Slashdot Mirror
Study Finds Google Is More Trusted Than Traditional Media
According to a study by market research company Zogby International, people trust Google, Apple, and Microsoft more than the traditional media. Social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter scored lowest on the trust scale, but still soundly beat the media. From the article: "The traditional media received little sympathy from the public, with only eight percent of all adults and six percent of young adults saying they trusted them."
Ah no love?
Who shall be the first to say it. Rupert Murdoch?
Oh and of course, I do realise that the left has much bias aswell. But R.M. does take it to a new level.
Penguins can be fascists too
People don't trust the propaganda arms of massive multinational corporations?! I'm shocked!
The world you experience is only a close approximation of reality.
Trust them about what ? And who the hell is Zogby ?
When the entire public hates the media with such passion as it seems to do now, shouldn't that be a sign to the powers that be that the system needs to be reworked? I know some people are deathly afraid of The Fairness Doctrine, but do you honestly believe our country could be more divided, mislead, and corporate-controlled than it is now? I certainly don't.
Now I can write off Zogby International as a half assed, two bit of a chump market research company. So who paid for this research, Google, Apple or Microsoft?
My karma is not a Chameleon.
Beware the Government/Media complex.
Say bad things about your master and you're no longer invited to the evening parties.
News media has always been heavily biased one way or another. There's nothing wrong with this. The problem comes with the source of the bias. It used to be small news outlets trying to stick it to the community's most apparent "bad guys" like big business or the government. They were small and independent. However now, the largest and most influential companies in the world are the owners of the mainstream news media. Disney or Murdoch or it doesn't matter, most people know by now that the companies funding mainstream media are doing it for profit only, and have only that interest in mind. If you see something seemingly controversial on the news it's only because that organization feels everyone agrees (or at least, everyone they think watches their show.)
However, I find it worrying that people trust google. They are just as rabidly chomping at the bit of profit as Disney or NBC, or whatever. They don't have an altruistic plank in their yachts. They pretend to "not be evil" but regularly exert their dominance in public exposure via the web to piss all over other markets in an effort to clear a path for their own business strategy. They make things "free" so nobody can compete in conventional terms, forcing them into advertising revenue or similar structures and guess who has a huge monopoly on advertising online? Yeah... so before you go suckling the teet of google or similar companies, remember what it is they are after in the end.
That said, it's still more understandable to view a source like google as more trustworthy, but the problem is that google does not report on the news, they only repeat it from the other, less trusted sources, so it's sort of pointless to compare them.
When it comes to trusting information, it is acceptable to think the official source will be more truthful, even if occasionally they are not. News media gets a pass for some reason, maybe citing bad information, but authoritative organizations get panned for any lies, even accidental unimportant ones. So when an organization like MS or Apple or Google lies about something, it's either well known right away or it's well hidden, and the latter is much more common in my experience.
Not trusting social networking sites ... well that's just a surprisingly, unusually rational position to hold by the general public. Personally I "trust" twitter itself more than facebook, but trust the information less. I trust facebook to constantly try to screw me the way I described google doing it, subversively, for their own profit, under the guise of helping. Just see the constant quiet changes made to their privacy policies as cases where they didn't get away with it. Twitter is easier to trust just because they don't promise anything. You can protect your tweets, but that's about it. You can block followers but you know your tweets and most info is public. Twitter hasn't changed these policies, there is barely anything to change anyway. When I use twitter, I feel it's very obvious what my privacy expectations are. However, the information coming via twitter is less trustworthy than overhearing gabby women at the local mall. It's the same thing, really, except with infinitely more anonymity to hide your lies and innuendo behind.
I read the script, and I think it would help my character's motivation if he was on fire. -Bender
"The Media" is such a loaded phrase these days, that it's no surprise nobody "trusts" them. Years of politicians and everyone else slamming "traditional media", "Big media", "The Liberal Media", and "The Right-wing Media" mean that everyone associates "The Media" with whatever group they disagree with.
Liberals hate "The Media" because, to them, it means "Faux News" and all the other anti-facts news organizations they've been trained to hate.
Conservatives hate "The Media" because, to them, it means "The Liberal Media", which seems to mean anything OTHER than Fox News.
Is anyone surprised that everyone hates a loaded word? Why not just ask if people trust "Terrorists"?
