The deep divides over trust in the news media are usually portrayed as largely ideological. Democrats are seven times more likely than Republicans to say they trust the mainstream media, and independents are four times as likely.¹ But the argument over media trust often has the feel of people talking past each other—many journalists denying they slant the news to help one party over another, while many of their critics, especially on the right, scoff at that denial.² Still others, particularly on the left, question whether some basic notions of journalistic independence and open-minded inquiry are a delusion and the press should become more strictly partisan.³

A major study released today by the Media Insight Project, a collaboration of the American Press Institute and The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, opens up a new way of looking at the issue of media trust and may offer new avenues to address it.

The study finds that not all Americans universally embrace many of the core values that guide journalistic inquiry. And uneasiness with these core values of journalism is more connected to people’s underlying moral instincts than to politics.

When journalists say they are just doing their jobs, in other words, the problem is many people harbor doubts about what the job should be.

The study tested public attitudes toward five core values of journalistic inquiry that many journalists consider fundamental. We identified these principles based on previous studies and input from a group of journalists. These core journalism values include such ideals as it’s vital for a free society to monitor the powerful to keep them from misbehaving, and the press should be a voice for the less powerful in society.

In all, only 11% of Americans unreservedly embrace all five of the journalism principles tested and these people tend to be politically liberal. However, most Americans don’t fully endorse these journalism principles, and the distrust goes beyond traditional partisan politics.

How people view those core values of journalism, moreover, is closely associated with deeper feelings they have about what moral values are important generally.

People who put more emphasis on the moral values of loyalty and authority, for example, tend to be more skeptical of some of the core values journalists try to uphold, or at least worry that these values could be taken too far. People who put more emphasis, by contrast, on the moral values of fairness for all and caring for the less fortunate tend to be more aligned with core press values. These differences persist even when we control for a person’s political partisanship and ideology.

These moral differences also influence what kinds of news stories people think the press should emphasize and how stories should be framed.

The differences are subtle and cannot be dismissed as another case of political or ideological divide. We find, for instance, some people often associated with having more liberal political views (such as Democrats, women, or people of color), are hesitant about some core journalistic values. And there are some core journalistic values that do resonate among conservatives. Education level also correlates with how people respond to some of the values journalists hold dear.

Rather than distrust toward the media being tied only to the perception of partisan bias, the problem at the heart of the media trust crisis may be skepticism about the underlying purpose and mission journalists are trying to fulfill in the first place.

When journalists say they are just doing their jobs, the problem is many people harbor doubts about what the job should be.

“ ”

We tested variations of some common types of news stories to see whether changes in the way they were framed, or even just changes to the headlines, could change and broaden the appeal of those stories. We tested three different news stories. For each one, respondents might have seen one of two different versions. Each was based on an actual news story, slightly modified to make it more generic. The first version was a standard story written fairly closely to the original. The second included elements designed to explicitly touch on the values of loyalty and authority while still maintaining the parts related to care or fairness. The goal was to see if emphasizing these additional values could broaden their appeal, without alienating people who do not place as much importance on these values and who are already more trusting of the news.

Importantly, we changed little else. The two versions of the story were identical except for two elements: 1) The headline and first sentence were different in the revised version to touch on themes related to loyalty or authority; and 2) The revised version also has an additional paragraph that emphasizes the authority or loyalty angles of the news story. In other words, the facts were the same but what was emphasized changed.

The unaltered stories, inspired by real news stories, mostly emphasized moral values of care or fairness. Care and looking out for those who may be harmed—by policy, a person, or an event—and fairness for all are also somewhat embedded in journalistic norms. Further, people who value care and fairness tend to also see media favorably and also are more supportive of journalism values. In offering an alternative to these stories that also emphasized authority and loyalty, our experiment tested what might happen if journalists composing their stories think about the values of their most skeptical readers.

Respondents were randomly assigned to read one version of each story, and then asked a series of questions about the story, including the headline and first sentence, and the additional paragraph if they received the revised version. The goals of the experiment were to see if the revised version led to more positive views about the story among those who place the most importance on loyalty and authority (broadening the audience), and no negative impact on views toward the story among those who most value care or fairness (without alienating those who already trust media).

Overall, the experiment was promising and found reasons for journalists to try to write and frame stories more broadly. Some revisions were more effective than others. But in general the revisions helped broaden trust. And in some cases the revised version made the story more appealing even to people who already tended to trust the media. For example, a story about government corruption was seen generally as more balanced, more trustworthy, and more likely to get readers’ attention.

The three short news stories were designed to be similar in style and presentation to articles in local news outlets. They concerned one of three fairly common news topics: 1) local environmental issue (polluted water); 2) local corruption (mayor’s misuse of funds); or 3) state election laws (photo identification and voter registration). One might expect differing values to play out prominently in national news, but we wanted to look at their salience at a community-level as well.

STANDARD VERSION:

New recreation center for low-income neighborhood a casualty of parks scandal

A project aimed at helping the city’s most marginalized, low-income neighborhood has been abandoned in the wake of a misuse of city funds by the Parks Director, according to documents obtained by a local media investigation.

The Mayor had designated the money for a recreation center in the city’s poorest district, but the director funneled the money to a series of unauthorized projects.

The documents show the director misled city officials about how the funds were being spent, and the city no longer has the money to build the recreation center to help both low-income seniors and at-risk youth.

REVISED VERSION:

Parks boss deceived Mayor, misused taxpayer money

The city’s Parks Director intentionally defied the orders of the Mayor and diverted city money from a key recreation project to businesses owned by his friends and family, according to documents obtained by a local media investigation.

The Mayor had designated the money for a recreation center in the city’s poorest district, but the director funneled the money to a series of unauthorized projects.

The Parks Director bypassed protocols in order to send money to businesses with close connections to his family and friends, the investigation finds. Emails from the Parks Director reveal that he repeatedly disregarded instructions from the Mayor’s office about the funds and the project that residents voted to fund.

The documents show the director misled residents and other top city officials about how the funds were being spent, and the city no longer has the money to build the recreation center to help both low-income seniors and at-risk youth.

Other standard versus revised story text can be found in Appendix III

To understand the impacts of the changes, the study looked at three sets of questions:

1. How do the elements relate to overall views of a story?
2. How does changing the headline and first sentence impact people’s views of those parts of the story?
3. How do people view the additional paragraph highlighting the loyalty and authority elements of the story?

Overall effectiveness of revised version

In no case was the revised version of the story—the one designed specifically for people who put more value on loyalty and authority—less appealing overall. And while not every revision in every story enhances trust, we find some changes were effective in reaching broader audiences and making those readers less skeptical of the media. Moreover, we find some instances where the generalized appeal of the revised version was even greater than the appeal of the standard version. For example, half of respondents who read the revised version of the corruption story are more likely to say they would pay attention to the rest (compared to 42% of those who saw the standard version). The revised version of the election story was also more likely to be seen as more balanced (62% versus 44%) and trustworthy (78% vs. 70%) than the standard version.

Generalized appeal of revised version across all moral values

Across the three stories—about pollution, local corruption, and election law—there were no instances where the revised version alienated those more trusting of the news.

Indeed, some of the revised versions were even more appealing than the original version to those audiences. This was the case for both the pollution and corruption stories.

For the pollution story, every audience group preferred the revised version, the one emphasizing more moral values. As an example, people who put a high value on fairness (a group associated with high trust in the news media) more likely to pay attention to other stories from the same news source after reading the revised version than those who read the standard version (59% versus 34%). The response was even more positive among people who most valued authority (57% versus 28%).

Moral value	Standard version	Revised version
People who most value authority*	28	57
People who most value loyalty*	33	54
People who most value care*	37	59
People who most value fairness*	34	59

Data Source: AP-NORC polls conducted October 22-November 15, 2019, and August 18-24, 2020, with 2,727 and 1,155 adults age 18+ nationwide.
Question: "After reading this news story, how likely are you to pay attention to other stories from the same news source?"
* The groups are those who fall in the highest quartile for each moral value.
** Percent who are extremely or very likely to pay attention to other stories from this news source.

