30% of Americans Get News From Facebook According To Pew Research Poll

An anonymous reader writes "According to a recent Pew Research poll a third of Americans get their news while they 'like' things. 'All in all, then, it may be the very incidental nature of the site that ultimately exposes more people to news there,' Pew said. 'Indeed, the more time one spends on the site, the more likely they are to get news there.'"

Comments

Applies to all events?

[RunFatBoy.net]

Facebook makes me personally more engaged and thoughtful of all events, both news and personal.

It's amazing how I can see someone that I connected with on Facebook in real life and have a vague notion of what they are up to. It makes me feel connected. The same goes for news; my friends all read the new several times a day and therefore gives me a hand on the pulse of current events, even though that's not my intent.

Re:Applies to all events?

[Anonymous Coward]

And so can the NSA! *rabble rabble*

Re:Applies to all events?

[Garridan]

I get my news from Slashdot. My wife tells me I have a very republican-leaning family -- if I was on facebook, I'd probably be exposed to a larger breadth of opinion. Confirmation bias? I try to look elsewhere for news... but ultimately, I keep coming back to the places that present the stories that I care about.

Re:Applies to all events?

[houstonbofh]

The problem is the echo chaimber it creates. If you only get news your friends share, where do you get alternative viewpoints?

Re:Applies to all events?

[aaronb1138]

News in general should be about the condition and potential effects of a given event on society. You're blathering on about emotions, feelings, and the individual; the worship of selfishness. It is still a form of selfishness to identify with another selfish soul devoid of facts and full context -- it is the confirmation to one's own selfishness to indulge and support selfishness in others.

Academia often states that Wikipedia for example is a poor source, not because by definition it is a tertiary / secondary source, but because the signal to noise ratio is poor and they fear students lack the ability to differentiate (the SNR of Wikipedia is generally good overall). The SNR for news on Facebook is easily orders of magnitude worse. Even Jersey Shore and similar reality TV trash are more useful to society. Too much of the news which propagates on Facebook is tabloid confessionals and one-sided falsehoods, much of it fiction made up from vague opinionated interpretations of actual events. Those who engage in it's spread should be burned as heretics to the betterment of society, knowledge, and wisdom. It's sickening and disgusting.

The society of, "how I feel is paramount" is harmful to everyone. I am a person of religious conviction, but I would condemn the proselytizer as a sinner just as an emotional human I condemn the person for whom the societal discussion is steered by emotion, opinion, and falsehood instead of core truth.

Re:Applies to all events?

[aaronb1138]

TL:DR version: You're talking about gossip, not news.

Re:Applies to all events?

[epyT-R]

'feel connected' and 'are connected' are not the same thing.

Re:Applies to all events?

[Archangel Michael]

I've become much more libertarian since I came to slashdot. Nothing like having people tell you you're an idiot simply because you disagree with them on policy. Yeah, liberal elitism has turned me completely away from anything "socialism". Rarely have the people in ivory towers ever figured the world as it really is, only as it should be.

Re:Applies to all events?

[Archangel Michael]

News isn't what is reported, that is MSM. What is news is what nobody else has heard because they are too busy watching MSNBC and FOX. I've found that what shapes peoples opinions are the "news" they follow, the stuff that isn't really on anyone else's radar. Shallow people have no news other than what MSM tells them. They pick sides MSNBC / FOX and that is all they know.

Re:Applies to all events?

[rockout]

MSNBC and Fox get what, a few million viewers, max, per day? A tiny fraction of the population of the US.

Your false dichotomy is a direct result of your desire to feel like you know something that everyone else doesn't, or at least, most other people, all of whom you regard as being not as smart as yourself. It's a ridiculous point of view bred by your narcissism.

Lemme guess, you can also tell us about the real story behind 9/11, that only you and a few other really smart people know about. "Really smart" in this case meaning you read websites that aren't "on anyone else's radar."

Re:Applies to all events?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've become much more libertarian since I came to slashdot. Nothing like having people tell you you're an idiot simply because you disagree with them on policy.

You're an idiot for changing views just because someone disagrees with you.

Re:Applies to all events?

[Mitchell314]

Odd, I've had the complete opposite experience. I'm politically libertarian, but I loathe to ever admit it in public due to the connotation of them being stuck-up pricks that love to idealize the world in 'flawless' little politico-economic frameworks. And in my experiences, that stereotype is not entirely unfounded. When your first reaction is to pick a stance on something based solely on 'minimizing government', as opposed to starting from first principles or from inductive reasoning drawing on history, you've got a problem. You've got an ivory-toweritis problem. I'm libertarian because on average my own path of reasoning tends to draw me to free market solutions and socially-liberal fiscally conservative stances (which I'm not going to be arrogant enough to claim "how the world really is", that's elitist talk), but I never felt the same with my political 'peers'.

Re:Applies to all events?

[Archangel Michael]

Thanks for proving why I changed my views. People like you, who hide behind the cloak of A/C comments. I didn't say I changed my views because people call me names. I said it doesn't help your cause. Which you seem to have completely missed. And if that is the best retort the the "elite" has to offer, it isn't much of one. Thanks for proving my case for me.

Re: Applies to all events?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hold strong opinions weakly. Facts are meaningless - they can be used to prove anything.

Re:Applies to all events?

[Archangel Michael]

I'm not a conspiracy advocate. I think 19 guys from mostly Saudi Arabia flew airplanes into buildings. What I find amazing are the people who think that GWB orchestrated it, while simultaneously believing he is the stupidest president ever; one the one hand he is pure evil genius and on the other hand a monkey is smarter than he is. Hilarious!

Re:Applies to all events?

[Runaway1956]

More accurately, an idiot is incapable of changing his views. Anyone with a working brain evaluates and considers news and opinions. Well presented views, news, and opinions SHOULD enable a person to change his own views. GP deserves a nod of respect, whether you agree with his opinions or not.

Re:Applies to all events?

[Runaway1956]

"Elite Anonymous Coward". Wow - what a concept.

Re:Applies to all events?

[NixieBunny]

Today's Facebook echo chamber was echoing a lot of Lou Reed songs. That was all the news that mattered today.

Re:Applies to all events?

[Seumas]

But I want to get my news from my Facebook friend who is 56 years old and thinks we are inching each day toward an inevitable race war and quotes bible scripture three times a day!

Re:Applies to all events?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the defense of the other AC: what you wrote was:

I've become much more libertarian since I came to slashdot. Nothing like having people tell you you're an idiot simply because you disagree with them on policy.

You are clearly implying that a major contributing reason why you changed your political views was because people were mean to you. While the other AC should perhaps go back to Reddit where all the other pedants live, you are also not being honest.

Interestingly, I went the other way. I was a die-hard libertarian some years ago and it was the constant display of intolerance by my own friends that made me take a second look at my ideology. I started questioning the mantras they (and I) were bandying about and found them wanting so I changed. I thoroughly *hate* the "college liberal" types who act exactly the way you describe and it's tiresome to be compared to them but, at the same time, I no longer associate with the more machine-like thinking of the bootstraps-or-die crowd who seem quite content to let people die due to poor healtcare choices in the past.

To each his own.

Re:Applies to all events?

[girlintraining]

The problem is the echo chaimber it creates. If you only get news your friends share, where do you get alternative viewpoints?