Traditional media is coming to a natural end, no paywall, whether there own or Googles will save them, but to rate Google as trustworthy is like saying BP cares for the environment!
so it must be true
Does marketing research count as traditional media?
There are different studies: In Finland, young people trust newspapers far more than anything in the internet. 78 % say they trust newspapers, while 18 % say they trust internet.
This is a study ordered by Finnish Newspapers Association and made by major independent research company.
Bad google translation here.
the right wing media strokes the egos of republicans.
the left wing media strokes the egos of democrats.
forcing people to confront reality is a liability when competing networks are entertaining their audience instead.
Blasphemy you say! I've actually been actively weaning myself from Google recently. My stance is that you have all your data hostage unless you maintain active backups with a remote host (Google).
What have you done? What do you recommend? How do you become more self sufficient? Google are getting to big to be benevolent: they own Recaptcha, so even if you block Analytics, they have additional analytics from that.
They know who you are, where you live, what you think, who you're communicating with, where you're trying to go, what websites you're a member of, what you're trying to find out, what you're buying, what news you've been exposed to.
Slashdot needs Geekcode | Can anyone recommend any good SCIFI? My tastes: Foundation, Startide Rising, CITY, Ringworld,
Why don't people trust twitter?
It's pretty transparent and as honest as the people who post on it..
it's under construction
More trusted or less distrusted?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The article makes no sense. "Trust" in what way? It hints that they're talking about "trust" in the context of your private information, and not as a news source, but doesn't go out and say it. Also, Google is not a source of original information. It compiles news and repackages it from ... well, from traditional news sources.
Why don't people trust twitter/social media? Because even the most Idols addled mind can figure out that a news source with absolutely no accountability or even traceability is totally and utterly worthless.
Twitter: A fly is in my room.
Judge this. You can't. It is is a claim but you don't know who claims it, if the person who started the account is still in control of it and have no way to verify or even know what room the person is talking about or if they can accurately determine a fly from another insect.
Mind you, most often when people claim they "trust" a media, they are actually saying "these people say what I want to hear". Someone who doesn't want to give up his SUV is more likely to trust Fox news when it reports global warming is a hoax. People react violently when exposed to a source of information that contradicts what they want to believe. And no, this is NOT just a right-winger thing.
With ever more sources of information it has also become very easy to completely isolate yourself from anything that distresses you. Back when everyone read their OWN newspaper, people at least READ the newspaper. Now kids get their info from twitter and facebook and nothing else. Their source of news, they idea of investigative journalism is "he heard that someone said".
Well RabbitWho shows this, he thinks that because the entity twittering pretends to be a "normal" human being that he/she/it is trustworthy. Because of course nobody could setup bogus accounts to start spreading propoganda over twitter or facebook. No, google bombing does NOT exist in social media. No guerilla marketting of political ideas. Some teen says something so it must be true because... why? How do you know WHO that person really is and wether they should tell the truth let alone the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Because the easiest way to be biased in reporting is to leave out tiny details.
Like how Turkey so upset about Israel killing Turks crossing into Israeli waters went into Iraq to kill Koerdish civlians at the same time. My my, how convenient their righteous indignation kept their own actions from the media. Convenient.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I can let them have the Brooklyn bridge for a wonderful bargain price. No checks, please. Cash and in small bills.
No left turn unstoned.
I trust bloggers more than I trust Fox.
"Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds"
My take on this is that the majority of people, when asked "Do you trust the media?" will answer that "No, I do not." However, in reality they don't think twice about the validity of what they read or hear on TV. It's one of those viewpoints people like to claim to have to sound educated, critical and thoughtful. Quite similiar to all the people who say "I don't judge people by the colour of their skin", "I make sure to check my damn sources on the internet" or "Homosexuality is fine" and STILL firmly grip their wallet when walking through areas were most of the minorities live, still buy any crap any aluminium-hat sells them and still wince at the sight of two men making out (but strangely rarely at LEZBOES.)
Social network is to opinionated instead of fact orientated. Plus anyone can start facebook or twitter page get a bunch of friends and throw a bunch of information up there and swear its the truth and it might be all lies. Social networking is not a reliable place for important information.
http://www.thetechnologygeek.org
Fox news claims to be 'fair and balanced'. I wouldn't have a problem with their bias otherwise. They should be upfront about it. I don't think any other news network crows about 'fair and balanced' whilst at the same time being so incredibly biased. That's what sets Fox apart from the other networks imo, even though the other networks are of course not unbiased either.
