News Media Accountability and Trust Survey
Assesses how news consumers judge the accountability practices of the outlets they follow — corrections, sourcing, transparency about ownership and conflicts of interest — and prioritizes which practices matter most to trust. An AI follow-up interview reconstructs a specific incident where trust in a news source was gained or lost. Built for newsrooms, media watchdogs, and researchers studying press credibility.
샘플 질문
템플릿에 포함된 내용을 미리 확인해 보세요. 모든 질문은 설문 공개 전에 자유롭게 수정할 수 있습니다.
In the last 30 days, how often have you come across a news story you suspected was inaccurate or misleading?
- Never
- Once or twice
- Several times
- Almost every time I checked the news
- Not sure
Thinking about the mainstream news outlets you follow, how would you rate them on each of the following?
- Issuing prompt, visible corrections when they get something wrong
- Citing original sources clearly
- Disclosing conflicts of interest
- Distinguishing opinion content from straight news reporting
- Disclosing who owns and funds them
How confident are you that major news outlets correct their mistakes when errors are pointed out?
The last time you noticed a factual error in a news story, what did you do?
- Contacted the outlet directly
- Posted about it on social media
- Mentioned it to friends or family
- Looked for confirmation from another source
- Stopped trusting that outlet
- Nothing, I let it go
From the accountability practices below, which matters most to you and which matters least when deciding whether to trust a news outlet?
- Issuing prompt, visible corrections
- Clearly citing original sources
- Disclosing conflicts of interest
- Distinguishing opinion from news reporting
- Disclosing ownership and funding
- Having an accessible corrections or complaints process
- Explaining how a story was reported
- Using independent fact-checking
If you had 100 points to spend on improving how much you trust a news outlet, how would you divide them across these factors?
- Prompt, visible corrections when errors occur
- Clear citation of sources
- Transparent ownership and funding
- Clear labeling of opinion vs. news content
- An accessible way to report errors or complaints
Read the correction notice below. Highlight the parts that make you more confident in the outlet, and the parts that make you less confident.
Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that the new policy took effect in March. It took effect in April. This version has been updated, and we regret the error. (Template n…
Reconstruct a specific, recent incident where the respondent's trust in a news outlet was gained or lost over an accountability issue — what happened, whether the outlet acknowledged it, and how the respondent reacted. Anchor on their confidence rating and the action they said they took after noticing an error, and probe what specifically the outlet would have needed to do to restore or strengthen trust. If they say they 'let it go,' probe whether that was resignation or genuine indifference.
That covers the accountability questions — thank you for the thoughtful answers. Just a few optional background questions to help us compare views across groups.
What is your age range?
- Under 18
- 18-24
- 25-34
- 35-44
- 45-54
- 55-64
- 65+
- Prefer not to say
Where do you primarily get your news? (select all that apply)
- Social media
- Television
- Print newspapers or magazines
- Online news sites or apps
- Radio
- Podcasts
- Prefer not to say
Which best describes your political leaning?
- Left
- Center-left
- Center
- Center-right
- Right
- Prefer not to say
All done — thank you! Your responses will be combined with others to build a report on which accountability practices actually move audience trust, shared with newsroom and research partners.
포함된 기능
AI 후속 질문
정형화된 설문이 놓치는 세부 내용을, 주관식 답변에 맞춰 AI가 심층 질문으로 끌어냅니다.
주의력 확인 장치
성의 없는 답변과 저품질 응답자를 걸러내는 내장 안전장치입니다.
AI가 작성한 문안
문구, 질문 순서, 분기 로직까지 AI가 연구 목표에 맞춰 작성합니다.
자동 리포트
응답이 모이면 주요 주제, 인용문, 이해하기 쉬운 요약이 자동으로 작성됩니다.
다른 서비스와 비교
다른 설문 도구의 가장 유사한 템플릿을 검토했습니다. 그 도구들이 잘하는 점과, 이 템플릿이 한발 더 나아가는 지점을 정리했습니다.
이 템플릿을 선택하는 이유
- Goes beyond static rating questions with an AI follow-up interview that reconstructs a specific incident where the respondent's trust in a news outlet was gained or lost, surfacing concrete stories rather than just abstract scores.
- Uses a max-diff exercise and a constant-sum allocation to force real trade-offs between accountability practices (corrections, sourcing, ownership transparency) instead of letting everything score 'important.'
- Includes a text-highlight exercise where respondents mark which parts of an actual correction notice build their confidence, giving qualitative, evidence-level detail on what 'good' transparency looks like.
- Combines matrix ratings, an opinion-scale trust-in-corrections item, and behavioral recall questions (what did you do the last time you spotted an error) with an auto-generated report, on a platform with a free tier and transparent prompts.
QuestionPro
Media Accountability Survey Questions + Sample Questionnaire TemplateThis is a sample questionnaire/guide page listing example media accountability questions rather than an interactive, fielding-ready survey experience. It's a reasonable starting point for question wording but reads as static reference content. There's no indication of adaptive follow-up or built-in scoring on the page.
잘하는 점
- Provides ready-made sample question wording specifically on media accountability topics
- Backed by a large, established survey platform with broad question-type support
- Useful as a quick-start question bank for researchers drafting their own instrument
아쉬운 점
- Presents fixed sample questions with no adaptive AI follow-up to probe individual incidents or reasoning
- No mention of automated per-response quality scoring or transparent, published prompt methodology
- Appears to be a static questionnaire template/guide rather than a voice- or chat-based interview experience
설문을 공개할 준비가 되셨나요?
이 템플릿을 편집기에서 열어 보세요. 첫 응답자가 보기 전에 모든 부분을 원하는 대로 바꿀 수 있습니다.