Credibility

The public now accesses information from a vast media environment, drawing on established news organizations, independent voices like those we interviewed and a growing range of algorithmic platforms, including social media and AI chatbots. But people don’t find all sources equally relevant, which has implications for commercial viability. With many major news outlets shutting down all or parts of their operations and growing news deserts throughout South Africa, deep audience understanding is essential for indie info providers. Producing credible information, building audience trust and engaging with audiences may become even more important in a country facing international disinformation campaigns. The indie info providers we interviewed have given a lot of thought to these topics.

Through multiple sources of information, including audience feedback and engagement data, interviewees have a clear sense of who they reach.

through a combination of analytics, content performance and feedback they receive. Based on analytics, most interviewees can speak confidently about audience location, age, gender and sometimes race. Many interviewees also articulated a clear sense of their audience’s interests, such as politics or lifestyle, but distribution platforms don’t typically provide this kind of data. Instead, consistent patterns in content performance can be illuminating. For example, several interviewees who create consumer-facing info said that reviews of budget products and “anything that punches above its weight” perform best, suggesting they can reach an “aspirational” audience on a fairly tight budget. If they work primarily in English, they are confident that their South African audience is middle-class or wealthier. Unsolicited audience feedback provides a third source of insight into their most dedicated audiences. For example, if most messages come from Black women, they assume most of the audience fits that profile. For one interviewee, brand outreach gives them insight into their audience.

Freelancing can also provide valuable secondhand knowledge about audiences. While not all interviewees can afford focus groups or other forms of audience research, some do have a clear sense of who they reach through larger publications. Those who regularly collaborate with or publish in other outlets answered questions about their audience with reference to these larger outlets. For example, one respondent described a regional outlet they partner with as reaching “policy makers, they reach people in government, conservation, business. They really are a heavy-hitting title. They’re read widely in South Africa and across the continent.”

South African indie info providers generally see audience feedback as generative.

Many interviewees described their audiences as a valuable source of ideas and inspiration. This may be in the form of direct requests for coverage or donations of multimedia content. For example, an interviewee with a satirical brand regularly incorporates audience-generated punchlines and memes into their show. However, it’s more common for audiences to inspire news stories less directly, such as with audience questions. As a hyperlocal info provider explained:

They expanded a new shop and we just did a video of it. There was no article even. The whole week I was fielding questions. They’re like, ‘Hey, so do you guys have a halal section?’ I’m like, ‘That’s not my shop. Please go look.’ But then we did discover people want to know which shops have halal sections. We should probably do that. So, that’s kind of how we do it. ‘Is it open after 9?’ And I’m like, ‘I don’t know. I never asked them because I don’t even live in that area.’ But it did make me go, ‘Okay, I’ve got to do a story on stores that are open late if you’re working.’” 

Informal communication and in-person events are also opportunities to get a better sense of audience interests and questions that may eventually translate into content. A few interviewees actively seek out this kind of feedback through audience surveys with mixed success. Some receive almost no feedback this way, while others said surveys work best when they conduct them infrequently, albeit regularly.

Several interviewees had to develop strict boundaries to respond to “toxic” or “rabid and horrible and abusive” interactions online. One person had been the victim of a mass reporting campaign on social media, which left them cautious about sharing too much personal information. Two others set strict limits on what they answer and how much time they spend on it. This is necessary for their mental health and well-being:

It’s really important when you’re working in algorithmically charged online environments to get outside and just remember that most people are still normal and don’t behave like they’re on TikTok all the time.”

All the same, South African interviewees put a lot of emphasis on “showing up.” For many, their work and credibility is fundamentally relationship-based, and it isn’t possible to build and maintain those relationships without being accessible. One interviewee described finding value in events where “you get to speak to the people and you tell them, ‘Look here, this work that we are doing is not funded by the government’ … [which] adds a bit more of a real authenticity to the work that we do.” Other forms of showing up include in-person conversation, especially around sensitive topics, or answering every email and DM they receive, often at length. As one interviewee said, “It’s not a situation where I can establish credibility from on high … so it was always going to be about getting on the ground with people and getting into the nuance and the details.” Showing up may be particularly important in the context of unequal power relationships, like one interviewee who makes a standard practice of bringing reporting back to the affected communities. As they explained, “you have to not just pay lip service to a more ethical way of being but actually also do it” to maintain credibility in marginalized communities, especially as an outsider.

Interviewees also aim to build audience trust through traditional journalistic authority — especially through a rigorous process of sourcing, verification and fact-checking.

Interviewees frequently cited traditional journalistic practices and ethics as a way to build credibility. By far the most common practices cited were rigor in sourcing and verification, among both former journalists and those with no journalism experience. If they make mistakes, interviewees said, audiences will find someone else who does a better job. In many cases, that means not just fact-checking but sharing exactly which sources they use. As one interviewee explained it, the alternative is “risking publishing something that may or may not be true. Do you want to risk your reputation on something like that?” While the details of sourcing and verification practices were outside the scope of interviews, it is clear that interviewees prioritize rigor and fact-checking and view it as a way to build credibility with their audience, whether they are doing original reporting or curating content from other sources.

This type of rigor is clearly important in South Africa, where some interviewees see the country as “uniquely vulnerable to fake news and bot-led disinformation networks.” Although South Africa has an established and functioning free press, the country, like others in the region and beyond, has been inundated with online disinformation campaigns from domestic and international actors, increasing concerns about information integrity.

From the interviewees’ point of view, financial and editorial independence, including transparency about funding, are another key facet of traditional journalistic ethics. These are particularly important to interviewees who cover commercial enterprises. As one of them said, “[covered businesses] cannot own us and they cannot buy us.” This person described a no-exceptions advertising and corrections policy, which they instituted to indicate a strong stance against financial or legal pressure. Another interviewee avoids collaboration because “I was stung a few times by folks who had a real political agenda and would try and use me to reinforce their political agenda.” Working alone makes it possible to maintain their independence.

Because ethics are so important, at least one interviewee voluntarily opened themself up to external scrutiny. This person chose to register with the South African Press Council so that they are held to the same standards as legacy outlets and can receive official complaints.

Continue reading