Demographic variable		This study’s sample
	Gender
62.5%	Male		57.6%
37.5%	Female		39.8%
NA	Prefer not to disclose		2.6%
	Age
47	(median)		50
	Education
0.6%	High school		0.5%
7.3%	Some years of college		5.4%
60.3%	Undergraduate/bachelor’s degree		70.5%
11.3%	Some graduate		NA
20.5%	Graduate degree		23.6%
	Journalism degree
65.9%			62.1%
	Years in profession
21	(mean)		23
	Political ideology (asked differently)
10%	Pretty far to left	Very liberal	11.1%
28.8%	A little to the left	Liberal	33%
43.8%	Middle of the road	Middle of the road	47.6%
10.6%	A little to the right	Conservative	6.5%
2.3%	Pretty far to the right	Very conservative	1.9%
4.6%	Don’t know	NA

Results

RQ1 inquired about the extent to which American journalists are adopting professional practices in response to rampant misinformation and the emergence of the discourse on fake news. On a scale from 1 to 5, results presented in Table 2 indicate journalists are more likely to limit the use of anonymity (M = 3.86, SD = 1.3) and to make it as clear as possible how information is obtained and presented in news stories (M = 3.80, SD = 1.2). These practices are linked to transparency. Among practices linked to accountability, cross-checking with sources more frequently tops the list (M = 3.17, SD = 1.3). Training on fact-checking platforms (M = 1.80, SD = 1.0) and vetting with lawyers more often (M = 1.77, SD = 1.0) are practices incorporated less often.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Adoption of Professional Practices to Prevent Misinformation.

Practices	Accountability	Transparency
	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)
Cross-checking with sources more frequently	3.17 (1.3)
Using fact-checking sites more frequently	2.51 (1.3)
Using new technologies for fact-checking	2.46 (1.3)
Training on fact-checking platforms	1.80 (1.0)
Vetting with lawyers more often	1.77 (1.0)
Limiting the use of anonymity		3.86 (1.3)
Making it as clear as possible how the information was obtained		3.80 (1.2)
Recording interviews with sources more frequently		2.98 (1.5)
Providing details about oneself (contact, expertise, beats)		2.44 (1.3)
Submitting raw materials (e.g., interviews, footage, photos) to editors		2.34 (1.4)

Notes. N = 405.

RQ2 aimed to identify whether journalists would be more likely to adopt practices linked to accountability or transparency to maintain journalistic norms. Items presented in Table 2 were combined to create an index of accountability and an index of transparency. Results from a paired sample t-test indicated that journalists are significantly more likely to adopt transparency (M = 3.1, SD = .88, range: 1–5) than accountability practices (M = 2.3, SD = .86, range: 1–5) to maintain journalistic norms and prevent the spread of misinformation, t₍₃₉₄₎ = 18.3, p < .001, df = 393.

RQ3, RQ4, and H1 posed questions/hypotheses about factors predicting the adoption of both accountability and transparency practices. H1 suggested that those who perceive fake news as a threat to journalism and democracy would be more likely to adopt (a) accountability and (b) transparency practices. RQ3 inquired about the impact of role conceptions, while RQ4 asked about responsibility for social media audiences. Table 3 illustrates the linear regression models predicting journalists’ adoption of accountability and transparency practices to prevent misinformation and fake news. Results demonstrated that the interpretive role (β = −0.13, p < .05) and responsibility for social media audiences (β = .25, p < .001) significantly predicted accountability. This means journalists who are concerned with providing analysis and interpretation are less likely to adopt accountability practices, while, in contrast, those who feel responsible for their social media audiences are more likely to adopt accountability practices. Perceiving fake news as a threat to journalism and democracy did not show a significant effect on accountability practices. As such, H1a was not supported. This model explains 12.2% of the variance in the dependent variable.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Regression Models Predicting Journalists’ Adoption of Accountability and Transparency Practices to Prevent Fake News.