This begs the question of why someone would want to get alternative viewpoints. Most people don't want to be regularly exposed to ideas, beliefs, culture, etc., that conflicts with their own. It creates anxiety, anger, and/or dissociation. The begged question, by the way, is also a rhetorical question. But it doesn't change human nature, and we are talking about Facebook here.

The "social network" is not simply a conduit for human virtues -- it is equally a conduit for human failures. And let's be honest with ourselves -- critical thinking is hard work. Even (perhaps especially) amongst the highly literate and/or intelligent, who are practiced at overcoming their own biases to keep an open mind, must still be deliberate and cautious.

On that note, for those who so desire to find alternative viewpoints social networks provide plenty of opportunity. Many of my friends and I debate on Facebook, each playing devil's advocate to the other in a semi-public venue. I have also found, painfully, that if one wishes to test how tolerant their friends truly are... post something unpopular and defend it. The results are both illuminating, and occasionally warrant making popcorn to witness the explosively violent ways in which people react to opposing views.

Re:Applies to all events?

[Anonymous Coward]

This begs the question

No, it doesn't. It raises the question. "Begging the question" is something else entirely.

Re:Applies to all events?

[JaredOfEuropa]

I'm not sure what reading the news on Facebook is like (having no account there), but besides a simple news app (headlines + short summary) I get my news mostly from two (Dutch) blogs, one of them a left-leaning site that proclaims to be somewhat civilized, the other is a rather irreverent and somewhat puerile right-leaning blog (its tag line proudly states: "tendentious, unfounded and needlessly grievous"). Both cover the news of the day fairly well.

These being internet blogs, you can guess at the sort of comments that grace the news articles on their sites. They range from a lot of noise and insults to sometimes fairly intelligent discussion, but the real gems are often found in links to background material that people post. To my surprise, I gain a lot more insight into the background of issues and the merits of other points of view from these comments and links, than I do from reading the paper on Saturday.

Re:Applies to all events?

[AK Marc]

I love the arguments I get in on here where I'll re-state what a candidate for the Libertarian Party said, as if it represents the current US libertarian movement, and I'm corrected that LP is not libertarian, or something like that. Or I'll state that I'm libertarian, but I don't vote libertarian because I don't agree with the LP, and people tell me if I don't agree with the LP, then I can't be a libertarian.

The funny thing is the large number of responses to the same comment/person that are contradictory. The talk about "groupthink" is funny when the group is neither aligned, nor "thinking".

Re:Applies to all events?

[AK Marc]

People don't want alternative viewpoints.

Re:Applies to all events?

[Anonymous Coward]

"have a vague notion of what they are up to" -- that's a bit grand don't you think? Maybe it's you who is clueless about what you do or worse, unemployed and passing judgement!

Re:Applies to all events?

[Barsteward]

thats like watching Fox news. i wouldn't trust anything on Facebook, Twitter etc at all for accurate impartial news

Re:Applies to all events?

[bickerdyke]

Yes. But that ususally is what's passed as news on non-news-sites. (I don't want to single out facebook here)

Subscribe to the Snopes-Rss feed to see what os presented there as "news".

Re:Applies to all events?

[nospam007]

"But I want to get my news from my Facebook friend who is 56 years old and thinks we are inching each day toward an inevitable race war and quotes bible scripture three times a day!"

That will stay, but the young ones are leaving FB in droves.
It's uncool to be on a social network where your mom and peepaw hang out and want to be your 'friend'.
It will go down like Myspace and sooner or later Murdoch will buy it. ;-)

Re:Applies to all events?

[Anonymous Coward]

It depends on the alternate viewpoints? Some topics don't have much in the way of alternate viewpoints. There isn't "common" ground on a lot of topics it either is or it is not.

Part time slavery is still slavery, partial rape is still rape, you can't "sort of" murder someone. Other topics hold the same level binary solution to a lot of people.

There is also the logical verse the emotional (illogical) view point. Many liberals go on and on about women's choice, which in the most basic sense is the killing of children, but then they are vehemently against 2nd amendment rights because it might hurt people, specifically children.

I tend to automatically discount the "alternate" view points of people who would fail a basic algebra or logic class do to the complete absense of deductive reasoning.

Re:Applies to all events?

[Smauler]

You're currently mentally wanking over what you think other people think. Stop, please.

I personally don't care what you think other people think, and your misguided arrogance to presume that others will, while complaining about groupthink, is breathtaking.

Re:Applies to all events?

[Internetuser1248]

I'm not a conspiracy advocate. I think 19 guys from mostly Saudi Arabia flew airplanes into buildings.

You think they told everyone about it first? Because otherwise IT WAS A CONSPIRACY.

conspiracy
plural noun: conspiracies
1. a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

I am so sick of the word conspiracy being used to mean 'things that crazy people who are wrong believe in'. The correct word for that is delusion.

delusion
plural noun: delusions
1. an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

Stop using these words as though they are synonymous

Re:Applies to all events?

[DragonTHC]

It's amazing how I can see someone that I connected with on Facebook in real life and have a vague notion of what they are up to. It makes me feel connected.

For the last time, she dumped you in high school. You're no longer "connected".

Re:Applies to all events?

[aaaaaaargh!]

What I don't understand about modern day US libertarians is that the classical economic theory they seem to mostly endorse contradicts their own central principles, and even in relatively obvious ways. For instance, the Principle of Diminishing Marginal Utility in combination with sum-utilitarianism implies that monetary transfers from the rich to the poor increase overall utility, game theory can be used to show that free markets lead to cartels, there are Pareto efficient states in which one person owns almost everything and the rest are slave workers, etc., none of which seems to be desirable to anyone. There are countless examples of this kind.

Notice that I'm not saying that classical economic theory is right, I'm just pointing out how baffling the main doctrines of libertarianism can appear to an outsider. But I'm sure I got it all wrong in the eyes of some libertarian economists... ;-)

Re:Applies to all events?

[Barsteward]

you never argue with an idiot. they'll bring you down to their level and they'll win because they have had more practice...

Re:Applies to all events?

[BrokenHalo]

Indeed, and not entirely incongruous with the premise that "30% of Americans Get News From Facebook".

The latter might go a long way toward explaining the apparent general level of profound ignorance.

Re:Applies to all events?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly! That's why I get all my news on Slashdot.

Re:Applies to all events?

[sI4shd0rk]

Your false dichotomy is a direct result of your desire to feel like you know something that everyone else doesn't, or at least, most other people, all of whom you regard as being not as smart as yourself.

Most people don't make it difficult to feel more intelligent than them. Warmongers, rote memorization geniuses, people almost entirely without the aptitude to understand a given subject, people who toss away everyone's freedom for safety, people who continually vote for the 'lesser of two evils', and many more kinds of imbeciles make up most of the population.

Re:Applies to all events?

[Anonymous Coward]

and many more kinds of imbeciles make up most of the population.

The rest being made up of condescending twats.

Re:Applies to all events?

[Mr D from 63]

If people could separate news from opinion, it would not matter so much where they get the news from. Ignoring a source of news because of fear of opinions that may accompany it is a problem we all have to some extent.

Re:Applies to all events?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've become much more libertarian since I came to slashdot. Nothing like having people tell you you're an idiot simply because you disagree with them on policy.

You're an idiot for changing views just because someone disagrees with you.

Wow, even if you change your views to agree with them, they still call you an idiot! Clearly, the only winning move is not to play...

Re:Applies to all events?