MEDIA INSIGHT PROJECT

The corruption story also tended to engender more trust across the board when it was revised to make it more appealing to people whose values make them more skeptical of the press. As an example, about 6 in 10 respondents who highly valued purity said they were more likely to pay attention to similar stories about government corruption after seeing the revised version of that story, compared to 39% percent who said that about the standard story. The numbers were similarly boosted among people who value fairness highly, a group highly trusting of the press. In all, 63% of this fairness group said they would pay attention to similar stories after reading the revised version, versus 45% who said that after reading the standard account. Unlike the pollution story, we did not see a significant effect for those who most emphasize other values like care, loyalty, or authority.

These findings indicate that making a story touch on more values with the intent to appeal to those with more often conservative values may make it more appealing overall.

The election story significantly improved feelings of trustworthiness for those who most emphasize values such as purity or loyalty. The revised headline for this story downplayed details about minority and economic status, provided more information on how the proposed law would change the experience of voting generally, and provided an additional paragraph that mentioned state legislators’ concerns about voter fraud within the story’s body.

These minor alterations in the revised story improved perceptions of trustworthiness significantly across respondents in two groups who tend to be less trusting of the press—people who most value purity or loyalty. Seventy-four percent of those who most emphasize loyalty think the revised version of the election story was more trustworthy, compared to 60% who say the same for the standard version. The increased perception of trustworthiness in the revised version compared to the standard one was also more prevalent among those who most emphasize purity (81% versus 64%).

Effects driven by headline and first sentence

The findings from the pollution and corruption stories provide evidence that changing the headline and first sentence (or lead) alone can improve the appeal of the story to those who tend to be most skeptical of the media.

The revised versions of the headlines and first sentences in the pollution and corruption stories made the stories more appealing to those who most value authority, loyalty, or purity.

How did those headlines and leads change?

For the corruption story, the headline shifted from:

New recreation center for low-income neighborhood a casualty of parks scandal

To:

Parks boss deceived Mayor, misused taxpayer money

The lead, or first sentence, shifted from this:

A project aimed at helping the city’s most marginalized, low-income neighborhood has been abandoned in the wake of a misuse of city funds by the Parks Director, according to documents obtained by a local media investigation.

To this:

The city’s Parks Director intentionally defied the orders of the Mayor and diverted city money from a key recreation project to businesses owned by his friends and family, according to documents obtained by a local media investigation.

The information in the headline and first sentence was the same, but the revised headline and lead was more popular and more trusted. Americans who place most emphasis on authority, loyalty, and purity, for instance, were more likely to say the revised headline and opening sentence focused on the most important part of the story.

Moral value	Standard version	Revised version
People who most value authority*	53%	75%
People who most value loyalty*	53%	73%
People who most value purity*	51%	77%

Data Source: AP-NORC polls conducted October 22-November 15, 2019, and August 18-24, 2020, with 2,727 and 1,155 adults age 18+ nationwide.
Question: "How well do you think the headline and first sentence of this news story, displayed above, focus on the most important point about this issue?"
* The groups are those who fall in the highest quartile for each moral value.
** Percent who responded "extremely" or "very" well

MEDIA INSIGHT PROJECT

We saw the same effect for the pollution story.

Here the headline changed from:

At-risk neighborhood now facing new health threat from toxic drinking water

To:

Local community at risk after state officials ignore military study

And the first sentence changed from this:

A toxic chemical has polluted drinking water at a local mobile home park, making it the latest low-income community to face a public health crisis due to the nation’s deteriorating infrastructure.

To this:

After state officials failed to act on warnings from a military study last year, the local community is now facing a public health risk as a toxic chemical has been found in the community’s drinking water.

Moral value	Standard version	Revised version
People who most value authority*	45%	72%
People who most value loyalty*	54%	72%
People who most value purity*	59%	69%
People who most value care*	67%	71%
People who most value fairness*	59%	74%

Data Source: AP-NORC polls conducted October 22-November 15, 2019, and August 18-24, 2020, with 2,727 and 1,155 adults age 18+ nationwide.
Question: "How well do you think the headline and first sentence of this news story, displayed above, focus on the most important point about this issue?"
* The groups are those who fall in the highest quartile for each moral value.
** Percent who responded "extremely" or "very" well

MEDIA INSIGHT PROJECT

The revised versions of the headlines and first sentences also motivated respondents to read the whole story. Those who placed most importance on authority and loyalty, for instance, were more likely to think the revised version of the first sentence in the pollution story makes them want to read the rest. Only 45% of those who highly valued authority say they would want to keep reading the standard story. But that number jumped to 72% for the version with the different headline and first sentence.

Yet far from pandering to one audience, those revisions did not make the story less trustworthy for audiences who put more emphasis on the so-called liberal values of care and fairness. They were just as likely to read the pollution story with the revisions as the standard version.

The revised openings to the stories improve the likelihood that those who most value authority, loyalty, or purity see their personal views reflected in the story. Only 32% of respondents who most value authority think the standard pollution story represents the views of people like them, but 55% say so when reading the revised version. Those most valuing loyalty and purity show similar findings. The revisions were able to add the views of people valuing authority, loyalty, and purity without losing the views of people valuing care and fairness. Those who place most emphasis on care and fairness don’t have a significantly different reaction to the revisions in the pollution story.

Moral value	Standard version	Revised version
People who most value authority*	32%	55%
People who most value loyalty*	37%	56%
People who most value purity*	37%	57%
People who most value care*	30%	21%
People who most value fairness*	23%	28%

Data Source: AP-NORC polls conducted October 22-November 15, 2019, and August 18-24, 2020, with 2,727 and 1,155 adults age 18+ nationwide.
Question: "Based on the headline and first sentence, how well do you feel like the story reflected the views of people like you on the issue?"
* The groups are those who fall in the highest quartile for each moral value.
** Percent who responded "extremely" or "very" well

MEDIA INSIGHT PROJECT

Effects driven by explicit added paragraph

We also made a second revision to the story—a new paragraph in the middle—in addition to a different headline and lead sentence. This new paragraph, emphasizing values of loyalty and authority, also made a material difference with audiences. This suggests that framing elements of story text to include a broader range of values, not just changing headlines and leads, can help broaden the appeal of news stories and address trust.

The additional paragraphs in the revised stories emphasized angles of the stories designed to be more appealing to those more attracted to values like loyalty, authority, and purity. Respondents who saw the revised versions of the stories were asked a series of questions designed to measure whether the added content made the story easier to understand, reflected the views of people like them, and how relevant it was for the story overall. Respondents who saw the standard versions of the stories with no changes, and thus without the additional paragraphs, were later asked to read the additional paragraphs separately and then answer whether they would have made the story more trustworthy, less trustworthy, or had no effect.

The findings suggest that including those paragraphs helped people think the media reflected their values and increased the chance that they would engage with the story. People who put a premium on loyalty and authority, for instance, were both more likely to say they saw their perspectives reflected in each story. This evidence shows that emphasizing such values can help people believe that their views are included in the story and increase the chance they engage with the story overall.

For the pollution story, a majority of those who most emphasize fairness, care, and loyalty report the additional paragraph is helpful and reflects their views on the issue of water pollution compared to fewer of those who least emphasize these values.

Moral value	People who most value…*	People who least value…*
Care	56%	32%
Fairness	56%	32%
Loyalty	54%	38%

Data Source: AP-NORC polls conducted October 22-November 15, 2019, and August 18-24, 2020, with 2,727 and 1,155 adults age 18+ nationwide.
Question: "Based on the headline and first sentence, how well do you feel like the story reflected the views of people like you on the issue?"
* Refers to people whose value of each was in the top or bottom quartiles among all respondents.
** Percent who responded "extremely" or "very" well

MEDIA INSIGHT PROJECT

For the corruption story, over half of those who most emphasize care (59%) or fairness (55%) say their opinions are reflected in the story compared to about a third of those who least emphasize each value: care (34%); fairness (31%).

Americans who most emphasize values like loyalty and authority are more likely to say the additional paragraph in the election story helps the story reflect views of people like them. Forty percent of those who most emphasize loyalty say the additional paragraph reflects their point of view compared to just 19% of those who least emphasize it. The same is true for those who most emphasize authority compared to those who least emphasize it (37% versus 17%).

