News literacy is usually framed as an audience problem. We ask whether the public can tell fact from fiction, spot misinformation, or navigate a noisy media environment. But what if part of the challenge sits inside the newsroom itself? My recent research suggests that journalists already engage in news-literate thinking as part of their daily work, even if the profession rarely calls it that. Here’s how that can serve as a new approach to journalism practice.
Why it matters
News literacy is typically treated as something journalists provide, not something they practice
Trust depends not only on accuracy, but on visible reasoning
Journalists are increasingly asked to explain their work, often under pressure
Newsrooms rarely name metacognitive work, even as they rely on it daily
The core insight
This research reframes news literacy as a professional competency rather than an audience deficit. Based on interviews with 30 working journalists across the United States, the study argues that ethical, adaptive journalism relies on metacognition: the ability to reflect on, regulate, and explain one’s own thinking in real time.
In other words, news literacy is not just about consuming news well. It is also about producing news reflectively.
What the research shows
Across interviews and newsroom reconstructions, journalists described a set of recurring practices that rarely get labeled as literacy, but function that way in practice:
Journalists routinely anticipate what audiences will need to know to understand a story
They reflect on sourcing, framing, and uncertainty while reporting, not just after publication
Transparency often functions as a thinking tool, not only a trust signal
Explaining decisions to editors, peers, or the public frequently sharpens judgment
These behaviors are not abstract ideals. They show up in notes, Slack messages, pitch meetings, editors’ comments, and post-publication explanations. Together, they form a pattern, the study terms News Literate Journalism: a metacognitive approach to practice in which journalists deliberately reflect on and communicate their reasoning.
What metacognition means in journalism
Metacognition is a simple idea with real consequences for journalistic work. At its core, it means thinking about how you think while you’re doing the work.
In journalism, metacognition shows up when reporters pause to ask: Why am I framing this story this way? What assumptions am I making about sources or audiences? What information would help someone understand how I reached this conclusion?
The research shows that journalists already do this kind of thinking constantly. They reflect on sourcing choices, test angles with editors, reconsider language, and explain decisions to colleagues or readers. What makes this metacognitive is not reflection alone, but deliberate awareness of reasoning while decisions are still being made.
Seen this way, metacognition is not an abstract skill or an academic exercise. It is a practical mode of professional judgment that helps journalists navigate uncertainty, complexity, and ethical pressure in real time.
How journalists practice metacognition in real time
The journalists in this study described metacognitive practice not as a separate step, but as something embedded in everyday work.
Metacognition shows up when journalists:
Talk through story logic with an editor before reporting is complete
Revisit sourcing decisions after new information emerges
Annotate drafts to explain why a frame shifted
Anticipate audience questions while writing, not after publication
Explain uncertainty or constraints rather than smoothing them over
What matters here is not slowing journalism down. It is making reasoning explicit enough to be examined, improved, and communicated.
How journalists already use this in their work
Much of what this research describes will feel familiar to working journalists.
Journalists already practice news literacy when they:
Reread drafts to test whether a non-journalist can follow the logic
Justify sourcing decisions to editors or skeptical readers
Annotate drafts to explain why a frame changed
Walk colleagues through how a story evolved
Explain methods or corrections publicly to preserve clarity
These are not add-ons. They are part of how journalism actually gets done. What’s often missing is a shared language for naming this cognitive labor as central to professional practice.
What this research makes easier to see
The research makes one pattern clearer: journalism depends as much on thinking well as on reporting accurately.
First, transparency works best when it is treated as a reflective practice, not a defensive one. Journalists in the study described explaining their decisions as a way to surface blind spots and test assumptions before publication.
Second, explanation strengthens judgment. When journalists articulate why they made a choice, they often recognize gaps, tensions, or alternatives they had not fully considered.
Third, reflection is fragile. Many journalists described losing time and space for this kind of thinking as newsrooms sped up. Without structural support, metacognitive work becomes invisible and unsustainable.
None of this reframes journalism as less rigorous. It reframes rigor as cognitive work that deserves recognition and protection.
How journalists can use this research
This research does not argue for new standards or additional responsibilities. It helps clarify where professional judgment already lives, and how it can be supported.
Newsrooms can use these insights to:
Treat explanations of reasoning as part of reporting, not a reputational risk
Normalize brief process notes in editing and collaboration
Build reflection into existing workflows, even in small ways
Recognize that explaining decisions often improves them
At its core, News Literate Journalism is about making thinking visible to colleagues, to audiences, and to oneself.
Bottom line
Journalists are already doing news-literate work. They reflect, justify, adapt, and explain under real constraints. What this research offers is a way to name that labor and take it seriously.
News literacy does not begin with the audience. It starts with how journalists think about their own thinking.
To access this article: https://doi.org/10.1177/30497841251396584.
— PRJ
Thinking, Elsewhere
At the San Antonio Express-News, the move toward newsletters reflects a deeper shift in how local journalism is thinking about audience relationship, editorial cadence, and responsibility over reach.
Jacob Granger of journalism.co.uk suggests that what distinguishes compelling true-crime podcasts is not production polish, but an editorial mindset that prioritizes narrative tension, pacing, and listener curiosity—elements news podcasts often underthink in the name of information delivery.
Eve Batey’s (Vanity Fair) behind-the-scenes account of Chris Whipple’s White House Report treats access journalism less as a matter of proximity and more as a test of process, showing how on-the-record discipline, boundary-setting, and post-publication explanation shape credibility when power pushes back.
A Columbia Journalism Review editor’s note frames the current wave of press-freedom attacks less as a series of isolated crises and more as a condition that reshapes how journalists think about risk, resilience, and the everyday practice of doing the work under sustained pressure.
Big Issue talks through how Donald Trump’s lawsuit against the BBC frames legal threats not simply as attempts to win in court, but as tools for influencing how journalists think about risk, defensibility, and whether certain lines of reporting are worth pursuing at all.