[hercludes]

Did you guys completely miss that he was joking? Especially from the poster's parent's post, "Nothing like having people tell you you're an idiot" ...Or at least I hope he was.

Re:Applies to all events?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're currently mentally wanking over what you think other people think. Stop, please.

I personally don't care what you think other people think, and your misguided arrogance to presume that others will, while complaining about groupthink, is breathtaking.

You do realise you just did exactly what you are supposedly criticising, right?

You personally don't care what he thinks other people think, but your misguided arrogance causes you to presume that everyone agrees with you. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

Re:Applies to all events?

[N1AK]

I listen to and read a lot of news and use Facebook very little. When I do the little news I do see is often wrong, misleading, hyperbolic or unimportant. Now maybe getting access to that is marginally better than no access to the news at all, however it certainly isn't better than even 10 mins of reading real news each day. Maybe people would have some awareness of what is happening from Facebook but they almost certainly don't get any insight into why it is happening which is vitally important.

Re:Applies to all events?

[todrules]

I'm not sure that getting news on FB means getting it from your friends necessarily. I get my news from FB, but not from my friends on there. I get it by "Liking" different news pages. I did that mainly because this is the easiest way to setup a feed on Android. Instead of having to setup a dozen or more different RSS feeds (and find a good widget that I like, which I haven't yet). Now, all I have to do is connect with FB. I barely even see my friends commenting. FB, for me, is all about news. Some sites that I get my news from: CNN, Slashdot, Jalopnik, Wired, CNET, various sports, financial, music, and comedy pages, plus some other miscellaneous ones, and I think I get a decent amount of information on the main screen of my phone. Makes it pretty convenient.

Re:Applies to all events?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've noticed things like that usually happen when people actually think for themselves. Suddenly all extreme sides seem very disconnected, and the colors return to the world. It's not all black or white. The ones that shout the loudest are usually all wrong, and at the same time, because "truth" lies somewhere in the middle, or is completely outside the line the two extremes define.

My views? On some issues on the conservetive side, on some the liberal, some issues i could care less about, and some issues aren't as simple as it seems. When it comes to politics it seems that the art of discussion and decisision making has vanished. In single matters it's always all or nothing, and because many matters are dependant on other matters, the resulting matrix of decisions is totally dysfunctional. Party A gets to decide how healthcare is run, but party B gets to decide if it's funded at all. Really? Think that works? This can been seen in almost every place, not just the healthcare thing.

Re:Applies to all events?

[houstonbofh]

This begs the question of why someone would want to get alternative viewpoints. Most people don't want to be regularly exposed to ideas, beliefs, culture, etc., that conflicts with their own. It creates anxiety, anger, and/or dissociation.

This is the point. You never hear the news that you do not want to hear. You never hear about how bad high fructose corn syrup is because you do not know people who know how bad high fructose corn syrup is. You never hear about the Obama encroachments on civil rights because... Or you never hear about republican assults on women because...

Re:Applies to all events?

[houstonbofh]

It depends on the alternate viewpoints? Some topics don't have much in the way of alternate viewpoints. There isn't "common" ground on a lot of topics it either is or it is not.

Climate change... Everyone agrees that it is science. Everyeone agrees that it is obvious. Of course WHAT is obvious depends on which camp you are in, and you only see news that supports that camp.

Re:Applies to all events?

[Dcnjoe60]

Facebook makes me personally more engaged and thoughtful of all events, both news and personal.

It's amazing how I can see someone that I connected with on Facebook in real life and have a vague notion of what they are up to. It makes me feel connected. The same goes for news; my friends all read the new several times a day and therefore gives me a hand on the pulse of current events, even though that's not my intent.

That might be good if what was displayed on FB was actually news, but usually it is opinion pieces put their based on what FB's analytics think you would find agreeable and from what they can then monetize. As such, you really aren't getting the pulse of current events, but instead, filtered information that is tailored towards your own points of view.

News, should be objective. FB's versions is not. Plain and simple. (although that doesn't mean FB is the one manipulating it, like certain national media outlets).

Re:Applies to all events?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he got it right. AK Marc is solidly appealing to groupthink by pointing out how laughable it is that there are contradictory viewpoints.

Reread the original post. It's clear that his complaint is that people are thinking different things and that those things are different than what he thinks. He's the typical Slashdot blowhard that thrives on groupthink.

Re:Applies to all events?

[Dcnjoe60]

I've become much more libertarian since I came to slashdot. Nothing like having people tell you you're an idiot simply because you disagree with them on policy. Yeah, liberal elitism has turned me completely away from anything "socialism". Rarely have the people in ivory towers ever figured the world as it really is, only as it should be.

Okay, I'll bite. You used to believe that we are all in this together (socialism), but now profess every man/person for themself because people on slashdot, who you don't know and more importantly don't know their background have disagreed with you?

As for ivory towers, wouldn't you first have to figure out how the world actually is, before you can figure out how it should be? If you want to change your moral compass, that's fine, do so, but don't blame slashdot or anybody else. That choice is ultimately and only yours.

Re:Applies to all events?

[Dcnjoe60]

Thanks for proving why I changed my views. People like you, who hide behind the cloak of A/C comments. I didn't say I changed my views because people call me names. I said it doesn't help your cause. Which you seem to have completely missed. And if that is the best retort the the "elite" has to offer, it isn't much of one. Thanks for proving my case for me.

Actually, given your sentence structure, you did say you changed your views because of people on slashdot calling you an idiot for your previous views. Maybe that wasn't your intention, but that is actually what you communicated. Now, giving you the benefit of the doubt that English is not your primary language, what were you trying to say?

Re:Applies to all events?

[Anonymous Coward]

What I find amazing are the people who think that GWB orchestrated it, while simultaneously believing he is the stupidest president ever; one the one hand he is pure evil genius and on the other hand a monkey is smarter than he is. Hilarious!

That's not as crazy as it sounds. Good or evil, geniuses tend to have some eccentric things about them. On the flip side, even a dumb monkey can perform a trick or two (or as the saying goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day)

Re:Applies to all events?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the defense of the other AC: what you wrote was:

I've become much more libertarian since I came to slashdot. Nothing like having people tell you you're an idiot simply because you disagree with them on policy.

You are clearly implying that a major contributing reason why you changed your political views was because people were mean to you. While the other AC should perhaps go back to Reddit where all the other pedants live, you are also not being honest.

Interestingly, I went the other way. I was a die-hard libertarian some years ago and it was the constant display of intolerance by my own friends that made me take a second look at my ideology. I started questioning the mantras they (and I) were bandying about and found them wanting so I changed. I thoroughly *hate* the "college liberal" types who act exactly the way you describe and it's tiresome to be compared to them but, at the same time, I no longer associate with the more machine-like thinking of the bootstraps-or-die crowd who seem quite content to let people die due to poor healtcare choices in the past.

To each his own.

I would argue that you weren't a Libertarian in the first place if you are going to be influenced by the hard right views of your "friends". Libertarians are socially liberal fiscally conservative. We have no problem with universal healthcare, provided we as a nation can afford it. We currently cannot. It is not that we are content to let people die, it is that our nations survival takes precedence. Until we can get our fiscal house in order some social programs must be placed on hold. Healthcare will be the least of our problems if we do not start addressing our fiscal irresponsibility and soon. The sad thing is, that if we had members of congress with some backbone (Ha, right) we could address this within 10-20 years.

