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.
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"?
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.
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.