Bolstering trust by ‘letting them know who we are’: How New York Times ‘enhanced bios’ signal expertise

What do news organizations treat as expertise when detailing their staff’s backgrounds and experiences? In this study, we apply the dual concepts of “connection-based reporting” and “political identity ownership” to examine New York Times “enhanced bios,” the paper’s initiative to publish more detailed information about newsroom staff highlighting what they describe as their “deep expertise,” unique perspectives, and personal backgrounds. Using a large corpus of bios (N = 1160) scraped from the paper’s website, we find that most bios stick to “safe” areas of identity disclosure including previous journalistic employment, awards won, books published, and academic credentials from often elite universities. In so doing, the initiative underscores the degree to which the paper’s reporting staff overrepresents those with elite backgrounds and geographic connections to cosmopolitan communities where wealth and power is concentrated. We theorize that the absence of disclosure emphasizing alternative personal characteristics or social identities suggests an adherence to constraining professional norms around what “counts” as expertise as well as a hesitance within the profession around foregrounding particular aspects of identity presumed to be politically salient. At the same time, we argue that these patterns may further alienate some audiences, especially those on the right in the US, who may view conventional, institutional signals of expertise as ideologically liberal.