The problem there is that as elections come and go imperatives of the past are forgotten. I personally love the sequester because for once congress is forced to do some actual cuts, not cuts in name only. We can get to balanced within 5 years and retire the debt in its entirety in 15 if we had some representatives in congress with some courage and conviction. Then we could easily pay for the finest universal heathcare system on the planet and we could do it right instead of this mess we have now which has become the biggest joke I have seen come out of Washington in my lifetime. That is saying something considering I can remember back to Nixon.

Re:Applies to all events?

[Dishevel]

All people should be insulated from all of their bad past choices by the Government.

That is why we have a government. Once we make it so that bad behavior has no effect on the outcome of your life, we are sure that human nature will make sure the world is an awesome place to live.

Re:Applies to all events?

[Dishevel]

Libertarians are are not socially liberal. They are not fiscally conservative. Libertarians believe in actual rights of human beings. More than what are now being called rights. The things that the liberals are calling rights involve mostly taking things from other people. Libertarians are mostly just correct. Conservatives and Liberals get a few things right by accident.

Short story is that Liberals understand a few things that are socially Libertarian, Conservatives understand a few things that are fiscally Libertarian. Libertarians get most things right except on the rare occasion they go bat shit crazy.

Re:Applies to all events?

[Bite The Pillow]

Anyone with a working brain actively resists changing their mind. People shown to be wrong are more likely to remain dedicated to the wrong facts.
It takes someone with an open mind, or little emotional investment, to have their opinion changed by argument or facts. Or, if you grow to detest the source, like family or an ex.
Changing political leanings is very hard, but if it all you read it can become first familiar, then recognizable, then obvious.
You described what we expect of brains, not how they are used.

Re:Applies to all events?

[Runaway1956]

Ehhhh. "people shown to be wrong are more likely to be dedicated to the wrong facts" Yeah, maybe - I've witnessed that in real life. Usually, those people aren't especially intelligent. They may not be real dummies, but they aren't the sharpest tools in the shed, either. "it takes someone with an open mind, or little emotional investment, to have their opinion changed" Personally, I have little emotional investment in any set of facts. As a small child, I thought the sun and the moon chased each other across the sky, above a stationary earth. When presented with conflicting facts, I evaluated those facts, and chose which facts to believe. I've always presumed that all intelligent people do the same.

Political leanings are somewhat different. But, I still don't have a lot of emotional attachment to my political views. Maybe some of the very basic opinions, like the basic libertarian idea that government shouldn't be involved in people's every day lives. That, I'm VERY emotionally attached to. But, I'm most certainly not attached to any person, or any particular point in the party's stance. Just, "smaller is better" and "stay out of people's lives". I can accept some socialist ideas, some liberal ideas, some conservative ideas - basically take the best of each, and dismiss the rest.

How do people even GET "emotionally attached" to progressivism, or neoconservatism, or any of the other isms?'

To me, that's just insane. I won't place my trust, or emotional attachment, in any party, platform, or candidate. FFS - I would first have to forget that each party and candidate is looking out for number one, and that once my vote is cast, none of them gives the smallest damn about me, or mine.

Re:Applies to all events?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for proving why I changed my views. People like you, who hide behind the cloak of A/C comments. I didn't say I changed my views because people call me names. I said it doesn't help your cause. Which you seem to have completely missed. And if that is the best retort the the "elite" has to offer, it isn't much of one. Thanks for proving my case for me.

Hiding behind cloaks, eh? Hey, Archangel Michael, what is your reason for cloaking your real name, you fucking hypocrite?

Re:Applies to all events?

[Anonymous Coward]

I like to call it the Slashdot Effect.

To all the sheep here, you can simply pronounce it "ba-aa-aa".

Re:Applies to all events?

[Anonymous Coward]

Once you figure out a system to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich, without the system becoming so corrupt that the opposite happens, please let us know. (I'm a pragmatist.)

Re:Applies to all events?

[AK Marc]

The point is, How is it "groupthink" when there are multiple mutually-exclusive groupthinks at the same time?

Re:Applies to all events?

[N0Man74]

I've become much more libertarian since I came to slashdot. Nothing like having people tell you you're an idiot simply because you disagree with them on policy. Yeah, liberal elitism has turned me completely away from anything "socialism". Rarely have the people in ivory towers ever figured the world as it really is, only as it should be.

That's funny... You are turned off by "liberal elitism" because of the name calling and condescending attitude from their "ivory towers", because they aren't the ones that have figured out the "way the world really is"?

Where to begin?

Re:Applies to all events?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Anyone with a working brain actively resists changing their mind. People shown to be wrong are more likely to remain dedicated to the wrong facts."

Haha says the man who's over invested in his extreme right political pov. What great irony that you're talking about yourself. Too bad they aren't aware of your horrible behavior in other threads. You're masking your deeply held politics by covering it up with reasonable sounding truths. Nice bit of compartmentalization you got going on there.

Re:Applies to all events?

[noobermin]

AC's joking. Relax, bud.

Re:Applies to all events?

[Archangel Michael]

Let me be more specific. When faced with two competing conspiracies (19 guys vs GWB engineered) I will choose the simpler of the two conspiracies. Yes, you are correct, that the 19 guys conspired, but that ceased being a conspiracy once it was exposed into action. The GWB Engineered conspiracy is still covert, and thus remains a "conspiracy".

Re:Applies to all events?

[Archangel Michael]

I'm still a bat shit crazy Libertarian. ;)

I'll give one example of how my though processes have evolved. The whole "Gay Marriage" thing has caused me to re-evaluate what marriage is, and how we as society chooses to define it.

You have socially conservatives who have history on their side as defining Marriage between Man and Woman. I have no problem with this.
You have Gay Activists wanting to redefine marriage to be, between two people. I have no problem with this.

But you further have gay activists wanting "benefits" granted by government to apply to gay marriages, and that is where the breakdown starts. Because you also have a group (several smaller groups lumped together) that want another definition of marriage, for the purposes of "plural" marriages (i.e. Polygamy) (see sects of Mormans and Muslims)

And then you have others, who have rightly pointed out that by the "gay" definition of marriage, a man should be able to "marry" his daughter for the benefits granted by government (inheritance tax avoidance).

Which gets me to my current view, which is Government has no objective in defining marriage, at all, except to grant special rights and privileges to subclasses of people, not granted to other subclasses of people. This is inherently unfair to anyone not in a particular subclass (the gay activist argument). The problem being, the gay activist argument doesn't really solve the unfair nature, it just includes them into the privileged subclass.

My solution is that Marriage should not be defined by government. Period. It is after all, a religious liberty issue (see Mormon, Muslims etc) among other things. I also realize that this solution is highly unworkable due to customs of law that have built up over the years. However, the gay argument remains accurate, in that certain subclasses are privileged while others are not. Including gay marriage into the definition does not change this problem.

I have yet to have anyone be able to tell my why federal (or any other government) law should define marriage, in such a way that the government has a compelling reason to define marriage, with the sole exception of granting special privileges to a subclass of people. And if it is for that reason only, then the gay marriage advocates have already lost their point and the traditional marriage people have just as much right to try to define marriage their way as the gay have to want to be included. And at that point, we haven't solved anything.

Re:Applies to all events?

[Anonymous Coward]

"rare"

Re:Applies to all events?