The additional paragraph also helps with people’s understanding of the pollution story, particularly for those who most emphasize values like care, fairness, and loyalty. Again, this provides evidence showing how the broader angle in the story effectively engaged respondents, even among readers who value care and fairness, as well as those who emphasize loyalty. For example, a majority of those who most emphasize fairness, care, and loyalty say the added paragraph helped them understand the topic or theme of the pollution story compared to those who least emphasize each value. Put another way, the new text may also help the story feel more robust.

Moral value	People who most value…*	People who least value…*
Care	73%	49%
Fairness	81%	42%
Loyalty	72%	54%

Data Source: AP-NORC polls conducted October 22-November 15, 2019, and August 18-24, 2020, with 2,727 and 1,155 adults age 18+ nationwide.
Question: "Did the sentence displayed above help, hurt, or neither help nor hurt your understanding of the topic?"
* Refers to people whose value of each was in the top or bottom quartiles among all respondents.

MEDIA INSIGHT PROJECT

In the case of the pollution story, the additional paragraph also appealed to everyone who held any of the tested moral values as particularly important. Across all moral values—care, fairness, loyalty, authority, and purity—those who fell in the top quartile for each were more likely to say the additional paragraph provided important information to the story than those in the lowest quartile.

Moral value	People who most value…*	People who least value…*
Authority	77%	60%
Loyalty	77%	58%
Purity	80%	65%
Fairness	78%	56%
Care	83%	59%

Data Source: AP-NORC polls conducted October 22-November 15, 2019, and August 18-24, 2020, with 2,727 and 1,155 adults age 18+ nationwide.
Question: "How important to the story is the information provided by this sentence?"
* Refers to people whose value of each was in the top or bottom quartiles among all respondents.

MEDIA INSIGHT PROJECT

The findings show the additional paragraph in the election story could significantly improve the trustworthiness of the story for those who most emphasize authority, purity, and loyalty. Among those who read the standard version of the election story (i.e., the version without the additional paragraph) and were asked about the additional paragraph later in the survey, those who most emphasize authority, purity, and loyalty are more likely to say the standard story would have been more trustworthy with the added paragraph than those who least emphasize each value. The different versions of the story did not show significant difference in trustworthiness among those who most and least emphasize care (56% versus 56%) or fairness (54% versus 57%).

Moral value	People who most value…*	People who least value…*
Authority	67%	46%
Loyalty	76%	47%
Purity	69%	43%

Data Source: AP-NORC polls conducted October 22-November 15, 2019, and August 18-24, 2020, with 2,727 and 1,155 adults age 18+ nationwide.
Question: "Do you think the news story would have been more trustworthy, less trustworthy, or it would have made no difference if it included the following information?"
* Refers to people whose value of each was in the top or bottom quartiles among all respondents.

MEDIA INSIGHT PROJECT

Chapter 5

Clusters: 4 groups linked by their moral & journalism values

Despite partisan differences, Americans’ attitudes about journalism are more complicated than a simple Democrat versus Republican divide. To better understand how values relate to views of the news media, this study used a “k-means cluster analysis,” a statistical technique that groups people together based on their answers—in this case, their moral values and views toward the journalism values. If you start with people’s moral principles and their reaction to core journalistic values—rather than their politics—you find different dividing lines about how Americans think about the media than you would if you use the traditional way researchers look at trust by party identification and ideological leaning.

The k-means cluster analysis groups people by comparing their average scores to the five moral foundation values and the five journalism values. People with similar scores across the 10 values are grouped together, and the clusters are identified independently from people’s political views or demographic characteristics. These four clusters capture a more nuanced perspective of values than the traditional left-right continuum by picking up how Americans emphasize different moral values and how that interacts with their views of journalism principles.

With this clustering approach, people divide into four distinct groups described for the purposes of this report as: 1) Upholders, 2) Moralists, 3) Journalism Supporters, and 4) the Indifferent. Here is a thumbnail sketch of each group.

Clusters are based on respondents’ average moral and journalism values scores.

The four clusters of Americans based on their attitudes toward moral and journalism values
The Upholders (35% of Americans) Strong emphasis on moral values of authority and loyalty. Less support for journalism values, yet follow the news frequently. More conservatives than other clusters.	The Moralists (23% of Americans) Strong support for both moral and journalism values. Most actively seek out news and have positive views toward the media. Older than other clusters.
Journalism Supporters (20% of Americans) High importance on moral values of care and fairness. Strongest support for the five journalism values among the clusters. The only cluster made up primarily of one political party.	The Indifferent (21% of Americans) More skeptical about moral and journalism values. Few trust the media or believe it is accurate. Mixed partisanship, including the highest percentage of moderates.

Group	Care	Fairness	Authority	Loyalty	Purity	Oversight	Factualism	Social criticism	Giving voice to the less powerful	Transparency
The Upholders	9%	12%	19%	30%	19%	9%	11%	5%	3%	9%
The Moralists	53%	55%	42%	53%	63%	29%	33%	24%	29%	32%
The Journalism Supporters	22%	27%	0%	2%	4%	51%	55%	55%	62%	54%
The Indifferent	0%	1%	2%	3%	1%	12%	10%	10%	2%	7%

Data Source: AP-NORC polls conducted October 22-November 15, 2019, and August 18-24, 2020, with 2,727 and 1,155 adults age 18+ nationwide.
* Refers to people whose value of each was in the top quartile among all respondents.

MEDIA INSIGHT PROJECT

Group	Care	Fairness	Authority	Loyalty	Purity	Oversight	Factualism	Social criticism	Giving voice to the less powerful	Transparency
The Upholders	24%	23%	8%	11%	14%	38%	44%	39%	52%	38%
The Moralists	3%	3%	7%	6%	2%	16%	18%	24%	19%	16%
The Journalism Supporters	18%	14%	80%	77%	63%	4%	10%	8%	4%	6%
The Indifferent	79%	82%	53%	50%	66%	33%	52%	26%	60%	33%

Data Source: AP-NORC polls conducted October 22-November 15, 2019, and August 18-24, 2020, with 2,727 and 1,155 adults age 18+ nationwide.
* Refers to people whose value of each was in the bottom quartile among all respondents.

MEDIA INSIGHT PROJECT

The first group, Upholders, cares strongly about many moral values, but especially loyalty, authority, and purity, or in other words, the values that most speak to respect for leaders, groups, and tradition. They do not place much importance on the core values of journalism, which taken together with their moral values may be read as skepticism about journalism’s goals. Even so, they don’t avoid news. They often follow the news frequently, even actively seeking it out—and many find the news they get accurate. Yet they tend to distrust the media in general, in line with their unenthusiastic attitudes toward journalism’s values.

The second group, Moralists, registers highly on all five moral foundation values. Yet unlike the Upholders, Moralists also view journalism values positively. Their strong emphasis on moral and journalism values alike distinguishes them from the other groups we identified. The majority of moralists also tend to believe the news media are trustworthy and accurate, but their support for journalism is by no means unqualified. Only 2 in 10 believe the press cares about people like them or is moral.

The third group, Journalism Supporters, most strongly believes in the journalistic values we tested and has the most positive views of the news media in general. They also tend to place less emphasis than the other groups on three of the five moral foundational values—authority, loyalty, and purity.  What distinguishes this group, indeed, is the high importance they put on two other of the five moral foundational values. They place the highest value on caring for others and the idea that society should be fair to everyone. Interestingly, these two moral values strongly correlate to the five journalism values and suggest that the five journalism values have an inherent closeness to these two moral values in particular. This is both illuminating and perhaps also limiting, and helps unlock one of the problems journalists face. It is interesting to note that the Journalism Supporters group is also the smallest of the four clusters. Only about one in five people fit here.

The fourth group, Indifferent, is comprised of people who are more lukewarm in their embrace of any values we tested. Like Upholders, the Indifferent are skeptical about the journalism values we probed. But unlike Upholders, the Indifferent tend to be ambivalent about the five foundational moral values as well, or evince less support for any of them. They may be skeptical in general. Few in this group trust the media or believe it is accurate, adding to the challenge journalists will have in reaching them.

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.

