Journalism at a Crossroads: Areas Requiring Professional Reflection

Journalists Need to Build Trust, Not Just Correct Facts, Experts Say

In an era where health misinformation spreads rapidly through social media and polarized news outlets, journalists must fundamentally change their approach, moving from mere fact-checking to building genuine connections with audiences, according to health communication experts at a recent industry workshop.

The panel discussion, held during the Association of Health Care Journalists’ annual conference in Los Angeles this May, emphasized that combating health misinformation requires more than publishing corrections—it demands relationship-building in an increasingly disconnected society.

“I think what we’re living through now is what I would call an age of disengagement,” said Karen Ernst, director of Voices for Vaccines. “People have disengaged themselves from each other, from their communities, from their neighborhoods.”

This disengagement, panelists argued, has eroded public trust in scientific institutions, public health authorities, and news organizations—creating fertile ground for misinformation to flourish.

Stefanie Friedhoff, co-founder of the Information Futures Lab and professor at Brown University School of Public Health, acknowledged the challenge facing journalists. “It’s one of those moments where journalists are again thrown into an entirely different reality and environment, and you need to pivot quickly,” she said, stressing that collaboration is essential because “nobody can do this alone.”

The panel, moderated by Naseem S. Miller, included Ernst, Friedhoff, independent science journalist Tara Haelle, and Lynn Walsh of Trusting News, an organization helping journalists earn audience trust.

One critical insight focused on language choice. The term “misinformation” itself can alienate audiences who don’t recognize information they believe as false. Ernst explained how her organization reframes the conversation: “People who may fall prey to [vaccine] misinformation don’t think it’s misinformation, so we call them vaccine ‘rumors’,” she said, adding that they explain “the science behind why this rumor isn’t completely true.”

In today’s polarized information landscape, panelists urged journalists to verify everything—even government sources. They pointed to a recent “Make America Healthy Again” report that cited non-existent studies as evidence that traditional source verification may be insufficient.

The experts challenged conventional wisdom that audiences can’t handle complex information. “Acknowledge these types of things, and trust people that they’re able to handle the information,” Friedhoff advised, noting that transparency about uncertainty builds rather than undermines credibility.

The panel emphasized that emotional connection precedes fact acceptance. “The one thing that we know from research is that relationships trump facts every time,” Friedhoff stated. This means journalists should focus on building rapport before attempting to correct misinformation.

Meeting people where they are—intellectually and emotionally—emerged as another key strategy. Haelle described occasionally using Fox News links when communicating with sources who distrust mainstream outlets, demonstrating how providing information through trusted channels can lower defenses without compromising factual accuracy.

The Information Futures Lab recently tested this approach with Spanish-speaking communities in South Florida, recruiting 25 “Information Navigators” to relay community concerns. The team responded with culturally appropriate, empathetic content via WhatsApp and email. Nearly 80% of participants found this information more culturally relevant than traditional sources.

Personal stories proved more effective than statistics in changing minds. “Ethos and pathos always trump logos in our brain,” Haelle noted, suggesting journalists should “make them feel, then help them understand.”

The experts also recommended creating accessible entry points for complex topics. Simple explainers addressing basic questions like “What is measles?” can increase engagement among readers unfamiliar with a subject. For space-constrained stories, linking to these resources helps readers build foundational knowledge.

Transparency about reporting decisions—why a story was covered, which sources were chosen, and how facts were verified—builds credibility. “Talk more about your reporting process,” Walsh advised. “Be transparent about why you are doing a story.”

Continuous coverage, rather than one-off articles, helps audiences process complex health information over time. This reflects how people actually absorb and make sense of information—gradually and through multiple exposures.

Finally, panelists urged journalists to explain how science works as a process rather than presenting it as a static collection of facts. When audiences understand that scientific knowledge evolves by design, they’re less likely to distrust changing guidance.

As health misinformation continues to threaten public health, these strategies offer journalists practical ways to maintain accuracy while rebuilding the trust necessary for facts to matter again.