[allamericancomp]

I mean social media is so built into our lives I mean look at X-Men trailer they released it on facebook and was trending in minutes just shows you how social media is built into life. Many of my customers don't even call the office they just message me on facebook. Way of the world now a days.

Re:Applies to all events?

[Reziac]

Telling how many of the responses are on the order of "don't blame Slashdot because you can't make up your mind". Not only that, /. rails at Facebook (which I personally detest) but praises itself as a source of opinion, as if moderation doesn't at least partly function as a "Like" system.

I've changed my mind (and become more libertarian myself) in part due to discussions on /. -- occasionally fueled by liberal elitism. It's useful to have bad examples. ;)

Re:Applies to all events?

[Reziac]

I dunno if you were intending it to be the Funny it's now modded, but that's an interesting insight, which I hadn't considered in that light.

Re:Applies to all events?

[Dishevel]

It was a little funny.

For the most part though I agree with my post.

the other 40%

[deodiaus2]

the other 40% get it from Fox News. The rest don't care.

Re:the other 40%

[ArbitraryName]

That doesn't speak well of you then. Which one are you?

Re:the other 40%

[rtb61]

More accurately in this case 47% of Facebook users who are willing to do surveys on Facebook get their 'internet' news from Facebook shared likes ie they must already be demographically be aligned with the people sharing news with them. Hmm, is Facebook trying to hint that paid for news likes can tilt their audience into the closed loop world of corporate advertising as news? Is Facebook trying to claim they are the Shepard and they have a flock ready to fleece?

Re:the other 40%

[ShanghaiBill]

More accurately in this case 47% of Facebook users who are willing to do surveys on Facebook get their 'internet' news from Facebook shared likes

No. This survey was not conducted by Facebook, or on Facebook. It was conducted by the Pew Research Center, a reputable polling organization. Protip: If you don't have time before posting to read the article, or the summary, you should still at least read the headline.

Re:the other 40%

[zerro]

lolz you beat me to it!
I was going to say
"the other 30% get it from Fox News. Source: Fox News"

Re:the other 40%

[Archangel Michael]

He's the guy who gets his news from John Stewart and Colbert :-D

Re:the other 40%

[Anonymous Coward]

John Stewart

Who's that? Ah, maybe you mean Jon....

Re:the other 40%

[Phrogz]

And some of us are right-minded individuals who get our news from The Daily Show.

Re:the other 40%

[Anonymous Coward]

Does Fox have a Facebook page? Then I would be fully informed.

Re:the other 40%

[rtb61]

I did, did you not check where they did their research and how they conducted it. Although not complete in details indications where that Pew Research Centre did it on Face book. They also did not state why the research was conducted or who paid for it.

Re:the other 40%

[GNious]

Need to get a balanced news-diet:
* John Stewart
* Steven Colbert
* Bill Maher
* Wall Street Journal

Re:the other 40%

[Anonymous Coward]

a reputable polling organization.

Reputable? Their polls are as nonsensical as anyone else's. Don't trust Internet polls, or polls in general... unless you want to be deceived.

Explains a lot

[justcauseisjustthat]

So many people, so misinformed.

Re:Explains a lot

[ArbitraryName]

Including you, apparently. If you had bothered to read the links you would have seen this was a good thing. The report shows that very few people get their news only from Facebook and that seeing news incidentally leads to more engagement from the people who are least likely to seek out news. The fact that people are sharing and discussing news on Facebook leads to an overall higher consumption of news.

Re:Explains a lot

[Anonymous Coward]

Disclaimer: I'm yet to read the links. But you only have to visit the NineMSN homepage here in Australia to see what most people think counts as news.

Sorry but if Facebook makes me more engaged with the Karcrashingtons, I'm not interested and I _don't_ think that's a good thing.

Re:Explains a lot

[Anonymous Coward]

A GOOD thing? So called "news" links on Facebook are.....

I cant go on, this is too terribly obvious to point out the problems with "news" on Facebook

Re:Explains a lot

[Anonymous Coward]

At least they could provide a direct link to Facebook

Re:Explains a lot

[theshowmecanuck]

Where the fuck does it say it's a good thing? It says that people who don't read the news think it is better. i.e. The misinformed think it is a better place to get news or it's the only place they get their news. Which is fucking atrocious and horrible. And most of the news they do get is entertainment related. The rest is basically people's own opinions on what is going on from unreliable sources. Of people who actually read the news elsewhere less than 40% think it is a good place to get your news from. You probably think the Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and Bill Maher are hard core journalists too. I'll give you that they are up front about what they do, more so than Fox news magazine retards, but please don't ever try to tell me that some social media site is a good place to get your news, or even a good thing that people supposedly get their news there.

Re:Explains a lot

[ArbitraryName]

Hypocrite types rant about ignorance that demonstrates he didn't read what he's criticizing. Film at 11.

Re:Explains a lot

[ArbitraryName]

Maybe you should read it first then. While entertainment is the most popular topic, yes, most people view a variety of topics and two thirds view local news.

Re:Explains a lot

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol OK I've since read it and I still disagree. Not least because the survey question was "have you EVER seen news on Facebook".

'News' on facebook falls into two categories: 'News' that's been shared by my friends (dubious sources) and 'News' that's been shoved down my throat due to some organisation/group I liked in a drunken fury at some point in the past (dubious motives). Even those groups that purport to bring you some form of unbiased information were set up by someone with an axe to grind about SOMETHING.

Tell me a source of information on Facebook that's impartial and I might agree it's a good thing.

Re:Explains a lot

[gl4ss]

maybe if you have only friends who post shit about karcrashingtons. in reality some post warez news, some post tech news, some post techfanboinews.. some post stories about gaza, some post stories about rockets shot from gaza.. some just post crazy ufo conspiracy shit.

Re:Explains a lot

[ArbitraryName]

Not least because the survey question was "have you EVER seen news on Facebook".

There was not "a" survey question. The survey results/analysis are ten pages. I'm thinking you read the first page and thought that was it.

Tell me a source of information on Facebook that's impartial

Tell me a source of information that's impartial.

Re:Explains a lot

[jareth-0205]

A GOOD thing? So called "news" links on Facebook are.....

I cant go on, this is too terribly obvious to point out the problems with "news" on Facebook

Doesn't that rather depend on your friends?

Re:Explains a lot

[Anonymous Coward]

The universe

Re:Explains a lot

[sI4shd0rk]

I don't know whether or not it's possible to find good news sources on Facebook (I seriously doubt they would qualify as "good" to me.), but anyone who uses Facebook is most likely an absolute imbecile just for that. I'm not saying Facebook users are merely misinformed; I'm saying that any given Facebook user is very likely almost completely unintelligent.

Re:Explains a lot

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

That's a source of data, not information.

Re:Explains a lot

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook is really not much worse than the largely fantasy based "main stream" news netwroks.

The news you want

[Arancaytar]

The great part about getting information from a social network is that you can precisely fine-tune what information you allow to seep into your personal bubble.

Re:The news you want

[ScottCooperDotNet]

The great part about getting information from a social network is that you can precisely fine-tune what information you allow to seep into your personal bubble.

The downside is the self-selection bias of online news makes for an echo chamber of one's existing beliefs, ensuring no facts that run counter to one's existing thoughts are presented. We're all better informed of the opinions we agree with, but as ignorant as ever of those holding opposing views.

Re:The news you want

[roc97007]

...which apparently includes a rehash of all the email forwards since 1992... But other than that, it's great.