Group	Democrat	Independent	Republican
The Upholders	28%	20%	52%
The Moralists	49%	16%	35%
The Journalism Supporters	78%	15%	7%
The Indifferent	34%	27%	39%

Data Source: AP-NORC polls conducted October 22-November 15, 2019, and August 18-24, 2020, with 2,727 and 1,155 adults age 18 and older nationwide.

MEDIA INSIGHT PROJECT

Group	Liberal	Moderate	Conservative
The Upholders	13%	43%	43%
The Moralists	17%	49%	34%
The Journalism Supporters	62%	33%	4%
The Indifferent	15%	52%	31%

Data Source: AP-NORC polls conducted October 22-November 15, 2019, and August 18-24, 2020, with 2,727 and 1,155 adults age 18 and older nationwide.

MEDIA INSIGHT PROJECT

Group	White	Black	Hispanic	Other race
The Upholders	70%	10%	15%	5%
The Moralists	65%	16%	12%	7%
The Journalism Supporters	68%	8%	15%	9%
The Indifferent	66%	8%	16%	10%

Data Source: AP-NORC polls conducted October 22-November 15, 2019, and August 18-24, 2020, with 2,727 and 1,155 adults age 18 and older nationwide.

MEDIA INSIGHT PROJECT

Group	HS or less	Some college	BA or above
The Upholders	34%	34%	32%
The Moralists	37%	37%	26%
The Journalism Supporters	16%	32%	51%
The Indifferent	30%	36%	34%

Data Source: AP-NORC polls conducted October 22-November 15, 2019, and August 18-24, 2020, with 2,727 and 1,155 adults age 18 and older nationwide.

MEDIA INSIGHT PROJECT

Group	18-29	30-44	45-59	60+
The Upholders	14%	25%	29%	32%
The Moralists	10%	17%	25%	49%
The Journalism Supporters	24%	31%	23%	22%
The Indifferent	19%	35%	27%	20%

Data Source: AP-NORC polls conducted October 22-November 15, 2019, and August 18-24, 2020, with 2,727 and 1,155 adults age 18 and older nationwide.

MEDIA INSIGHT PROJECT

Cluster 1: The Upholders (35% of the population)

The Upholders include many people who put a high value on loyalty and authority. At the same time, they also tend to place less importance than most other people on the five key journalism values. Yet these Upholders are also highly engaged news consumers. They tend to follow a good deal of news, to actively seek it out, and even to consider the news they get accurate. But they do not have much confidence in the news media to tell them the truth or to protect democracy. And despite the perception that distrust of the news is a partisan divide, only about half of Upholders identify as Republicans, and nearly half describe themselves as political moderates.

Demographically, the group is made up mostly of Americans age 30 or older (86%) and a strong majority (70%) are white. Many attend religious services more often than others. Educationally, they are evenly split; about a third of the group has a high school diploma or less, a third some college, and the remaining have a college degree.

Of the five moral foundational values, Upholders place the most value on loyalty with 30% in the highest quartile, followed by authority (19%) and purity (19%). But they put relatively lower importance on two other moral values, care and fairness (9% and 12%). Upholders are unlikely to be among those who most strongly endorse journalism values. Only 9% are in the top quartile on oversight, 5% on social criticism, and 3% on giving a voice to the less powerful.

Upholders are evenly split ideologically between those who identify as moderate (43%) or conservative (43%). Thirteen percent describe themselves as liberal. But even the Upholders do not line up in a strictly partisan way. While about half are Republicans, Democrats still comprise 28% of the group.  Independents make up 20%.

These results suggest that the conclusion of traditional trust data—that the news media has a Republican problem—is too simplistic. Looking at trust through the lens of moral and journalistic values, this group of highly engaged but skeptical news consumers place less emphasis on some of the values journalists elevate as important and include political independents and Democrats who are wary of the news media as well.

A relatively high percentage of Upholders are frequent church goers; 23% attend religious services once a week or more. A majority of Upholders are white (70%), but 1 in 10 are African American (10%); more than that (15%) are Hispanic. Upholders also skew older than most other clusters. A third (32%) are 60 years old and older.

Along with the lack of emphasis Upholders place on some core journalism values, they also tend to have negative views of the media. Only one in three (33%) say the news is even somewhat trustworthy. They also don’t think that journalists admit their mistakes; more than two-thirds of Upholders (69%) think journalists try to cover up their mistakes. And only 20% say journalists protect democracy, versus 41% who think journalists hurt democracy.

But these are people who are interested in news. And while they are distrustful of the news media, they navigate through their distrust. Fully 60% of this group says the media is at least somewhat accurate; 61% say they actively seek out news. Eighty-six percent say they follow news at least daily. In other words, this is a group of people who are highly skeptical of the news media but they rely on news. The size of this group (the largest of the four clusters), their inclination to follow the news in spite of being skeptical of it, and the findings in the previous experiment section makes them an attractive group for the media to reach.

Group	Very/Somewhat trustworthy	Neither trustworthy nor untrustworthy	Somewhat/Very untrustworthy
The Upholders	33%	21%	46%
The Moralists	51%	20%	29%
The Journalism Supporters	58%	20%	22%
The Indifferent	24%	31%	45%

Data Source: AP-NORC polls conducted October 22-November 15, 2019, and August 18-24, 2020, with 2,727 and 1,155 adults age 18 and older nationwide.
Question: "How trustworthy do you think the news media in general is?"

MEDIA INSIGHT PROJECT

Statement of belief or behavior	Percent of Upholders who agree
Seek out news	61%
News is accurate	60%
Media cares about people like me	15%
Media are willing to admit mistakes	15%
Media are moral	13%
Media protect democracy	20%

Data Source: AP-NORC polls conducted October 22-November 15, 2019, and August 18-24, 2020, with 2,727 and 1,155 adults age 18 and older nationwide.
Questions: "Choose the statement that best describes you, even if it is not exactly right. In general… Would you say the news from the media is…?"
"Here is a pair of opposite phrases. Which phrase do you feel better describes news media? [Care about people like me/don't care about people like me/neither applies]. [Are willing to admit their mistakes/try to cover up their mistakes/neither applies]. [Are moral/Are immoral/neither applies]. [Protect Democracy/hurt democracy/neither applies]."

MEDIA INSIGHT PROJECT

Cluster 2: The Moralists (23% of the population)

The Moralists group is comprised of those who tend to strongly emphasize all five moral foundation values. This group also holds journalism values in fairly high regard, particularly factualism and transparency, but their support is not unqualified. They are a mix of partisans and moderates, and are the most racially diverse. In all, 65% are white. Many Moralists are older adults (about half are 60 or older); they have fewer college graduates than other groups (26%). Most Moralists actively seek out news and many tend to believe the news media is trustworthy, accurate, and protects democracy.

Moralists tend to register high on most of the moral values, more so than Upholders. More than half of Moralists are among the top 25% who place the most importance on four different moral values—care (53%), fairness (55%), loyalty (53%), and purity (63%). The only one missing here is authority.

Differing from Upholders, they also place weight on journalism values. But they gravitate more strongly toward some more than others. They connect most strongly to factualism and transparency (33% most emphasize and 32% most emphasize, respectively). They score lowest on social criticism and giving voice to the less powerful (24% and 29% most emphasize each value).

Moralists are a political mix. About half identify as political moderates, about 3 in 10 (34%) as conservatives, and just under 2 in 10 (17%) as liberals. By party identification, there is a similar mix: 49% are Democrats, 35% Republicans, and 16% independents.

The Moralists group is older than other clusters. Nearly half are age 60 and older. The group also has a higher percentage of Black Americans (16%) than other clusters. The Moralists consist of more women (58%) than men (42%).  This group has the least amount of college graduates compared to the other groups.

If journalists were looking for a way to broaden the appeal across party and ideology, this group would be an important place to start. Indeed, looking at these data together, Moralists share many strong moral tendencies and come from a wide variety of backgrounds—politically, racially, ethnically, and educationally. Importantly, they register some support for journalism values, more than Upholders, but it is not enthusiastic support.

