Navigating Truth in Journalism: Tackling Trump's Lies

How should serious media act when ideological minefields become increasingly difficult to navigate? Sofia Wadensjö Karén argues that it is essential for journalists to explain their working methods.

CULTURAL DEBATE. With democracy receding in more countries, authoritarian leaders using lies as weapons, and a world order in flux, journalism stands at a crossroads. How should serious media act when ideological minefields become increasingly difficult to navigate?

Perhaps the greatest challenge of our time is not ideological polarization—how far apart parties or opinions stand—but rather the increasing emotional polarization.

Some argue this is the case, and I believe there is truth in it.

An increasing unwillingness to listen to, understand, or even tolerate opposing views not only complicates public discourse but also leads to journalism that doesn't fit one's worldview being dismissed as biased, unobjective, and agenda-driven. This is known as confirmation bias, a well-researched phenomenon.

But what happens to journalists constantly subjected to these accusations? Does anxiety creep in? Does it become so severe that journalists step back, merely inviting representatives of different opinions and acting as moderators?

We've seen such tendencies, for example, during the coverage leading up to Brexit in the UK. But acting as a passive moderator is not fulfilling the journalistic mission; it does not help citizens gain a deeper understanding. This so-called false balance is now avoided, and most newsrooms are vigilant about it.

But the changing world order redraws the conditions and playing field—even for journalism.

Journalism's task is to independently seek the truth. It may sound simple, and in a way, it is. But the changing world order redraws the conditions and playing field—even for journalism.

A few decades ago, people who made obvious lies were considered irrelevant. If they lived in well-functioning democracies, they made themselves irrelevant to both the general public and journalism. Today, obvious lies are constantly reported. We do it because they affect the world order. When U.S. President Trump calls Ukraine's President Zelensky a dictator, it is relevant, even though everyone knows it's a lie.

Journalists are unaccustomed to passing judgment on statements in the way they are forced to today. When Donald Trump insisted the last U.S. election was rigged, reporters responded with "there is no evidence." Did we journalists contribute to ambiguity with such phrasing? There is a risk of that. But over time, media worldwide have gained better confidence and are now better at clarifying when a statement is an obvious lie.

Our reporting should be based on verifiable facts, evidence-based knowledge, and established science—regardless of whom, what, or which a report benefits or harms. When it comes to facts, we are not impartial.

Here, we must improve.

This means we must always strive for the best available version of the truth. Only with evidence-based and verifiable descriptions of events can the democratic public discourse function. The difficulty in achieving this is no reason not to strive for it at every given moment.

But how should our audience understand that we are constantly working to convey verifiable facts at every given moment?

My answer is that we must become much better at explaining our working methods. We often refer to "journalistic methods" and expect the audience to understand. But how has the journalist fact-checked? What media-ethical considerations has the editor made? How has the publisher ensured truthfulness and sources?

Here, we must improve. This applies to us at Sveriges Radio, but also to the media industry as a whole. We should not become grandiose or complacent, but more often provide context, background—or sometimes just a small detail—to increase understanding, trust, and perhaps also curiosity about how journalism is created. If an investigation took a year to complete—what took so long, what was required for publication? If a party leader debate is to be conducted—how were the topics chosen, and how is speaking time distributed evenly? And so on.

Our only loyalty is to our mission. Without glancing at trust figures, we should solely focus on our core mission—to seek the truth and produce the highest quality journalism possible. And at the same time, help the audience understand how journalism has taken responsibility.

This strengthens understanding of, knowledge about—and in the long run, even the (already high) trust in our journalism!

By Sofia Wadensjö Karén

Sofia Wadensjö Karén is Program Director, Sveriges Radio.