Every year, Trust-with-a-capital-T is surveyed. And every year, more or less, the numbers shrink.<\/p>\n
Unlike political polls, where there\u2019s a strong argument that the only one that matters is in November, polls about trust in media can have a direct and sometimes chilling effect. <\/p>\n
State media, in particular, risks losing political support, funding and perhaps even a future when research is telling us that fewer listeners, readers and viewers don\u2019t trust what they\u2019re hearing, reading or seeing.<\/p>\n
RNZ listeners are already hearing the effect of this, with announcers, promos and advertising telling us that we should trust, trust, trust what we hear on 101FM and read on its website.<\/p>\n
RNZ leads the AUT Trust in News survey; the Government has told its board and CEO Paul Thompson that it wants to continue to see increases in RNZ’s trust levels. Photos \/ Mark Mitchell, RNZ<\/p>\n
As an advertising guy, that makes sense. If your brand wants its trust measures to go up, spend time and money telling people that you\u2019re trusted. Next survey: boom!<\/p>\n
But is it really that simple?<\/p>\n
There\u2019s an enormous difference, I\u2019d argue, between trust in media \u2013 which is what the surveys claim to be measuring \u2013 and self-reported trust in media.<\/p>\n
The difference isn\u2019t trivial.<\/p>\n
Trust is a belief. It can\u2019t be seen or measured. Whether someone trusts you or not is something only they know.<\/p>\n
Self-reported trust is a different matter. It\u2019s an answer to a question posed by a researcher. It might be a true, open answer to the question. Santa Claus might also be real, and this might also be the Warriors\u2019 year.<\/p>\n
More likely, there are other factors at play.<\/p>\n
What does telling a researcher, or an online poll, that you trust the media say about you in 2026?<\/p>\n
Does it mean you\u2019ve been brainwashed? That you\u2019re one of the \u201csheeple\u201d your online friends or mates down the pub talk about? Does trusting in the \u201cmainstream media\u201d rather than doing your own research make you appear gullible or just a bit ignorant? Wake up, mate, you\u2019re smarter than that!<\/p>\n
I suspect that instead of trust in media plummeting in recent years, it\u2019s willingness to say that you trust in media that\u2019s taken a hit.<\/p>\n
Saying that you trust the media just isn\u2019t cool.<\/p>\n
So where does that leave us? If trust is something secret, locked inside and known only to the individual, can we even measure it?<\/p>\n
Probably not. But what we can measure is behaviour.<\/p>\n
Actual psychologists will likely shoot me down here, but what little I remember from my degree tells me that the psychological theory of behaviourism could help. Accepting that the \u201cself\u201d is an unknowable, or at least unverifiable \u201cblack box,\u201d means that measuring the stuff we can actually see is all we\u2019re left with.<\/p>\n
Handily, digital media is easily measured. That means it\u2019s possible to see over time where people turn when they need reliable, accurate, trustworthy information.<\/p>\n
When people really need to know something, where do they go? When an earthquake hits and there might or might not be a tsunami. When a government is about to be formed, or about to fall. When our team plays their team and we want to know the score.<\/p>\n
Answering that question should be easy, but it\u2019s not one that\u2019s been asked enough. There\u2019s plenty of research that reports where people \u201csay\u201d they\u2019ll turn to learn about a breaking news story, but less about actual behaviour.<\/p>\n
I\u2019d love to see some research effort put into understanding actual trust in media, rather than just the self-reported version we give so much weight to.<\/p>\n
Maybe trust in media is slipping. Maybe it isn\u2019t. What I know is that asking people their opinions isn\u2019t a trustworthy way to measure it.<\/p>\n
Vaughn Davis is the creative director of Auckland advertising agency The Goat Farm.<\/p>\n