Nonetheless, most Moralists seek out news and have a relatively positive view of the news they follow. About three-quarters say they actively seek out news, which is more than any other cluster. Half say that the news is trustworthy and 74% perceive the news as accurate. In addition, 42% say it is enjoyable to follow news, while fewer say the media is moral (22%), protects democracy (35%), and admits its mistakes (28%). While Moralists are not as positive about news as the Journalism Supporters, they are significantly more likely to view the media as accurate (74%) and trustworthy (51%) than either Upholders or The Indifferent. Thus, Moralists engage with news quite a bit and even have a positive attitude about a lot of it, yet it is also not without critique.

Group	Percent who say news is “very” or “somewhat” accurate
The Upholders	60%
The Moralists	74%
The Journalism Supporters	83%
The Indifferent	56%

Data Source: AP-NORC polls conducted October 22-November 15, 2019, and August 18-24, 2020, with 2,727 and 1,155 adults age 18 and older nationwide.
Questions: "Choose the statement that best describes you, even if it is not exactly right. In general… Would you say the news from the media is [very/somewhat accurate/ somewhat innacurate/very inaccurate]…?"

MEDIA INSIGHT PROJECT

Statement of belief	Percent of Moralists who agree
News is trustworthy	51%
Media cares about people like me	20%
Media are willing to admit mistakes	28%
Media are moral	22%
Media protect democracy	35%

Data Source: AP-NORC polls conducted October 22-November 15, 2019, and August 18-24, 2020, with 2,727 and 1,155 adults age 18 and older nationwide.
Questions: "How trustworthy do you think the news media in general is?"
"Here is a pair of opposite phrases. Which phrase do you feel better describes news media? [Care about people like me/don't care about people like me/neither applies]. [Are willing to admit their mistakes/try to cover up their mistakes/neither applies]. [Are moral/Are immoral/neither applies]. [Protect Democracy/hurt democracy/neither applies]."

MEDIA INSIGHT PROJECT

Cluster 3: The Journalism Supporters (20% of the population)

Journalism Supporters, as their name suggests, tend to strongly believe in the five journalistic values of oversight, factualism, transparency, social criticism, and giving voice to the less powerful. They differ from other clusters in the moral values they’re drawn to: Americans in this group are much more likely to strongly value care and fairness than they do authority, loyalty, and purity.  Notably, more than three-quarters of the Journalism Supporters are Democrats, and many in this group are younger and have college degrees. And this group has more positive views of the media than the other three groups. Most of them believe the media is accurate. Of the many different uses for news, this group believes it is most important to be informed and understand the facts. They are less likely than the Moralists to say the main reason they use news is because it’s enjoyable or shares their view.

Of all clusters, this group most strongly supports the journalism values we tested. A majority of them are in the highest quartile believing that the press should be a watchdog over those in power (51%), that more facts are usually better (55%), that society should be as transparent as possible (54%), and that the best way to solve problems is to put a spotlight on them (55%). And 62% of these people rank in the top category for supporting the idea that the press should give a voice to those who are less powerful.

The problem for the press is that this group is relatively small. Only 20% of those surveyed fall into the category of Journalism Supporters. And no other cluster comes close to echoing such strong support for what journalists might imagine are fundamental principles that everyone would agree on. The next closest group in registering support for these journalistic notions is Moralists, though they only register close to half the same level of support.

Journalism Supporters also differ by their most common moral values and the strength of their prominence. The values of care and fairness are of significant importance to Journalism Supporters, while other moral values are far weaker than Upholders’ or Moralists’ believe. While around a quarter of Journalism Supporters are among those who most value care or fairness, less than 5% are among those who most emphasize loyalty, authority, or purity.

The Journalism Supporters make up the only cluster consisting primarily of one political party: it is 78% Democrats and only 7% Republicans. Sixty-two percent are also self-described liberals. The political and ideological make-up of Journalism Supporters is consistent with both the moral foundation literature finding that Democrats place more importance on care and fairness and media studies showing Democrats have more trust in news.

Journalism Supporters also tend to be more educated and younger than other groups. This is the most educated cluster. A majority hold a college degree. Journalism Supporters are also the youngest cluster. Fully a quarter (24%) are under age 30. This group is also the least religious. Forty-eight percent of Journalism Supporters say they never attend religious services compared with 23% of both Upholders and Moralists.

Put another way, this group shares many qualities that partisan critics might use to describe or stereotype journalists. It is mostly liberal, mostly white, and with educational experiences that differ from many Americans.

But as the clusters show, there are Democrats and liberals across all four groups with varied demographics by race and ethnicity. The same is true of education.

As one might expect, Journalism Supporters tend to follow a lot of news (79% follow news more than daily), and they tend to have a relatively positive view of the news. Eighty-three percent of this group perceive the news as accurate and 58% trust the news. Moreover, many feel the media is driven by good impulses. Those in this group are much more likely than those in other groups to say the media is moral (26%).

Statement of belief	Percent of Journalism Supporters who agree
News is accurate	83%
News is trustworthy	58%
Media cares about people like me	24%
Media are willing to admit mistakes	40%
Media are moral	26%
Media protect democracy	53%

Data Source: AP-NORC polls conducted October 22-November 15, 2019, and August 18-24, 2020, with 2,727 and 1,155 adults age 18 and older nationwide.
Questions: "Choose the statement that best describes you, even if it is not exactly right. In general… Would you say the news from the media is…?"
"Here is a pair of opposite phrases. Which phrase do you feel better describes news media? [Care about people like me/don't care about people like me/neither applies]. [Are willing to admit their mistakes/try to cover up their mistakes/neither applies]. [Are moral/Are immoral/neither applies]. [Protect Democracy/hurt democracy/neither applies]."

MEDIA INSIGHT PROJECT

Although the group seeks out a lot of news, it isn’t important to them that they enjoy following it. Journalism Supporters report quality coverage (72%) and informative news (78%) being the main reason they seek out news coverage. Only 23% say that finding the news enjoyable is an important reason why they follow it. In addition, just 14% say that news sharing their views is an important reason they follow news despite many believing the news is accurate. Yet again, they are the strongest supporters of core journalism values that drive most journalism.

Group	Percent who say it is important that news share the views of people like them*
The Upholders	18%
The Moralists	32%
The Journalism Supporters	14%
The Indifferent	12%

Data Source: AP-NORC polls conducted October 22-November 15, 2019, and August 18-24, 2020, with 2,727 and 1,155 adults age 18+ nationwide.
Question: "People use news for many reasons. When it comes to the biggest reasons you use news, how important to you is it that the news [share the views of people like me]?"
* Percent who said "extremely" or"very" important

MEDIA INSIGHT PROJECT

Group	Percent who say it is important that news be enjoyable*
The Upholders	35%
The Moralists	42%
The Journalism Supporters	23%
The Indifferent	27%

Data Source: AP-NORC polls conducted October 22-November 15, 2019, and August 18-24, 2020, with 2,727 and 1,155 adults age 18+ nationwide.
Question: "People use news for many reasons. When it comes to the biggest reasons you use news, how important to you is it that the news [are enjoyable]?"
* Percent who said "extremely" or"very" important

MEDIA INSIGHT PROJECT

Reason to consume news	Percent of Journalism Supporters who say it is important that news…*
Helps me stay informed to be a better citizen	78%
Is very good at covering an issue or topic I care a lot about	72%
Helps me decide where I stand on things	51%
Helps me take care of myself or my family	34%
Helps me talk to others about what’s going on in the news	33%
Helps me find places to go and things to do	24%
Is enjoyable or entertaining	23%
Helps me save or manage my money	18%
Shares my point of view	14%

Data Source: AP-NORC polls conducted October 22-November 15, 2019, and August 18-24, 2020, with 2,727 and 1,155 adults age 18+ nationwide.
Question: "People use news for many reasons. When it comes to the biggest reasons you use news, how important to you is it that the news...?"
* Percent who said "extremely" or"very" important

MEDIA INSIGHT PROJECT

Cluster 4: The Indifferent (21% of the population)

The Indifferent tend to not place a lot of importance on any of the moral foundations. Nor do they resonate strongly with the core journalism values. People in this group tend to follow news less than most. They also are less likely to pay for news than those in other clusters. Few in this group trust the media or believe it is accurate.

Yet, it would be a mistake to view this group in purely political terms. The Indifferent is a mix of Republicans, Democrats, and independents, and the majority describe themselves as political moderates. The group is racially and educationally diverse. It is also relatively younger than other groups.

