Slashdot Mirror
Internet Gains Ground As Trusted News Source
Khammurabi writes "Yahoo is reporting that the younger generation is trusting internet news sources more and more. From the article, 'The survey confirmed that media consumption is shifting online for younger generations, as 19 percent of those aged 18 to 24 named the Internet as their most important source of news compared with 9 percent overall.' Also in the article is the factoid that Americans consider Fox News the most trustworthy national news program overall (coming in at 11%)."
I think the fact that we read about this survey on the internet says it all.
Personally, internet is my most important source of news, but also the least trusted. It's like watching "Days of our Lives", you simply don't want to miss a single episode, but it's the same emptiness after each one of them. This is also the reason why we just keep on posting comments even if it's a dupe.
Please stop entering code 2,2,7,6,6,4
I didn't see Slashdot, DIGG, Fark, etc. listed - why not?!? ;-)
Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
I bet they just got it off some website.
The survey confirmed that media consumption is shifting online for younger generations, as 19 percent of those aged 18 to 24 named the Internet as their most important source of news compared with 9 percent overall.
It is much easier to find news sources on the Internet that overlook the things you want overlooked. I.e., if you have the opnion that the war in Iraq is going great and there are no problems, you can find a news source that will give you only information that supports that view. If you think the war in Iraq is a debacle/illegal/disaster/whatever, you can also find a news source to support only that view. It's nothing new. Poeple go where they hear the things they want to hear because it's easier than hearing everything and ignoring what you don't like.
Ok, let me go out on a limb and predict where the slashdot crowd will direct their wrath on. Behold, Fox News.
I'll admit Fox News has its ups and downs, but the ire and hatred that liberals have for it is over the top.
I doubt you'll hear a peep about Al Jazeera or the BBC on this thread.
Do you read outside your own country? If not, why?
The beauty of the internet is getting past political and physical boundaries. I can read english language sites beyond the scope of political parties or central governments who would prefer to spin things one way.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Neither of these claims are true in a generic sense. All of these are mere information channels containing good as well as bad information sources (definition of "good" and "bad" left as an exercise to the reader). It is up to the individual to discern which particular websites/channels/newspapers are worthy, and which are not.
Discriminating between fiction and non-fiction is one of the most important skills kids could and should learn.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
Whenever I see a big mainstream news headline and read the story, I'll usually hit Google News to see what opposing views there are. Lately I've typed in some headlines and found 200 newspapers using the exact same wire article, verbatim. After wading through that junk, I'll slowly find opposing views -- views that were impossible to find just a few years ago.
I'm not sure that any news is really news anymore; more and more news is colored by opinion. That is fine with me, but I would like to see more sources given tribute and more news reporters coming up with unique news rather than regurgitating the same stories over and over again. I figure why don't these major news outlets just run an RSS feed of the AP and be done with it?
For me, I prefer the news that was normally marginalized out of existance. It gives me a dose of unique opinions, and it also helps create interesting debate topics that help in relationship at home and my relationships with friends and customers.
I think more and more people are starting to think outside the box -- and the Internet is a great place to find every opinion. Are all of them newsworthy? Probably not.
With companies like BlogBurst.com bringing amateur news and opinions to large mainstream media outlets, we'll see more and more integration of the sidestream media, and maybe we'll see less and less need to rely on sources such as CNN and FoxNN.
...is http://www.nakednews.com/.
Before everybody correctly points out that the Internet is not a reliable source, I would like to point out that newspapers are not really up to the standards they are purported to be. Every time I read a newspaper article on a subject I know well, I very, very rarely read anything insightful, and very often loads of bullshit. Most of the times, the writer probably had to finish an article and deliver X lines, and put a few "facts" together—possibly naïvely got from the Internet as well.
I tend to trust sources where readers can write down their views, integrate, and if necessary insult the writer. I trust Slashdot commentaries (the whole page, not single comments), an often-edited Wikipedia article or a high-traffic blog way more than an article in a newspaper, because if there is something to be known you will probably find it. Even if you have to wade through flame wars and moderators on crack, it's likely there.
There's no such thing as a totally reliable news source, anyway.
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
The BBC is not unbiased either, just differently biased.
The real problem is the very assumption that there are unbiased news sources. If you think a news source is "unbiased", all it usually means is that the news source just happens to share your bias. Conflating shared bias with lack of bias is a very common failure of critical thinking. When people on every side of the political spectrum accuse news sources of being biased, they are all correct.
.
.
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
What Fox News viewers believe
Did you say "almost untrustworthy"?
Because most English language papers are not on the same level as Americans in their political leanings. Even the most liberal Americans are right-wingers over in Europe. People like what they read to agree with what they already "feel" as some sort of validation that their feelings and opinions are correct. This is not a conspiracy, it's human nature. We like to be right, even if that means redefining what it means to *be* right.
It's frustrating when such blatant statistical nonsense gets into an article summary, and then there's a whole mini-flamewar about it ("See, Americans are stupid!"/"What's so bad about fox news?!") without any acknowledgment that the original claim is a sham.
I don't think it's surprising, or even depressing, that Fox is the most trusted single news source, at least not when it only got 11%. Fox tries to present itself as the only really honest news source, and people who actually watch it are more liable to buy that. The more "balanced" :-P folks realize that you can't just trust one source for all your news, and are thus less likely to overwhelmingly go for one particular news source as the most trusted one. If you asked me that question, there are half a dozen sources that would spring to mind, none of which have a decisive advantage. I would rank Fox as my least trusted source (at least among the big players), but the most is much less defined.
