Source trust

“Souce trust” (källtillit) was named the “new word of the week” in Språktidningen (a Swedish language magazine focused on language, communication, and linguistics) in mid-August 2019. According to the magazine, the word had begun to be used the previous year.  "Source criticism" (källkritik), on the other hand, has been common in Swedish since the late 1800s, the magazine noted.

Can we find out if Språktidningen’s claim that “Souce trust” is a new word is accurate? Let’s try. Språktidningen is a commercial magazine that relies on subscribers and advertisers for its revenue, like most media outlets in Sweden.

We can start by examining our source’s sources. Virtually all articles are written by linguists or journalists who have drawn their information from scholarly sources.

Even researchers can be wrong

Historically, magazines that derive most of their income from subscribers have relied on their credibility. It has been important to scrutinize their sources and, ideally, use two independent sources. It’s also important to be careful with headlines, which—while intended to entice readers—should also provide an accurate representation of the information contained in the article.

When the newspaper was launched, it received a grant from the Swedish Research Council. The newspaper also collaborates to some extent with the Language Council, which is part of the Institute for Language and Folklore.

It therefore appears that the newspaper is careful about what it publishes and is also associated with organizations that have high credibility.

It’s unlikely that they’re lying. However, they could be wrong. Everyone makes mistakes—even experienced researchers and journalists.

The internet means we have to choose whom we trust

Regardless of whether Språktidningen’s dating is correct, source credibility is a relatively new concept. Why did the need for this concept arise? Jutta Haider and Olof Sundin, researchers at Lund University and other institutions, believe it’s due to the internet and social media. For many of us, traditional media is now just one of several sources of information. That’s why source criticism has become an increasingly widespread skill in our society.

But we can’t apply source criticism to everything, the researchers argue. Just getting through the morning radio news broadcast would be a full-time job in itself. We need to trust a number of sources. We can’t have firsthand knowledge of everything. Most of what we learn is second-, third-, or fourth-hand.

News can travel a long way before it reaches us

Let’s take a hypothetical example. A group of researchers has discovered a completely new way to cure a disease. They write an article for a scientific journal. The article is reviewed by a number of independent experts. A science journalist at a news agency reads the article, interviews the researchers, and writes their own article aimed at a broader audience. Other media outlets pick up the story and publish their own articles on the topic.

An acquaintance finds it interesting and shares one of the articles in their social media feed. And that may be the first place we hear the news.

The news of the research breakthrough has traveled quite a distance before it reaches us. Unless we have specialized knowledge on the subject, we can hardly understand the original article and must rely on it being explained to us correctly. Even if we happened to meet one of the researchers, few of us would have enough knowledge to ask the right questions.

We Trust One Another

A foundation of trust in sources is that we trust one another as fellow human beings, but also trust society at large. Sweden is a country where trust in other people, societal institutions, and traditional media is high.

According to the latest SOM survey*, around 60 percent of respondents have high trust in their fellow human beings, while only around 10 percent say they have low trust in other people. These figures have remained stable since the 1990s.

For a source to be credible, it is important that the source is clear about its intentions. Media outlets should clearly indicate when they are reporting an event factually and when someone is commenting on the event and expressing an opinion.

Examine the source’s sources

The fact that more and more media outlets are explaining how they conducted their fact-checking also makes it easier to assess whether or not the source can be trusted.

You can also, as in the example of Språktidningen, examine the source’s sources and what other conflicts of interest they may have.

If the source is owned or operated by a company that sells cars, you can examine whether their articles on motoring are unbiased. If the owners are an organization with a stated political agenda, this is naturally reflected in editorials and other opinion pieces, but is it also evident in news reporting? Perhaps it influences which events they choose to report on or how certain news stories are presented.

If the source is transparent about which sources it uses and how it evaluates them, it may be reasonable to trust that source.

*The SOM Institute is an independent research institute at the University of Gothenburg. It conducts a number of different surveys on public opinion, including through the citizen panel and the annual SOM survey. The latter usually has an impact on public debate. The reason is that the SOM survey is so comprehensive. A large number of questions are sent out to 30,000 randomly selected Swedes. About half usually respond.