We learned from user research that sometimes news reports neglect relevant information needs that people actually want to know about. The list was coded during the modular journalism project based on user research conducted by Il Sole 24 Ore, Deutsche Welle, the Maharat Foundation, and Clwstwr (Shirish Kulkarni). They are, of course, a working list, with no pretense to be definitive or particularly original. Their usage in combination with modularity, however, may be.
It is also immediately evident how many of these information needs align with frameworks of transparent and inclusive journalism. The Trust Project, for example, highlights many of these in its Trust Indicators, which also have a strong tie to user research, specifically Journalist Expertise and Methods.
Information needs is the term used, among others, by the Detroit-based news organization Outlier Media and its focus on addressing information gaps in the community. Although we are using the term in a different connotation and with a focus on the components of the news discourse, the goal of public interest journalism is similar, as is that of solutions journalism.
The list of user effects could perhaps be best described in other ways: as bad habits in reporting, or in some cases, as markers of unethical behavior in journalism. We chose to define them within the confines of modularity, to highlight portions of the text that provide no functional value to users even though they sometimes appear deliberately crafted to misinform and manipulate. We are not here to have a deontological beef with user effects; we are here to discard them.
This is, also, of course, just a very partial list.
What happened?
Why did it happen?
When did it happen?
Who is it about?
Where did it happen?
Why is this important?
What are the key facts?
What do key people say?
What is the data?
What has got us here?
Are any people particularly or disproportionately affected?
How can we fix it?
What is the impact on my community?
What don't we know?
What happens if...?
What is the context?
Can you tell me what is going on in very few words?
What is the methodology behind this report?
What is the problem?
Is there a solution?
What can I learn from this?
Am I the only one that feels strongly about this?
Is what they say actually true?
Are there any lessons from the past?
What might happen next?
What is the source material?
Who is most affected?
Who is involved?
How many points of view are there on this topic?
What do the people involved say?
Why should I trust you on this?
What do others do in similar circumstances?
Who pays?
Who profits?
Are there images / videos / audios about this?
Is there an economic or financial impact?
How many times has this already happened?
How can I find out more?
How can I contribute / help?
What might make you sit up and think?
Who is responsible for this?
Are there pros and cons to this?
Is this ongoing?
Is this breaking news?
Are there bias?
Does the journalist have the expertise to cover this?
Is the journalist part of the affected community?
Is there a step by step guide?
How can someone affect what happens next?
What do we know for sure in this moment?
Should I feel more or less safe because of this?
Should we read something between the lines?
Is there a catch?
What we think about this?
Am I going to hear about this again?
What are the misconceptions?
What you might have heard about this that is not verified or true?
Is there a fun side to this?
What is the big picture?
Did you correct any details about this report?
How long did the journalist work on this report?
Are conflicts of interest?
Is there any missing data?
What events led to this?
Are there relevant related events?
We are on the same team
I acknowledge that our community is divided into opposing factions. I know which faction you belong to and want to make it clear that I am on the same side.
I will highlight our successes
I will present the events in a way that highlights our faction's successes
I will make you feel valued
I will actively acknowledge your viewpoint to make sure you feel understood and valued.
We are in this together
We are connected and share a common burden and purpose, as we are both part of the same faction.
Your point of view is reasonable and makes sense to me
I will respect your point of view, reinforcing that it is reasonable and worth consideration, even when most people disagree.
I will focus on the details you are comfortable with
I will selectively share information, focusing on what I know interests you and what you are comfortable with, omitting instead details that would displease you.
I will tell you what you want to hear
I will carefully craft my reporting on the events, making sure that what I say aligns with your expectations and is in the interest of our faction.
I will cherry-pick information for our benefit
I will selectively choose aspects of the events to make sure the reporting is beneficial to our faction, and therefore yours.
I will say just enough to rile you up
I will provide just enough information to provoke a strong reaction when this is convenient for our faction.
I will keep you on message to reinforce a narrative on social media
I will make sure to keep you on message when you discuss this narrative on social media, highlighting the key talking points and suppressing any dissenting views or alternative perspectives.
I will distort details to support a narrative
I will knowingly omit, distort, or misrepresent details in my reporting to support a narrative.
I will encourage you to share this narrative
I will encourage you to share this narrative with others, especially on social media, to make our voices heard.
I will echo narratives to gain your trust
I will echo narratives that our faction shares on social media to reinforce my sense of belonging and gain your trust.
I speak your language
I will use jargon familiar to you, leaving no doubt that I am part of the same faction.
I will use loaded and evocative language to support a narrative
I will insist on using words and expressions that are loaded and evocative of a specific narrative.
I share your political views
I will leave no doubt that I am aligned with the political views of our faction.
I will be relentless with our adversaries.
I will be relentless with our political adversaries.
I will always portray our representatives positively
I will always represent our political representatives and allies in a positive light, regardless of what they say or do.
I will downplay anything that casts our allies in a negative light
I will downplay any comment or situation that casts our political representatives and allies in a negative light.
I will downplay unfavorable economic data and financial events
I will downplay economic data and financial events if they are not favorable for our political representatives and our faction.
I will emphasize economic data and financial events if convenient
I will emphasize economic data and financial events, even if they are out of context, if those events cast our political representatives or allies in a good light.
I will incorporate my opinions in news reports
I will subtly incorporate my opinions into my reporting through careful word choice and by how I present facts and events.
I will downplay our adversaries' viewpoints
I will discard, downplay, or gloss over the viewpoints of our political adversaries, regardless of how sound and reasonable they may be.
I will feign indifference or confusion to undermine our adversaries' arguments
In conversations with our political adversaries, I will feign indifference or confusion when listening to their viewpoints, regardless of how clearly stated or reasonable they may be, reinforcing the impression that their arguments were neither clearly stated nor reasonable.
I will interrupt or feign disinterest when opponents make strong arguments
In conversations with our political adversaries, I will often interrupt or appear to lose focus or get bored when listening to their viewpoints, even when a strong, clearly stated, and reasonable argument is made.
I will deflect and redirect conversations to hinder political opponents
In conversations with our political adversaries, I will not ask follow-up questions or reinforce any arguments that have merit, but will instead change the topic.
I will ask adversaries questions to reinforce debunked narratives
In conversations with our political adversaries, I will challenge their debunked and damaging narratives by asking questions that force them to address topics that disadvantage them and keep the public's attention on those issues.
I will not challenge or fact-check statements that contain falsities
I will not challenge or fact-check statements that contain falsities or exaggerations if it is convenient for my faction.
I will not contradict false statements
I will not contradict false statements, not even when they go against the consensus of experts and scientists, if they support my tribe's arguments.
I will frame statements or events to support a narrative
I will frame statements or events, giving an interpretation that supports a narrative.
I will not add context for statements going against verified science or proven facts
I will not weigh or place in context statements contradicting accepted or verified science or facts, nor will I give credit or dignity to minority arguments simply because they support a narrative shared with my faction.
I will cast opposing arguments as 'common beliefs'
I will cast opposing arguments as common beliefs, undermining their legitimacy and implying they are unoriginal, uncritical, or even mindless.
I will hint at insider knowledge without mentioning sources
I will talk to you, giving the impression that I am in the know, a fly on the wall in the rooms that matter, but I will not reveal who my sources are and will not apologize for not revealing them. Nothing of what I say can be held accountable.
I will report research findings as facts and without caveats.
I will report findings from scientific papers or research as established facts, without providing caveats, or acknowledging the broader context and the peer review-process.
I will characterize people consistently with established narratives.
I will assume users are familiar with the people I'm discussing and their perspectives, so I'll characterize them in a way that's consistent with established narratives.