Re:The news you want

[manu0601]

Good journalism is about to defeat your personal bubble, and let enter information you would not have thought as relevant.

Getting "the news you want" means you just reinforce each days your beliefs and biases.

Re: The news you want

[Anonymous Coward]

The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding yourself in the ranks of the insane - Marcus Aurelius

Re:The news you want

[VortexCortex]

Hmm. Well, I guess that's why I don't use Facebook. All my friends have different viewpoints on many subjects. Some align and have caveats, others ascribe different reasons. We all care about different things. For instance, as a cyberneticist I'm keenly aware of the degree of suffering my food endures. Unlike my idealist vegan friend who's largely clueless about being an evolved product of our environments, neuronal density of livestock, and the fuzzy complexity threshold of sentience, I simply appreciate my meals more, and try not to be wasteful -- C'est la vie.

I've got religious friends and have studied most major religions somewhat deeply, but I'm an atheist. Along with my philosopher friend we debate philosophy, esp. epistemology (which I have a firm grasp on thanks to information theory) -- This sets me at odds with the others since I can quantify what's knowable within relative degrees of certainty, and even run cybernetic simulations that demonstrate many philosophical and religious concepts, like where free will comes from.

Not every conversation is a debate, we accept each other's viewpoints instead of devolving into flame wars. You see, we try not to make ourselves asses since we're face to face, not on Facebook...

I'm hesitant to label this an "IRL" vs "Online" phenomenon since my experience with offline friends mirrors my IRC friends (think, twitter, but with separate feed-views [rooms], direct file transfers, and no 140 char limitation). Perhaps consider the null hypothesis? Perhaps you just suck at friending?

Re:The news you want

[Anonymous Coward]

This. This is why it's bad, and everyone should stop praising selective news sources.

Re:The news you want

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is all news assumed to represent contentious viewpoints that require endless debate and counter-arguments?

Re:The news you want

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to bring the NSA up(since it gets brought up in every thread recently), but /. is a great example of an echo chamber, and the NSA issue is the epitome of that right now. People are wrapped up in protecting constitutional rights - which is a good thing - but it seems a lot of times that people have lost sight of what's going on. The video from Alexander that was linked earlier was actually very level headed. I disagree with some of the things happening, but I can see where the government is trying to go(assuming Alexander isn't lying through his teeth again). I don't like the PATRIOT Act because it takes it too far...but Alexander brought up a very valid point in that video: What is a better way of doing it? What is another solution that allows us to search for terrorist threats so everyone is happy(minus the terrorists, we don't care if they're happy)? That was a valid question on his part, and the comment thread on /. turned into "NSA SUCKS WE HATE YOU."

To use another topic as an example, one of the reasons Republicans have been fighting the ACA is because they are worried how it will affect healthcare as we know it(this is valid: no one knows exactly how everyone will be affected). However, passing and implementing the ACA gives us a basis to go off of. If something is broken we can go back to the ACA and say....'Ok, section X isn't cutting it for us, we need to improve this'. Otherwise, we'll constantly be in a battle trying to design the perfect system while at the same time never implementing a solution to improve the situation we're in. The same is true in both cases: Implement what we think will help. When we find mistakes or better ways to do it, we can amend the laws, repeal relevant act(s) and make things even better.

My answer to Alexander includes adding a statute of limitations on warrants - under the PATRIOT Act there is none...warrants can be extended indefinitely. Require a reasonable cause for PRISM investigations - if you watch the video you'll notice Alexander side steps legal terminology in that regard...because reasonable cause is *not* needed under the PATRIOT Act. Finally PRISM needs to have oversight by the public - Alexander gives a list of other government agencies/bodies that provide oversight, but there needs to be a more public route. Specifically, the American citizens who happen to be involved in an investigation should be made aware of it. If the investigation is done and the bad guys are caught: what is the harm in releasing the details? I have more issues with the NSA, PRISM, and Alexander, but the point is: there needs to be a discussion, and /. seems to ignore that fact by raging against the machine whenever something electronic is mentioned. The headline could be: "Robots Can Now Fart Realistically" and the first comment will be "Oh good, another thing for the NSA to record. Does anyone else hate the NSA? +5 Insightful"

To be on-topic here: /. is as much an echo chamber as anywhere else. Personally, my Facebook includes conservatives(my family), liberals(co workers and friends) and moderates like myself. Regardless, the things I 'share' on Facebook are usually music videos or web comics. Very rarely politics. I get my news from /., CNN, Fox, the New York Times and Jon Stewart/Colbert. Seeing the different sides is a good way to remain level headed on most events. The important thing is to try to understand the other side, rather than fighting the straw man that your side builds up.

Re:The news you want

[psithurism]

Unfortunately not the information, only the people. So my friend who is politically aligned with me but spams my feed with stuff that doesn't affect me (even though it always confirms my world views) gets hidden, but the "wifi is NSA's mind control, UFOs confirm it" friend that also posts about activities I might want to get in on is still on my news feed.

I would use Facebook quite a bit more often if I could actually fine-tune what information came through.

Re:The news you want

[Arancaytar]

Getting "the news you want" means you just reinforce each days your beliefs and biases.

(my point)

summary says 'ever'

[__aaltlg1547]

As in ""Overall, about half of adult Facebook users, or 47 percent, 'ever' get news there," Pew said in its report. "That amounts to 30 percent of the population."

So if you see a news story on Facebook, once in a while, i.e. often enough to remember that you did it, ever, you're in the 30%. It's a deceptive summary.

The referenced article goes on to say, "Just 4 percent said Facebook is the most important way they get news"

Carry on with your silliness.

Re:summary says 'ever'

[Kohath]

Misinformation? In a news post? No way!

Re:summary says 'ever'

[bill_mcgonigle]

As in ""Overall, about half of adult Facebook users, or 47 percent, 'ever' get news there,"

What does this mean? 53% of Facebook users never read their wall? Or they do but none of their friends post news stories? They have very poor memories? The question confused them?

Facebook won't let others access information like which news stories are the most posted, but if they did it would actually make a decent news aggregator, without implicit editorial bias. One of my favorite news feeds used to be "Yahoo Most Emailed" - interesting stuff that was never on the front page of news site with editorial story selection.

I'd love to join that kind of data with my own selection of what constitutes a credible source (boy, do my friends love to post nonsense from naturalnews...).

Re:summary says 'ever'

[Anonymous Coward]

Bah! You ruined the smufest. 30% of us get all of our news from Slashdot, and the rest of us get 30% of our news from Slashdot. So as you can see, we have a vested interest in feeling superior to Facebook.

Re:summary says 'ever'

[tompaulco]

Sounds like they measured it like the Nielsen ratings. There are only a small percentage of Nielsen households, but they treat the numbers as Holy and a direct indication of what other people are watching. In truth, there are certain factors that may make someone more likely to want to be a Nielsen family. For example, they watch a lot of TV. Nielsen then assumes everyone watches the same amount of TV as someone who wanted a Nielsen box. I would also surmise that people who want a Nielsen box are more likely than the general population to like lowbrow humor, reality shows, awards shows, and sports.
I guess the statistics bear out if they were trying to get the opinion about what people who like to watch TV like to watch. However, they are making claims to advertisers about how many eyeballs were on their ads, and I think that that is a falsehood unattainable from the Nielsen statistics.