All of which is just to say... among the Fox demographic, Fox news is likely to be the most trusted name. But among (say) the New York Times' demographic, there are a number of other news sources that would probably be similarly trusted. This isn't surprising, and I'm actually very encouraged that 89% trusts other sources more than Fox -- I'm rather cynical, and would have guessed a much lower number.
I am the man with no sig!
Fox news has risen to prominence because it is the singluar major news outlet that doesn't pander to leftist sympathies.
Or it could be that Americans want feel-good news. Good reporting digs up uncomfortable truths. After being barraged by many uncomfortable truths in the 60s and 70s, Americans ushered in the feel-good-about-America Reagan Era. Arguably it was America's collective desire to avoid complicated reality in favor of a more jingoistic and easily-digestible view of the world that led both to the rightward political turn of the last two decades, and the simultaneous rise of Fox News and breathless "as it happens" reportage devoid of context or depth.
You don't have to be a leftist to understand that America does actually make mistakes, but you do have to practice willful ignorance if you watch Fox and expect you're getting an unvarnished look at current events. As for the Washington Times, calling it "conservative-leaning" is like referring to the John Birch Society as "mildly conservative."
The most an information consumer can hope for is to be cognizant of the prejudices of the source. One can only hope that as the blogosphere and internet media evolves as an information source, the critical thinking skills of consumers experiences a similar evolution. Too many people believe what they are told and a free society will not long endure when so many of its citizens are damned fools.
Being cognizant of the prejudices of the source is vital. I definitely agree with you there. It's a pity that so many people still take most of their news from one TV network. TV is the most easily-manipulated, most infotainment-oriented, most passive news medium. I find it baffling that anyone could watch Fox, CNN, NBC, CBS, or ABC, and think that they're being informed in anything but the most minimal fashion. Read one issue of the Economist, the Financial Times, the Wall Street Journal, or the NY Times, and compare that to a week's worth of TV news viewing. The difference in the amount and quality of information received is staggering.
Sadly, I'm not sure that the blogosphere is much better than TV. Disinformation and spin can be passed through the blogosphere just as rapidly as via TV. When everyone's opinions are equal in weight, the opinions that fit our own predispositions and desires (as with feel-good Fox TV reporting) get amplified. Minority voices do get heard in the blogosphere, which is good. But ultimately we're still left with the fact that most of what we read on blogs is opinion, derived from primary sources in the mainstream media. If the MSM isn't doing its job and practicing good, in-depth journalism, bloggers can act as primary information gatherers, but it's not easy, particularly in places like war zones and Congressional office buildings.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
How many liberals would jump to the defense of a major news network before even a word of criticism is uttered? Almost none. Yet you have to defend one and attack all liberals at the same time, even though the article has nothing to do with liberalism and has not mentioned any flaws of Fox News.
You may not realize it, but you are reinforcing certain stereotypes regarding blind loyalty and subservience among conservatives.
An interesting and very, very sad tidbit.
Actually, I find this very encouraging for the USA. As the article states, the numbers from each of the major regions polled were: 59 percent of Egyptians said Al Jazeera, 52 percent of Brazilians said Rede Globo, 32 percent of Britons said the BBC, 22 percent of Germans said ARD and 11 percent of Americans said Fox News
I'm proud to be in a country without one news source monopolizing all of the channels. The most popular news source in the US only came in at 11%! I think that's pretty surprising...and not something to be sad about. You're sad that 1 in 10 americans like fox news? Give me a break...that's one of the most diverse percentages I've heard about this country in a long time. It's something to cheer about.
A few years ago, there was an ad on TV here (Ontario, Canada) that featured what is says to be Hippopotamus domesticus, the House Hippo. It lives in homes across North America, in people's houses.
:: Drupal development, consulting and customization.
The ad shows a very small hippopotamus (3-4 inches long) in various scenes in a normal house.
The following claims are made in the ad, in a voice that looks like Attenbourough on BBC nature programs:
- house hippos are friendly, but will defend their territory if necessary
- house hippos live in bedroom closets, where they make nests
- house hippos sleep 16 hours a day
- house hippos come out at night when they search for food
- house hippos like to eat chips, raisins, and crumbs
The ad then says something like : "Do not believe everything you see on TV. Ask questions".
Read the Wikipedia article, or see the UK version of it here
--
2bits
The Baheyeldin Dynasty.
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.
Would you care to provide a few concrete examples? Oh please.
y misrepresented five editorials to accuse "left-wing print media" of having no solutions to immigration woes
A news article on the Fox News website during October 2004 by Carl Cameron, chief political correspondent of Fox News, contained three fabricated quotes attributed to Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. The quotes included: "Women should like me! I do manicures", "Didn't my nails and cuticles look great?" and "I'm metrosexual [Bush's] a cowboy".
http://mediamatters.org/items/200604040009Gibson falsely claimed that FISA court judges said Bush "didn't break any law" in authorizing warrantless domestic surveillance
http://mediamatters.org/items/200604030007O'Reill
On March 23, 2003 the FOX News channel headline banners were rolling: "Huge chemical weapons factory found in Iraq... Reports: 30 Iraqis surrender at chem weapons plant... coal. troops holding Iraqi in charge of chem. weapons." On the next day the Dow Jones Newswires reported, that, U.S. officials had admitted that morning that the site contained no chemicals at all and had been abandoned long ago.