|
How KFF Health News journalists handle misinformation and build audience trust
By Jaise King, NPCJI Summer '26 Intern
As public skepticism of the journalism industry continues to grow, journalists are facing heightened concerns about misinformation, the veracity of their reporting, and their ability to convey complex topics to the broader public.
To help journalists better understand how to regain and maintain public trust when covering public health, the Institute held a conversation with KFF Health News journalists Julie Rovner and Amanda Seitz as part of its Public Health Reporting Fellowship.
Rovner and Seitz implored journalists to add greater nuance and discernment to their reporting, stressing the idea that these health topics cannot be made black and white, as healthcare is always changing and evolving.
They also emphasized the role of sound journalism in helping people understand health policy and shared that a degree of humility is needed to conduct the work.
Here are some key takeaways from the conversation:
Balancing the level of scientific detail in a story vs. clarity for the reader
Seitz recommended that journalists encourage sources to explain complex topics in the way they would to their family members or friends, avoiding jargon. She emphasized that keeping the audience in mind is paramount to covering a topic completely and earnestly, regardless of potential pushback from a source on a topic for oversimplifying their expertise.
Rovner stressed that journalists should find the most important point they want their audience to walk away with and concentrate on explaining that point, rather than explaining the whole context behind it. This helps readers to more easily digest the information as it is presented.
Editorial judgment in the current information environment
Seitz explained that there are competing perspectives on topics that have worsened the spread of misinformation, making editorial judgments harder than ever.
“You don’t want to be the person giving a falsehood its biggest platform,” Seitz said.
However, she highlighted that journalists are “not in the business of protecting our audience from what public officials are saying,” and that it is our job to report fully on their statements. This, however, comes with the caveat of giving yourself the time and resources to fact-check and preserve the relevancy of quotes in a story.
Rovner chimed in with some feedback for podcasters, emphasizing that part of the editing process involves cleaning up soundbites from officials to preserve the authenticity of the story or to help readers understand the point you’re trying to make.
Regaining public trust in the face of backlash
Rovner highlighted how the public lost confidence in the guidance of health officials due to the coverage of updated COVID guidelines during the height of the pandemic.
Journalists have the ability to intervene in this critical gap by adding more nuance and context to public health events, Rovner added. This practice requires journalists to take on a sense of humility that allows their stories to be updated as new guidance comes out frequently.
“From what we know at this moment,” she recommends saying: “This is what we advise. It might change. Stay tuned.”
Watch the full conversation here:
| 