Among the Indifferent, few people strongly endorse any of the moral foundation values. In trying to understand this, it may be easier to register how many fall into the lowest group or quartile in support of certain ideas, rather than identifying what they do feel strongly about. As an example, fully 8 in 10 of the Indifferent (82%) fall into the lowest category when it comes to valuing the idea that society should be fair; Nearly 8 in 10 (79%) fall into the lowest category when it comes to thinking that it is important to care for the less fortunate.

The same low resonance is found in their attitudes toward what journalists feel their mission is. Six in 10 of the indifferent (60%) fall in the lowest rank of those who consider it important to give a voice to the less powerful. And more than 5 in 10 fall in the lowest rank of those who believe that more facts are always better to get closer to the truth about something (52%).

The Indifferent are demographically and politically diverse. Indeed, the group is similar to the overall makeup of Americans when it comes to factors such as age, religious attendance, and education. For example, the group features a mix of education levels, with 34% holding a college degree or more, 36% with some college, and 30% with only a high school education or less. This group features a mix of Republicans (39%), Democrats (34%), and independents (27%), and it has the highest percent of those who identify as political moderates (52%).

The Indifferent tend to follow news less frequently than other groups. About 1 in 5 follow the news less than once a day, and 43% bump into the news instead of actively seeking it out. They are also the least likely of the clusters to pay for news (79%). The Indifferent are also the least likely to report that staying informed and being a better citizen is an important reason to follow news.

Group	Seek out news	Bump into news
The Upholders	61%	39%
The Moralists	73%	27%
The Journalism Supporters	68%	32%
The Indifferent	57%	43%

Data Source: AP-NORC polls conducted October 22-November 15, 2019, and August 18-24, 2020, with 2,727 and 1,155 adults age 18+
Question: "Choose the statement that best describes you, even if it is not exactly right. In general…[I actively seek out news and information/ I mostly bump into news and information as I do other things or hear about it from others.]"

MEDIA INSIGHT PROJECT

Group	Percent who say it is important that news help them stay informed and be better citizens*
The Upholders	57%
The Moralists	72%
The Journalism Supporters	78%
The Indifferent	45%

Data Source: AP-NORC polls conducted October 22-November 15, 2019, and August 18-24, 2020, with 2,727 and 1,155 adults age 18+ nationwide.
Question: "People use news for many reasons. When it comes to the biggest reasons you use news, how important to you is it that the news [Helps me stay informed to be a better citizen]?"
* Percent who said "extremely" or"very" important

MEDIA INSIGHT PROJECT

The Indifferent are also highly skeptical about the media, with just 24% saying the media is trustworthy, 56% reporting the media is accurate, and 21% believing that the media protects democracy.

This group will also likely be the hardest for journalists to reach. The Indifferent tend to have negative views about the media. But unlike Upholders or Moralists, it is unlikely that framing stories to appeal to a broader range of moral values would improve their trust in news.

Statement of belief	Percent of Indifferent who agree
Media cares about people like me	13%
Media are willing to admit mistakes	17%
Media are moral	9%
Media protect democracy	21%

Data Source: AP-NORC polls conducted October 22-November 15, 2019, and August 18-24, 2020, with 2,727 and 1,155 adults age 18 and older nationwide.
Questions: "Here is a pair of opposite phrases. Which phrase do you feel better describes news media? [Care about people like me/don't care about people like me/neither applies]. [Are willing to admit their mistakes/try to cover up their mistakes/neither applies]. [Are moral/Are immoral/neither applies]. [Protect Democracy/hurt democracy/neither applies]."

MEDIA INSIGHT PROJECT

Chapter 6

Revenue: Sell subscriptions by appealing to moral values

While the majority of our research looked at how moral foundations intersect with perceptions of core journalistic concepts and content, we also wanted to test how people’s values influence how they perceive the marketing messages that encourage them to pay or donate for news.

The study found a strong correlation between people’s moral instincts and what kind of messaging about media they found persuasive. Among other things, the findings suggest news organizations that hitch their subscription pitches only to standard messages, such as the importance of facts and democracy, or do not think critically about them may be missing opportunities to appeal to and get support from varied audiences.

How moral values intersect with reader revenue appeals

To test this idea, the second phase of the study included different messages asking respondents to support a local news organization to see if certain messages about journalism were more appealing to people, depending on which moral foundational instincts they found most compelling.

The messages were inspired by a range of marketing angles in the real world. For the purposes of this inquiry, we designed pitches that appealed to different moral values and some that addressed different journalistic values.

Those messages included:

• We keep our leaders accountable. Support us today.
• We’ve served our community since 1906. Support us today.
• We look out for our most vulnerable. Support us today.
• Financial support from those who can afford it makes our news and information available to those who can’t. Support us today.
• Our community needs a watchdog. Support us today.
• People must know the facts for communities to thrive. Support us today.
• Stay informed. Support us today.

Message	Extremely/Very likely	Somewhat likely	Not very/Not at all likely
“Financial support from those who can afford it makes our news and information available to those who can’t. Support us today.”	21%	35%	44%
“People must know the facts for communities to thrive. Support us today.”	18%	36%	45%
“Stay informed. Support us today.”	14%	29%	57%
“We keep our leaders accountable. Support us today.”	13%	37%	50%
“We look out for our most vulnerable. Support us today.”	12%	36%	51%
“We’ve served our community since 1906. Support us today.	11%	33%	56%
“Our community needs a watchdog. Support us today.”	11%	31%	58%

Data Source: AP-NORC polls conducted October 22-November 15, 2019, and August 18-24, 2020, with 2,727 and 1,155 adults age 18+ nationwide.
Question: "Some local news outlets ask people to pay to support their operations. If each of the following was a message asking you to support a local news organization you read regularly, how likely would you be to pay after seeing the message?"

MEDIA INSIGHT PROJECT

While only about 1 in 5 respondents say they would be extremely or very likely to pay to support their local news organization based on the different messages, there are important variations in how appealing these messages are to those who most and least emphasize each moral and journalism value.

Those who most emphasize the value of care were more likely to say they would contribute financially to their local news organization if they received the message highlighting the media’s role in looking out for the most vulnerable, the media as a watchdog for their community, or emphasizing the need to stay informed.

Message	People who most value care*	People who least value care*
“We look out for our most vulnerable. Support us today.”	19%	4%
“Our community needs a watchdog. Support us today.”	15%	7%
“Stay informed. Support us today.”	19%	7%

Data Source: AP-NORC polls conducted October 22-November 15, 2019, and August 18-24, 2020, with 2,727 and 1,155 adults age 18 and older nationwide.
Question: "Some local news outlets ask people to pay to support their operations. If each of the following was a message asking you to support a local news organization you read regularly, how likely would you be to pay after seeing the message?"
*Refers to people whose value of care was in the top or bottom quartiles among all respondents.

MEDIA INSIGHT PROJECT

The message that mentions how the local news media outlet looks out for the most vulnerable resonated with those who place the most importance on fairness (17%) compared to those in the quartile that places the least importance on fairness (7%).

The message highlighting the local news media’s history in the community appealed to those who most emphasized authority. Fifteen percent of those in the highest quartile of authority said they were more likely to contribute financially to their local news outlet if they got the message “We’ve served our community since 1906. Support us today.” Only 6% of those in the lowest quartile said that message would convince them to contribute financially.

We found patterns like this when evaluating not just moral values’ ties to marketing messages but also journalism values’ ties to the appeals.

Several journalism values also are associated with a higher likelihood of contribution to their local news organization depending on their message for support. Individuals who place the highest emphasis on offering a voice to the less powerful are more likely to contribute to their local media if they get the message in defense of those who are the most vulnerable and asking for financial support for those who cannot afford it.

Message	People who most value giving voice to the less powerful*	People who least value giving voice to the less powerful*
“We look out for our most vulnerable. Support us today.”	21%	9%
“Financial support from those who can afford it makes our news and information available to those who can’t. Support us today.”	36%	19%

Data Source: AP-NORC polls conducted October 22-November 15, 2019, and August 18-24, 2020, with 2,727 and 1,155 adults age 18 and older nationwide.
Question: "Some local news outlets ask people to pay to support their operations. If each of the following was a message asking you to support a local news organization you read regularly, how likely would you be to pay after seeing the message?"
*Refers to people whose value of care was in the top or bottom quartiles among all respondents.