	Accountability	Transparency
	β	β
Age	0.01	−0.08
Gender	−0.08	−0.09
Income	0.10	0.04
Education	−0.09	−0.06
Ideology	0.09	0.12*
Journalism degree	0.04	0.12
Perception of fake news as a threat	0.03	0.13*
Interpretive	−0.13*	−0.15**
Populist-mobilizer	0.04	0.05
Adversarial	0.03	−0.08
Disseminator	−0.02	0.05
Responsibility for social media audiences	0.25***	0.13*
Total R 2 (%)	12.2***	12**

Notes. N = 300 for accountability, N = 292 for transparency. Cell entries are final-entry ordinary least squares β coefficients.

*

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

On the other hand, ideology (β = .12, p < .05), perception of fake news as a threat (β = .13, p < .05), interpretive role (β = −.15, p < .01), and responsibility for social media audiences (β = .13, p < .05) significantly predicted transparency. Test results also showed that conservative journalists are more likely than liberal newsroom members to adopt transparency practices. Similar patterns were found among those who perceived fake news as a threat to journalism and democracy. Consequently, H1b was supported. Just like accountability practices, the interpretive role was found to be negatively related to adopting transparency practices, while responsibility for social media audiences was positively related to adopting transparency practices. This model explains 12% of the variance in the dependent variable.

Discussion

This study attempted to bring insights into changes in newsroom practices across the United States in response to the spread of misinformation or “real” fake news, and the emergence of the discourse on fake news that aimed to discredit journalists and news organizations. Overall, journalists have been quick in adopting several practices while reluctant to use a few others. Specifically, to avoid misinformation and accusation of spreading fake news journalists were most likely to cross-check with sources more often, limit the use of anonymity, and make it as clear as possible where the information comes from. All three variables passed the midpoint in the five-point scales about the extent to which journalists are responding to recent events that either directly or indirectly influence the news industry. Other practices that journalists have not been keen on include vetting with lawyers more frequently, training on fact-checking platforms, or submitting raw materials (e.g., footages, interviews, photos, etc.). Although there have been a few isolated examples of these practices being intensified in several places (Blanding, 2018), not all newsrooms are aggravating it. It could also be that many newsrooms had already maintained high standards of doing these tasks in their daily routines. Thus, no more intensification was needed.

The results of this research also indicated that between the two types of professional practices related to the two core values in journalism, accountability and transparency, journalists have significantly adopted those that increase transparency in news work. This finding is in line with journalism scholars’ suggestions on what newsrooms should do to gain more audience trust which has been declining over the past decades (Deuze, 2005; Hedman, 2016). Again, accountability might have already been incorporated in everyday practices in American newsrooms. Now, under the pressure of emerging factors in the media environment, making it clear about how news is produced can show better journalists’ work accountability, thus improving audience credibility. It may also mean that transparency will help boost accountability and, at the same time, develop stronger connections with the audience. Journalists’ preferences for transparency as a way to respond to what has happened in the contemporary media environment, are, perhaps, based on the popular argument that transparency helps to differentiate journalism from other types of content creation and dissemination including fake news which cannot be transparent (Revers, 2014). This, according to journalism scholars, could help set the professional boundary for journalism (Vos & Craft, 2017). However, transparency should be adopted with caution to avoid the danger of using it as “an instrumental value enlisted to protect institutional legitimacy and stave off criticism” rather than “serving as a normative standard,” (Allen, 2008, p. 324).

This study also examined the influence of journalists’ professional role conceptions on their adoption of accountability and transparency practices. According to the findings, those who felt better represented by the interpretive function of the news media were less likely to adopt both accountability and transparency practices. Other role conceptions, including populist-mobilizer, disseminator, and adversarial did not see any statistically significant relationships with the two dependent variables. Such associations between the interpretive role and journalists’ adoption of accountability and transparency practices further indicate that those who are more interested in providing analysis and interpretation of issues or events are not necessarily concerned with debunking or are less interested in showing their daily routines to the public. Maybe from a more paternalistic approach, interpretive journalists believe their job is to explain how events/issues happen and what their implications are, instead of opening doors for revealing details about their professional work. Willnat et al. (2017) found an association between journalists’ perception of their professional role as interpretive and how much they value their job autonomy. In that same study, the research team also discovered that interpretive journalists tend to approve aggressive (or less transparent) reporting practices. There is a possible link here. Previous studies (Hedman, 2016; Newton et al., 2004) indicated that one major concern journalists have about increasing accountability and transparency is losing their journalistic autonomy. Perhaps, because of that interpretive journalists are more hesitant about adopting/intensifying practices related to these two norms.