"Impartiality is a pompous name for indifference, which is an elegant name for ignorance." - G.K. Chesterton
traditional media is her fuddy duddy middle aged father who has her best interests at heart, but she hates him
the web is her shiny new teenage boyfriend, who she's gaga over, but he's devoid of concern for her well-being and just wants to get in her pants
misplaced trust due lack of experience, that's all this study means
visit us again in 10 years, when as a jaded, betrayed, defiled, used, cynical, heartbroken 20 something chick, she looks at her dad/ traditional media in a new light
there's no shortcut to real world experience, and the curmudgeon killjoy screaming the truth in the corner is never listened to, which is all anyone's comments on this study amounts to
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Mainstream media is distrusted with good reason. It isn't just the bias that everyone knows is there.
Its that they've been caught, not once but several times, reporting stories they knew or should have known were false, as fact, because the stories in question supported that bias.
Spin real news according to your bias, and I'll listen and filter accordingly. Lie to me outright, and I'll never trust you again.
As biased as the BBC tends to be, there is a level of professionalism there that I find is typically lacking in most U.S. media companies. I honestly trust what comes from the BBC _far more_ than anything that comes from the likes of the FOX propaganda network. Of the U.S.telivised media, the only one I can really even consider as news anymore has been ABC, and even that requires a considerable BS filter to be applied. FOX has devolved from being yet another questionable U.S. media supplier to the American equivalent to Al-Jazeera...."news" in name only, and even then, JUST BARELY.
not a chance, they are in bed with the NSA so when you "google" something you are also telling the government what you are searching/researching.
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
I can live with the bias, everyone knows it's there. Its the lying that I don't like.
Penguins can be fascists too
Twitter is a communication medium - saying you don't "trust twitter" makes no more sense than saying you don't trust phones, you don't trust email, you don't trust speech.
If someone emails you to say a fly is in their room, how can you trust them? Oh no, email is untrustworthy! You don't know who claims it, if the person who started the account is still in control of it and have no way to verify or even know what room the person is talking about or if they can accurately determine a fly from another insect.
If someone says they had a fly in their room last night, how can you trust them? On no, speech is untrustworthy! You don't know who this person is, if the person who lived in the room is still in control of it and have no way to verify or even know what room the person is talking about or if they can accurately determine a fly from another insect.
Or perhaps the issue of trust is not simply a matter of the communication medium? Moreover, not all uses of Twitter are between anonymous strangers, just as it obviously isn't with email and real life. All of the people I read on Twitter are people whom I know.
Its that they've been caught, not once but several times, reporting stories they knew or should have known were false, as fact, because the stories in question supported that bias.
It is more than that, in addition to reporting stories that they should have known were false (for example, the story about John McCain having an affair during the last election cycle), they have ignored other stories that had more evidence behind them (for example the story about John Edwards having an affair in about the same time frame) that turned out to be true, but didn't support their bias. I use these two stories because I don't have to do any research to be sure that my recollection of the details supports my point, rather than because they are the best examples of how this process works.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
because its biased?
ALL media is biased, always was, and always will be. so by your definition of evil, everyone is evil, and always was, and always will be
so, just like a teenager's basis for hating their parents, your basis for finding traditional media to be evil is in error. someday you'll grow up, and realize the reasons for hating your parents/ traditional media are trumped up, hysterical, and pointless
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
...if those who distrust traditional media the most trust Fox News the most. Sort of like how every Fox News broadcast belittles the mainstream media when they themselves are the #1 mainstream media outlets in America.
Flame away.
It seems as if I'm always looking for the spin on traditional media stories. Every since FOX News went rogue conservative it's created the same partisanship in the news organizations as is in our government. The divide seems to be getting wider too as media outlets pander to their "target audience" on either the right or left, while those of us in the silent middle search harder for unbiased reporting.
The distrust of the media comes from a an inherent distrust of capitalism. The news media exist to sell advertisements and make money, so they report crap that will do just that.
This is why PBS and NPR are head-and-shoulders above any cable or network news agency.
When reporting the results of a study, the report should always conclude the exact way the survey was done, what questions were asked, what format was used, demographic info about the participants, etc.
If this keeps up, it won't be long before people will stop reading after the words 'According to a study by market research' ...
It makes no sense to compare trust of "the Media" (a collection of independent institutions) to trust of Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, and Twitter as individual institutions.