Re:summary says 'ever'

[Anonymous Coward]

What does this mean? 53% of Facebook users never read their wall? Or they do but none of their friends post news stories? They have very poor memories? The question confused them?

Why would I ever read what's posted on the Facebook wall? I thought the wall was just a place for people to post graffiti and spam.

Summary is misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

a third of Americans get their news while they 'like' things.

Hell, I get news while I pump gas at service stations where the pumps are equipped with 9" TV screens. I wouldn't say that's where I "get my news", but I won't deny I've caught news there a few times.

US news media are a joke

[Kohath]

Why not get your news from Facebook? Almost every source of news in the US spins and/or censors coverage for someone's political gain. If you're going to hear lies about current events, you might as well hear them from your friends.

Re:US news media are a joke

[utkonos]

But news from facebook is not first person. It's just your friends posting links to those same news sources that you're complaining about.

Re:US news media are a joke

[Anonymous Coward]

Not just political gain. Remember how ABC/CBS/NBC forgot to cover SOPA until it was obvious they weren't covering it? They wanted that law.

Re:US news media are a joke

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're going to hear lies about current events, you might as well hear them from your friends.

And also have an opportunity to prove to your friends why the lies are lies. Careful how you do it. Focus on winning the person over not winning the argument. There's a difference :).

Re:US news media are a joke

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost every source of news in the US spins and/or censors coverage for someone's political gain.

That's because on the type of programs you like to listen to, you've heard countless number of times the all media sources in the US fall into one of two categories.

There are the conservative sources, like Fox News, WSJ, Drudge Report, and a few city papers (NY Post, Washington Times, Baltimore Sun).

Then there is "MSM", which means all other media sources, which are one great big club of liberals who get together and discuss how to promote the Big Government agenda and cover for Obama's mistakes.

If you think about it, the logistics of how the members of MSM coordinate with one another on story after story is extremely impressive!

Re:US news media are a joke

[Kohath]

There are the conservative sources, like Fox News, WSJ, Drudge Report, and a few city papers (NY Post, Washington Times, Baltimore Sun).

a.k.a. Racists.

Then there is "MSM", which means all other media sources, which are one great big club of liberals who get together and discuss how to promote the Big Government agenda and cover for Obama's mistakes.

a.k.a. The good guys. They want to feed apples and carrots to the President's unicorn. He's so smart and capable! None of the bad things that happen are ever his fault, so it would be wrong to mislead the public by reporting on them.

Re:US news media are a joke

[msobkow]

I read news feeds from around the world and post comments to crackbook about them with links to the articles.

The US news is the *last* thing I read, because it is the *least* informative and the *most biased.*

For example: Not one word about the anti-NSA protests in US media. Still. Yet there were articles about the protests from Al Jazeera, Russia Times, and France 24.

I pity Americans. You're led around like sheep and you're too naval-gazing to realize how misinformed you are.

Re:US news media are a joke

[SerenelyHotPest]

I think the title could be broadened to say, "News Media Are--And Always Have Been--A Joke".

The news media have always existed to serve political ends either overtly or covertly. The slack of the American mainstream news has largely been picked up by independent news outlets, which have their own political agendas. If I were to guess from the title of your post, you get a lot of your news through BBC/Al Jazeera/RT. Are you really convinced any of those organizations is impartial? I grant their coverage of certain kinds of news you care about may be more objective than their mainstream American counterparts, but if your current events knowledge comes solely from them and Slashdot, I'd put forward that your impressions of some things are very one-sided.

I'm not saying you're wrong to look for non-American coverage of news--far from it. I've observed that my own perceptions of world events become problematic when I confine myself to learning about the world through one channel of information. This would certainly explain the state of American politics.

Re:US news media are a joke

[roc97007]

...when they're not posting links to parody sites believing they're true...

Re:US news media are a joke

[Kohath]

They are worse now than any time in the last 30 years.

Re:US news media are a joke

[utkonos]

I think you're referring to Russia Today, not Russia Times, aka RT. They are a state-owned news service controlled by Rospechat. They are not even remotely independent. If you're looking for news from a Russian news source, I would recommend Novaya Gazeta. They are staff-owned (a rarity in the Russian Federation).

Re:US news media are a joke

[ArbitraryName]

For example: Not one word about the anti-NSA protests in US media. Still.

Your news gathering skills are....poor to say the least.

USA Today: Anti-NSA rally attracts thousands to march in Washington http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/26/nsa-dc-rally/3241417/

Huffington Post: NSA 'Stop Watching Us' Protest Draws Thousands In Washington http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/26/nsa-stop-watching-us_n_4166640.html

US News and Word Report: Edward Snowden Endorses D.C. Protest Against NSA in Rare Public Statement http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/10/24/edward-snowden-endorses-dc-protest-against-nsa-in-rare-public-statement

Christian Science Monitor: NSA Washington: March against surveillance and a call from Edward Snowden http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2013/1026/NSA-Washington-March-against-surveillance-and-a-call-from-Edward-Snowden-photos

CNN: Anti-NSA rally targets Washington http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/26/anti-nsa-rally-targets-washington/

Fox News: Hundreds rally in DC to protest NSA http://video.foxnews.com/v/2772548586001/hundreds-rally-in-dc-to-protest-nsa/

NBC News: Hundreds march at anti-NSA rally in DC http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly-news/53383405

CBS News: Protesters March For Investigation Into Mass NSA Spying http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2013/10/26/protesters-march-for-investigation-into-mass-nsa-spying/

ABC News: NSA Spying Threatens to Hamper US Foreign Policy http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/nsa-spying-threatens-hamper-us-foreign-policy-20689770

Washington Post: Techies concerned over NSA surveillance will march in D.C., proclaiming ‘Stop Watching Us’ http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/techies-concerned-over-nsa-surveillance-will-march-in-dc-proclaiming-stop-watching-us/2013/10/25/5bedb546-3da7-11e3-b7ba-503fb5822c3e_story.html

This is where I get tired of pasting, but I assure you the list goes on and on.

Re:US news media are a joke

[msobkow]

If it doesn't make the front page, it's not news.

I skim the sites, not dig through them.

Re:US news media are a joke

[Smauler]

Estimates varied on the size of the march, with organizers saying more than 2,000 attended.

You expect a 2000 person protest to get on the front page?

The British Stop the War Coalition (StWC) held a protest in London which it claimed was the largest political demonstration in the city's history. Police estimated attendance as well in excess of 750,000 people[33] and the BBC estimated that around a million attended.

That didn't help anything, why do you think 2000 people at Washington would?

Re:US news media are a joke

[Gryle]

Ah, the old moving goal-posts arguement. You've merely proved the GPs point.

Re:US news media are a joke

[ArbitraryName]

You need your news spoon fed to you or you won't see it? That's your defense? Yeah you've lost any right to complain about anyone else.

Re:US news media are a joke

[mlts]

A lot of Americans can't stand CNN, MSNBC, or Fox, just because both slants have done damage to the country. This is why Al Jazeera seems to have taken a foothold (not to say they are always unbiased, but for stuff they don't have a "dog in the hunt" for, they are better than local sites.)

Thank you for the Novaya Gazeta link. It definitely beats the usual anti-West drivel found on Pravda.

I'd like to find a German news site that has been pretty straight with the US news (as their bias is elsewhere), but forgot the name.

Re:US news media are a joke

[isorox]

If it doesn't make the front page, it's not news.

I skim the sites, not dig through them.

