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.

Email the team

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.