This is much the same mistake that is commonly made when people pretend that approval ratings of the President are directly comparable to approval ratings of the Congress, such that one can draw meaningful conclusions from the latter being less than the former at any point in time.
That anyone thinks this is newsworthy as anything other than an indictment of the professionalism of the outlet conducting and publishing the poll is a sign that critical thinking skills are desperately lacking.
Mistrusted with good reason indeed. Such as, say, specifically the **entire run up to war in Iraq**.
That pretty much killed all sympathy for the traditional media for me. If I hadn't been fortunate enough to be cynical AND not trust traditional media, I would have been manipulated by fear and anger by what felt like most of the rest of America - which was itself a media-created exaggeration. There were so many dissenting voices, simply ignored.
I mean, tens of thousands march on a street to protest the way in Iraq, and it's a blip on the news. A few hundred honkies gather in a public park to sit in lawnchairs with misspelled signs and hate on taxes, and it's a revolution in the making? That should tell you all you need to know about the integrity of traditional media - and why people aren't trusting it.
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
This is what happens when you feel that every story needs "balance" and you give idiots with false information voice whenever they have an opposing agenda and/or a press release. The media walks a fine line distinguishing between legitimate dissent and encouraging stupidity. In the last few decades, it has become lazy, has abrogated its responsibility as fact checker, and has moved heavily into the "encouraging stupidity" side. Publish enough untruths and people stop trusting you. QED.
That is all.
Depends what they mean by "traditional media" - I'd trust that Nigerian fellow that keeps emailing me to manage my finances before I trusted any output from the Murdoch empire.
Google aggregates traditional media, what media does Google itself produce?
I wouldn't trust Google either.... I only trust information from the Alternative media anymore!
The Truth is a Virus!!!
One thing I find bizarre, now, after several years of Wikipedia - is how news reports hardly ever give citations. They'll just report a story, but give you no links to follow to go check out the facts yourself. Wikipedia on the other hand, on every page will have a whole set of offsite links, and Google is nothing but a collection of links to various primary and secondary sources.
Why don't I trust 'traditional' media? This. Because they have a culture of not even bothering to give the semblance of citing sources. Just a byline and I'm supposed to take that as gospel.
That's fine if it really is an original story and there aren't any other quotable sources. But for most AP wire copy, it's just a very poor standard of journalism, and it assumes a level of ignorance and lack of online awareness in their readership which is simply not true any more. When a free volunteer open-access project can cite every paragraph, that's just not good enough.
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Mistrusted with good reason indeed. Such as, say, specifically the **entire run up to war in Iraq**.
Yes, exactly. 2002-2003 was basically when I switched to Google News and specialist news aggregators, like www.antiwar.com, and found that they were doing a much better job of collating all the published stories which did surface in legitimate 'old' media, but didn't make it up to the front page of the big official newsmakers - NYT, The Times, Washington Post, etc. It was painfully obvious how the Big News editorial departments were blocking and filtering all stories which didn't fit the official government-media spin. They couldn't kill all the stories but they could bury them. But Google News, RSS, and a little ferreting could easily dig them out.
So I switched off TV news at that point as less than useless, and resolved to do my news searching myself. Because I as a random uninformed citizen could do a better job, apparently, than the top news editor of the New York Times.
And that's scary.
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Isn't it scary. Oh my God.
There's a flip side to it, which we can be our own journalists and dig into the source. The traditional media hasn't gotten any worse than it's always been; it's just that now we can find our way around it.
The trick now is to find aggregators and analyzers who can put together what we miss, in ways that we trust. Which can be tricky, because we can have our biases pandered to; but I'll take that risk as opposed to proven spoon-feeding any day.
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
Are on the whole a bunch of sleazy spin doctoring bullshit artists.
.
Voting up, Voting down - If I really gave a fuck about your approval or not, I'd come and ask you.
Traditional media does not spread free opinion; it generates opinion
I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga
Do I trust Google, MS, Apple to tell me the truth any more that I trust CNN, Fox, etc, to? Absolutely not. On the other hand, I expect corporate spin from the former, but I have a right to expect ZERO spin from the latter. For me it's a difference in expectations. I expect a journalist to be fair and impartial. It rarely happens, but that is the way it should be. I expect a tech company to be fair and partial to its customers, but still do whatever it takes to sell their product.