MEDIA INSIGHT PROJECT

The message about financial support from those who can afford it to make news available to those who cannot also resonated with those who most emphasized the importance of transparency, the value assessing the importance of having information open to the public. Those in the highest quartile for transparency were almost twice as likely to donate to their local news outlet if they got this message as those who least emphasized transparency (26% versus 14%).

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. As publishers continue to explore reader revenue as an important part of their sustainability, understanding these and other nuances across the communities they serve may help their pursuits.

Chapter 7

Study methodology, PDF and topline

This study was conducted by the Media Insight Project, an initiative of the American Press Institute (API) and The Associated Press NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. The study was funded by API. Staff from API and The AP-NORC Center collaborated on all aspects of the study.

The study featured two surveys. Interviews for the first survey were conducted between November 22 and December 15, 2019, with 2,727 adults age 18 and older representing the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The first survey included both a probability-based sample and a nonprobability based sample.

For the second survey, 2,124 probability-based respondents who completed the first survey and did not skip key survey questions were invited to complete it. The second survey was conducted between August 18 and August 24, 2020, with 1,155 adults age 18 and older.

Download the PDF version of the report and topline results from the first survey and second survey for ‘Do Americans share journalism’s core values?’

The probability interviews were all conducted using AmeriSpeak®, NORC’s probability-based panel designed to be representative of the U.S. household population.

During the initial recruitment phase of the AmeriSpeak Panel, randomly selected U.S. households were sampled with a known, non-zero probability of selection from the NORC National Sample Frame and then contacted by U.S. mail, email, telephone, and field interviewers (face-to-face). The panel provides sample coverage of approximately 97% of the U.S. household population. Those excluded from the sample include people with P.O. Box only addresses, some addresses not listed in the USPS Delivery Sequence File, and some newly constructed dwellings.

Panel members were randomly drawn from AmeriSpeak panel, and interviews for both surveys were conducted online in English.

The final stage completion rate for the first survey was 26.8%, the weighted household panel response rate was 24.1%, and the weighted household panel retention rate was 85.6%, for a cumulative response rate of 5.5%.

The second survey had a final stage completion rate of 68%, a weighted household panel response rate of 24%, and a weighted household panel retention rate of 86%, for a cumulative response rate of 14%.

The first survey also included a nonprobability sample. Dynata provided 1,020 nonprobability interviews. The Dynata sample was derived based on quotas related to age, race and ethnicity, and gender. Interviews were conducted in English and via the web only. For panel recruitment, Dynata uses invitations of all types, including email invitations, phone alerts, banners, and messaging on panel community sites to include people with a diversity of motivations to take part in research. Because nonprobability panels do not start with a frame where there is a known probability of selection, standard measures of sampling error and response rates cannot be calculated.

To incorporate the nonprobability sample with the probability sample for the first survey, NORC used TrueNorth®, a calibration approach developed at NORC that features small domain estimation methods to account for potential bias associated with the nonprobability sample. The purpose of TrueNorth calibration is to adjust the weights for the nonprobability sample, so as to bring weighted distributions of the nonprobability sample in line with the population distribution for characteristics correlated with the survey variables. Such calibration adjustments help to reduce potential bias, yielding more accurate population estimates.

A small domain model was used with the combined samples to generate estimates at the domain level, where the domains were defined by race/ethnicity, age, and gender. The dependent variables for the models were key survey variables derived from a gradient boosted tree model, and the small domain model included covariates and domain-level random effects. The covariates were external data available from other national surveys such as health insurance, internet access, and housing type from the American Community Survey. The final combined AmeriSpeak and nonprobability sample weights were derived so the weighted estimates of the combined sample were consistent with the small domain model estimates derived for key survey variables.

Once the samples for the two surveys had been selected and fielded, and all the study data had been collected and made final, a raking process was used to adjust for any survey nonresponse in the probability sample as well as any noncoverage or under- and oversampling resulting from the study-specific sample design. Raking variables for the probability sample included age, gender, census division, race/ethnicity, and education. Population control totals for the raking variables were obtained from the 2019 Community Population Survey for the first survey, and the 2020 Community Population Survey for the second survey. The weighted data reflect the U.S. population of adults age 18 or older.

The overall margin of error for the first survey sample is +/- 2.3 percentage points at the 95% confidence level, including the design effect. The margin of sampling error may be higher for subgroups. Although there is no statistically agreed upon approach for calculating margins of error for nonprobability samples, these margins of error were estimated using a calculation called the root mean squared error, along with other statistical adjustments. A mean square error is a measure of uncertainty that incorporates the variability associated with the estimates, as well as the bias associated with the estimates derived from a nonprobability sample.

The overall margin of error for the second survey sample is +/- 4.1 percentage points at the 95% confidence level, including the design effect. The margin of sampling error may be higher for subgroups.

For more information, email info@norc.org.

Contributing Researchers

From the American Press Institute

Tom Rosenstiel
Kevin Loker
Jeff Sonderman

From NORC at the University of Chicago

David Sterrett
Mariana Meza Hernandez
Caroline Smith
Jennifer Benz
Dan Malato
Trevor Tompson

From The Associated Press
Emily Swanson
Hannah Fingerhut

API’s Stephanie Castellano contributed to production of this study and its release. API’s Amy Kovac-Ashley and Susan Benkelman participated in the expert panel of journalists that informed the work, see Appendix II.

About The Media Insight Project

The Media Insight Project is a collaboration of the American Press Institute (API) and The AP‑NORC Center for Public Affairs Research with the objective of conducting high-quality, innovative research meant to inform the news industry and the public about various important issues facing journalism and the news business. The Media Insight Project brings together the expertise of both organizations and their respective partners, and involves collaborations among key staff at API, NORC at the University of Chicago, and The Associated Press.

About The American Press Institute

The American Press Institute (API) advances an innovative and sustainable local news industry by helping publishers understand and engage audiences, grow revenue, improve public-service journalism, and succeed at organizational change. API is a national 503(c) nonprofit educational organization affiliated with the News Media Alliance. It works with and draws on the best ideas from technology, business, and publishing.

About The Associated Press‑NORC Center For Public Affairs Research

The AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research taps into the power of social science research and the highest-quality journalism to bring key information to people across the nation and throughout the world.

The Associated Press (AP) is the world’s essential news organization, bringing fast, unbiased news to all media platforms and formats.

NORC at the University of Chicago is one of the oldest and most respected, independent research institutions in the world.

The two organizations have established The AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research to conduct, analyze, and distribute social science research in the public interest on newsworthy topics, and to use the power of journalism to tell the stories that research reveals.

The founding principles of The AP-NORC Center include a mandate to preserve carefully and protect the scientific integrity and objectivity of NORC and the journalistic independence of AP. All work conducted by the Center conforms to the highest levels of scientific integrity to prevent any real or perceived bias in the research. All of the work of the Center is subject to review by its advisory committee to help ensure it meets these standards. The Center will publicize the results of all studies and make all datasets and study documentation available to scholars and the public.

Chapter 8

Appendix I: Moral and journalism values questionnaires

Moral Foundations Theory Questionnaire

This survey used a battery of questions often used in academic studies to assess respondents’ inclinations toward values in Moral Foundations Theory. Below is the specific set of questions we used to create variables for the moral foundation values in this study: care, fairness, loyalty, authority, and purity.

MFT1. WHEN YOU DECIDE WHETHER SOMETHING IS RIGHT OR WRONG, TO WHAT EXTENT ARE THE FOLLOWING CONSIDERATIONS RELEVANT TO YOUR THINKING?