Another important finding is that those who felt responsible for providing accurate information to their social media followers were more likely to adopt/intensify both accountability and transparency practices. A possible explanation is that journalists who have a large audience base relying on them for information felt compelled to do something to improve the information environment for their audience. Also, another likely reason is that social media have been expected to help journalists develop connections with their audience and increase transparency. Concerns about social media followers would, therefore, drive journalists’ motivation to take on new practices (or intensify traditional ones) for their followers. This corroborates arguments introduced in previous studies about reciprocal journalism, a concept of mutually beneficial exchange, which may help bridge the gap between journalists and audience members, especially in the current media environment with multiple social media platforms (Lewis et al., 2014).

Journalists’ belief in the threat to democracy caused by fake news was another significant predictor of transparency. Understandably, those who saw the negative effects of fake news to democracy would want to find a solution to it. Again, as previous research argued, transparency may be helpful in dealing with the detrimental influence of fake news.

This study offered a snapshot of what practices American journalists have adopted or intensified since 2016. It provides updates on what is going on in American newsrooms when their members are under pressure to respond to some of what has happened in the mediascape. Since the beginning of the digital age, journalism practices have been continually changed, modified to adapt to challenges brought about by latest technologies (Vu, 2014) and shifts in the political environment (Avraham, 2002). Recent events related to misinformation and “real” fake news have threatened the very institutionality of the profession. Journalists have been expected to fix what is broken in the information environment, more specifically, to fight fake news. In response to that, journalists in American newsrooms, to some extent, are adopting new practices with an aim to improve credibility. In doing so, they become more willing to reveal more information about different aspects of their work. These changes, despite exerting some negative influence on newsrooms (e.g., requiring journalists to do extra work), may have positive implications by pushing for further transparentizing the news production process.

Findings of this study have some theoretical implications. It identifies the association between journalism values and changes in newsrooms. This study also provides empirical evidence of the link toward how changes in journalism norms (e.g., accountability and transparency) are translated into newsrooms’ daily practices. It shows that factors in the current media environment with regards specifically to the emergence of fake news and the political discourse against the news media have led to journalism professional norms being revised for adaptation. Results from this research suggest that newsrooms in the United States see the importance of transparency in changing how journalism is perceived in the digital age (Vos & Craft, 2017).

Several limitations of this study could be used as suggestions for future research. First, this study started with the assumption that journalists are not responsible for the creation and dissemination of fake news, while in fact there have been cases in which journalists have misreported or falsified information (Darcy, 2020; Grynbaum, 2017). Second, in this study, we only focused on accountability and transparency. Future studies should examine other journalistic norms such as independence or balance for a more comprehensive assessment of these traditional norms in the modern newsroom. In addition, assessing how journalists respond to “fake” and “real” fake news or audience definition of fake news would provide interesting insights into newsroom work. This study did not compare journalism practices between different countries (e.g., Brazil, France, the Philippines etc.) where misinformation or “real” fake news as well as the fake news discourse are posing detrimental effects on the news industry. A comparative study of journalism practices in different countries could provide a deeper understanding of the issue while assessing the influence of cultural aspects on newsroom operations. An incorporation of in-depth interviews with journalists or ethnography at newsrooms might be helpful to give journalists a chance to explain the reason why they adopt (or not) accountability and transparency practices. A qualitative look would also provide a more nuanced understanding of how reporters evaluate the fake news phenomenon. But despite these limitations, this study has made an important contribution to evaluating the impact of fake news and the discourse against the news media on U.S.-based newsrooms.