Reflection, adaptation and memory: a three-step process to open up the news

This article is from our community spotlight section, written by and for our journalism community.

We want to hear about your challenges, breakthroughs and experiences. Want to contribute? Get in touch and help shape the discussion around the future of journalism.

Over the last decade, transparency has become one of journalism's guiding values. We've added author bios, sourcing explainers, corrections boxes, and behind-the-scenes reporting. These practices matter. They demonstrate to audiences that we are willing to show our work, not just present a polished story and ask for trust.

But as I've learned in my research and collaborations with newsrooms, transparency is not a destination. It is a practice. And the next frontier is clear: journalism must focus less on the product we deliver and more on the process we use to get there.

We call this metacognition, but that’s just a fancy way of saying that we must encourage more thinking about our thinking. Journalists must start spending more time and energy talking through how they do what they do and not just sharing the final product of what they did. Our newsrooms and our audiences deserve it.

This insight comes from a recent study I conducted with colleagues in eight US newsrooms. Over six weeks, journalists worked with Trusting News "Trust Kits," tools designed to encourage reflection on transparency and corrections. Instead of only evaluating their final outputs, journalists kept reflective journals that captured how they thought through decisions, revised routines, and responded to challenges.

What we found was striking. The most meaningful changes didn't come from creating more transparency cues for readers. They came when journalists made their own thinking visible: to themselves, their colleagues, and, eventually, their communities.

One newsroom realised they had never actually defined what transparency meant for them. Another caught themselves using insider jargon, then revised the language for clarity. A small outlet kept a corrections log to see how they could grow from past mistakes. These aren't grand gestures. They are habits of reflection, regulation, and adaptation that make transparency durable.

In other words, transparency is not only about product; it is about process. It is about the work of pausing, noticing assumptions, adjusting workflows, and carrying lessons forward.

Why does this matter now? Because I believe audiences expect more than a polished story. They want to understand why decisions were made, not just what those decisions were.

In an era of skepticism and information overload, trust doesn’t grow from perfection. It grows from accountability, humility, and a willingness to narrate how journalism happens. I shared this recently in an op-ed in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.

Three ideas to open up the news process

• Reflection: Journalists need to get comfortable narrating uncertainty. Acknowledge when a framing might carry bias, when a deadline forced a compromise, or when feedback changed your approach. Reflection humanises journalism and shows that ethical decision-making is ongoing.

• Adaptation: Audiences notice when we listen. Several newsrooms in the study rewrote their transparency language in plainer terms after readers pushed back. Others restructured correction workflows to respond faster on digital platforms. Adaptation signals responsiveness, not rigid authority, but care.

• Memory: Institutional memory is often overlooked. Corrections logs, archives of audience feedback, and internal discussions about past missteps all help newsrooms sustain transparency over time. Memory makes reflection repeatable rather than ad hoc.

Taken together, these process-oriented practices don’t just tell audiences what we did. They show them how we think.

For practitioners, the implications are straightforward but significant. Build reflection into newsroom routines, and not just when things go wrong. Share not only the outcomes of decisions but the reasoning behind them. Use corrections and feedback as opportunities to explain your values, not just your mistakes. And treat transparency not as an add-on, but as a newsroom habit.

None of this is easy. Time pressure, resource scarcity, and audience ambivalence remain real barriers. But the newsrooms in our study demonstrated that even small steps can reshape culture. Transparency becomes more than a ritual; it becomes a shared discipline of accountability.

I often say that journalism is not just about the stories we tell the world, but about the stories we tell about ourselves. If the past decade was about learning to show our work, the next decade must be about narrating our process.

Transparency remains foundational to journalistic ethics. Its future depends on deepening it: moving from product to process, from disclosure to reflection, from static cues to lived routines. The work of journalism is not only reporting facts; it is demonstrating the integrity of how those facts come to be.

That is the story worth telling.

Thank you for reading this community spotlight piece. These articles help shape the discussion around the future of journalism. Want to write one for us? We'd love to hear from you