RANDOMIZED ITEMS:

1. Whether or not someone suffered emotionally
2. Whether or not some people were treated differently than others
3. Whether or not someone’s action showed love for his or her country
4. Whether or not someone showed a lack of respect for authority
5. Whether or not someone violated standards of purity and decency
6. Whether or not someone was good at math
7. Whether or not someone cared for someone weak or vulnerable
8. Whether or not someone acted unfairly
9. Whether or not someone did something to betray his or her group
10. Whether or not someone conformed to the traditions of society
11. Whether or not someone did something disgusting

RESPONSE OPTIONS

1. Not at all relevant (This consideration has nothing to do with my judgments of right and wrong)
2. Not very relevant
3. Slightly relevant
4. Somewhat relevant
5. Very relevant
6. Extremely relevant (This is one of the most important factors when I judge right and wrong)

MFT2. PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING SENTENCES AND INDICATE YOUR AGREEMENT OR DISAGREEMENT:

RANDOMIZED ITEMS:

1. Compassion for those who are suffering is the most crucial virtue.
2. When the government makes laws, the number one principle should be ensuring that everyone is treated fairly.
3. I am proud of my country’s history.
4. Respect for authority is something all children need to learn.
5. People should not do things that are disgusting, even if no one is harmed.
6. It is better to do good than to do bad.
7. One of the worst things a person could do is hurt a defenseless animal.
8. Justice is the most important requirement for a society.
9. People should be loyal to their family members, even when they have done something wrong.
10. Men and women each have different roles to play in society.
11. I would call some acts wrong on the grounds that they are unnatural.

RESPONSE OPTIONS

1. Strongly disagree
2. Moderately disagree
3. Slightly disagree
4. Slightly agree
5. Moderately agree
6. Strongly agree

Journalism values questionnaire

The research team identified five basic core journalism values based on input from a small, diverse group of journalists currently in or helping news organizations. Below is the set of questions used to create the variables for the journalism values: oversight, transparency, factualism, giving voice to the less powerful, and social criticism.

JVALUE. Please read the following sentences and indicate your agreement or disagreement:

RANDOMIZED ITEMS:

1. The powerful need to be monitored or they will be inclined to abuse their power
2. It’s important to put some trust in authority figures so they can do their jobs
3. It’s vital that the public know what government leaders are doing and saying each day
4. Leaders need to be able to do some things behind closed doors to fulfill their duties
5. The more facts people have, the more likely it is they will get to the truth
6. A lot of the time you know enough about something and more facts don’t help
7. For most things, knowing what’s true is a matter of gathering evidence and proof
8. For a lot of things that matter, facts only get you so far
9. A society should be judged by how it treats its least fortunate
10. Sometimes favoring the least fortunate doesn’t actually help them
11. It’s important to offer a voice to the voiceless
12. Inequalities will always exist and you can’t eliminate them
13. We need to put a spotlight on problems in society in order to solve them
14. Too much focus on what’s wrong can make things worse
15. The way to make a society stronger is through criticizing what’s wrong
16. The way to make a society stronger is through celebrating what’s right
17. On balance, it’s usually better for the public to know than for things to be kept secret
18. Sometimes the need to keep a secret outweighs the public’s right to know
19. Transparency is usually the best cure for what’s wrong in the world
20. Most problems can be addressed without putting embarrassing facts out in the open

RESPONSE OPTIONS

1. Strongly disagree
2. Moderately disagree
3. Slightly disagree
4. Slightly agree
5. Moderately agree
6. Strongly agree

Chapter 9

Appendix II. Panel of experts

The panel of experts in the working session included: Susan Benkelman – American Press Institute, Director of Accountability Journalism; Jenny Benz, PhD, – AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, Deputy Director; Maria Carrillo – Tampa Bay Times, Deputy Editor/Enterprise; Joel Christopher – Knoxville News Sentinel and knoxnews.com, Executive Editor; Noreen Gillespie – Associated Press, Deputy Managing Editor for U.S. News; Kevin Loker – American Press Institute, Director of Program Operations and Partnerships; Rod Hicks – Society of Professional Journalists, Journalist on Call; Dan Malato – AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, Research Scientist; Dominic Packer, PhD – Lehigh University, Associate Professor of Psychology and Associate Dean for Research and Graduate Programs; Amanda Ripley – Contributing Writer at The Atlantic and a Senior Fellow at the Emerson Collective; Tom Rosenstiel – American Press Institute, Executive Director; Jeff Sonderman – American Press Institute, Deputy Executive Director and Executive Vice President; David Sterrett, PhD – AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, Senior Research Scientist; Emily Swanson – Associated Press, Polling Editor; Trevor Tompson – AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, Vice President for Public Affairs Research; and René Weber, MD, PhD – University of California Santa Barbara Media Neuroscience Lab, Founder and Director.

Chapter 10

Appendix III: Experimental stories

Story 1. Pollution story

Standard Version

At-risk neighborhood now facing new health threat from toxic drinking water

A toxic chemical has polluted drinking water at a local mobile home park, making it the latest low-income community to face a public health crisis due to the nation’s deteriorating infrastructure.

Lab testing shows tap water at the mobile home park contains significant levels of a chemical known as PFOS, which is the same chemical found last year in an Air Force study of the water at the neighboring military base.

Since the study was published last year, state officials have said that local residents had no reason to be concerned with their drinking water.

However, public health officials are now warning residents of the low-income neighborhood about the potential health dangers for those who have been drinking the contaminated water.

Revised Version

Local community at risk after state officials ignore military study

After state officials failed to act on warnings from a military study last year, the local community is now facing a public health risk as a toxic chemical has been found in the community’s drinking water.

Lab testing shows tap water at a mobile home park contains significant levels of a chemical known as PFOS, which is the same chemical found last year in an Air Force study of the water at the neighboring military base.

Army officials say they repeatedly warned state officials about the concern but that the officials did little to minimize the impact on the community. The contamination, the army study warned, “could endanger lives as well as lead to declines in home values and business across the city.”

Since the study was published last year, state officials have said that local residents had no reason to be concerned with their drinking water.

However, public health officials are now warning residents of the low-income neighborhood about the potential health dangers for those who have been drinking the contaminated water.

Story 2. Corruption story

Standard Version

New recreation center for low-income neighborhood a casualty of parks scandal

A project aimed at helping the city’s most marginalized, low-income neighborhood has been abandoned in the wake of a misuse of city funds by the Parks Director, according to documents obtained by a local media investigation.

The Mayor had designated the money for a recreation center in the city’s poorest district, but the director funneled the money to a series of unauthorized projects.

The documents show the director misled city officials about how the funds were being spent, and the city no longer has the money to build the recreation center to help both low-income seniors and at-risk youth.

Revised Version

Parks boss deceived Mayor, misused taxpayer money

The city’s Parks Director intentionally defied the orders of the Mayor and diverted city money from a key recreation project to businesses owned by his friends and family, according to documents obtained by a local media investigation.

The Mayor had designated the money for a recreation center in the city’s poorest district, but the director funneled the money to a series of unauthorized projects.

The Parks Director bypassed protocols in order to send money to businesses with close connections to his family and friends, the investigation finds. Emails from the Parks Director reveal that he repeatedly disregarded instructions from the Mayor’s office about the funds and the project that residents voted to fund.

The documents show the director misled residents and other top city officials about how the funds were being spent, and the city no longer has the money to build the recreation center to help both low-income seniors and at-risk youth.

Story 3. Election story

Standard Version

New law will make voting easier, could boost participation by minorities, poor residents

State legislators narrowly approved a new law designed to make voting more fair and accessible to all residents.

The law will allow all people to vote on Election Day without having to register in advance or show a photo ID. The law is expected to increase voter turnout, especially among those groups of residents including racial minorities and poor residents who have tended to not participate in elections in the past.

Supporters of the new law say it will allow everyone an equal opportunity to participate in democratic process while opponents of the law say voter identification laws do not impact voter turnout.

Revised Version

New law removes some of state’s traditional voting rules

State legislators narrowly approved a new law designed to reduce long-standing voting requirements to verify the identity of all voters before they participate in an election.

The law will allow all people to vote on Election Day without having to register in advance or show a photo ID. The law is expected to increase voter turnout, especially among those groups of residents including racial minorities and poor residents who have tended to not participate in elections in the past.

Some state legislators critical of the law feared the change could lead to an increase in voter fraud, noting that all residents have an interest in rules that support fair and secure elections.

Supporters of the new law say it will allow everyone an equal opportunity to participate in democratic process while opponents of the law say voter identification laws do not impact voter turnout.