300 people marching is not news. It happens every day.

Get a million people to march on Washington and that's news (that news will be underplayed, and the corporations will spin up their machine to stop it if they can't see profit in it, but it will make the front page)

Gossip

[Anonymous Coward]

All this says is that 30% of Americans value gossip more than news. This is not news to anyone or stuff that matters.

Re:Editors

[Anonymous Coward]

Hipster humor. Wow.

That makes lots of sense...

[Anonymous Coward]

When you consider how many people voted for our commander-n-chump - twice! Stupid is what stupid does...

Fast News Facebook Friends

[parallel_prankster]

I think everyone has a friend on FB who posts news items really fast. As soon as they happen. It is almost like some people feel compelled to be the first to ancounce news on Facebook. I think those few people may be responsible for most others getting their news on FB as well.

Re:Editors

[Anonymous Coward]

Hipster humor. Wow.

Is that like a "hippy"?

It's not all that different from Slashdot ...

[MacTO]

My (admittedly limited) experience on Facebook suggest that people who are engaged with current events will link to stories, and others will comment on them or like them. That doesn't seem to be all that different from what happens on Slashdot or forums. The difference is in the depth of that layman commentary and how well you know the people involved in the discussion.

So it's not that Facebook is the source of the news. I would be horrified if that was the case. Facebook is simply being used to connect people to the news, and those links may be to more reputable sources. There is reason to be concerned about the bias that a person finds within their own social circles, but you get a lot of bias from sites like Slashdot and forums anyhow.

Re:It's not all that different from Slashdot ...

[roc97007]

I think the real difference is that people can post pretty much anything to their Facebook news stream, including things that are blatantly, provably false. (Apparently it's part of the TOS for facebook users to post at least one tired old hoax a day or have your account suspended. Or be attacked by butt spiders. Or something.) At least what gets posted to Slashdot as news stories goes through some cursory editorial review, and comments that can't be backed up get called bullshit by other users. If we must draw parallels, I'd call Facebook "slashdot for idiots".

Re:It's not all that different from Slashdot ...

[Anonymous Coward]

At least what gets posted to Slashdot as news stories goes through some cursory editorial review

You must be new here.

Re:It's not all that different from Slashdot ...

[roc97007]

At least what gets posted to Slashdot as news stories goes through some cursory editorial review

You must be new here.

Point conceded. But it's all relative, right? I haven't yet seen the "giant radioactive fukushima squid" story wash up on Slashdot yet.

Re:It's not all that different from Slashdot ...

[bickerdyke]

No. There IS editorial review.

At least the submitted articles are ran against a regEx to check if the URL contains "theonion" and other parody sites.

Which is what facebook doesn't do. Or why else would snopes have to debunk "news" that Obama in reality is a islamist communist hippie war-criminal who had his face surgically changed to avoid prosecution?

Re:It's not all that different from Slashdot ...

[roc97007]

No. There IS editorial review.

At least the submitted articles are ran against a regEx to check if the URL contains "theonion" and other parody sites.

Which is what facebook doesn't do. Or why else would snopes have to debunk "news" that Obama in reality is a islamist communist hippie war-criminal who had his face surgically changed to avoid prosecution?

Wow, I haven't heard that one. My Facebook friends must be falling behind the hot issues of the day.

Yeah... So...

[Anonymous Coward]

People are stupid. The majority of americans also believe some crazy religious shit too.

You can't fix stupid.

You can however exploit it. And thats why facebook is where they get their news.

Re:Yeah... So...

[sumdumass]

You can't fix stupid.

You can fix stupid. Generally it takes time and understand and you looking in the mirror often. Often enough, the problem with stupid starts within.

The worst part: Facebook knows WHICH 30%

[Narcocide]

And they're selling the list to the highest bidder.

Not from Facebook

[Todd Knarr]

The pollsters missed it by the phrasing of their question. People aren't getting their news from Facebook. They're getting news from their friends and people they're following, who happen to be posting links to that news to Facebook. The difference is subtle but important. If someone goes "Oh, all we need to do is get our stories to appear on Facebook.", they're going to have their whole push fall on it's face because nobody's reading their articles. They'd need to get their articles in front of the people who lots of other people follow first, and make those articles interesting enough that those people post links to them for their followers to see. That's more complicated than just getting your story carried by a half-dozen major outlets.

Re:Not from Facebook

[SerenelyHotPest]

People aren't getting their news from Facebook yet, but don't worry; in two decades, all news will originate in, propagate throughout, and develop solely on Facebook. Facebook will be the new geopolitical sphere. For all intents and purposes, that "real world" thing won't exist anymore.

Re:Not from Facebook

[roc97007]

That the news you see on your facebook feed has to have been deemed important by one of your friends (or one of their friends) is a very good point. Where this breaks down is that your friends (or at least, *my* friends) will believe anything. Including that microwaved water will kill plants and that keying in your PIN backwards will call the police. Taken holistically, it creates a very bizarre picture of the world.

Re:Not from Facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, plants can't handle boiling water.

There is more news than can ever be parsed

[physicsphairy]

There are more news stories printed each day than any individual person could ever reasonably be aware of. Some sort of filter is needed, and, honestly, 'things my friends consider important', i.e., FB links, is a fairly good way to discriminate. If news is interesting/significant to people you share commonality with, it's likely to be interesting/significant to you. (Hence, Slashdot, where all of us nerds aggregate around 'News for nerds'.)

I find most aggregation services fairly bad at this. I actually think twitter is one of the best ways to keep up with politics. By adding people who are actively involved in the news cycle I get to see the actual discussion behind the stories. I understand what aspects of the story are considered most significant, how passionate people feel about it, how people on the right and left are interpreting it. The human reactions are often more important to knowing how the stories relate to practical politics (e.g., is it something the president is going to have to reverse coarse on, apologize for, or will it simply be forgotten by the next morning with the status quo maintained).

Besides that I use Slashdot, some science magazines, and one or two blogs to keep up on what is happening in the world.

Re:There is more news than can ever be parsed

[bickerdyke]

There are more news stories printed each day than any individual person could ever reasonably be aware of. Some sort of filter is needed, and, honestly, 'things my friends consider important', i.e., FB links, is a fairly good way to discriminate.

It used to be until tons of old classmates from elementary school showed up on my facebook account pretty much devaluating the meaning of "friend"

Re:There is more news than can ever be parsed

[Ster]

...

It used to be until tons of old classmates from elementary school showed up on my facebook account pretty much devaluating the meaning of "friend"

Then why did you accept the friend request? I limit my FB friends to pretty much only people I'd enjoy spending the whole day hanging out with.

Okay, there are also a few few relatives, whose friend requests I accepted to not start a bunch of family drama. But I largely ignore their posts, and I have groups set up such that they can't see the vast majority of my posts either. As far as those folks are concerned, I'm rarely on FB at all.

Re:There is more news than can ever be parsed

[bickerdyke]

Then why did you accept the friend request?

As probably everyone, I see facebook as a way to catch up with those old aqunaintances. IMHO what FB is for.

This does not mean, I want or need FB as a source for news. It's a fine source for the occasional funny pic/quote/joke.

In other news..

[OhANameWhatName]

86% of statistical analysis companies get their results via electronic survey. The other 14% make them up.

This is awesome news! Hold on a sec...

[Anonymous Coward]

... I gotta go post a link to this article on Facebook.

and the other 70%...

[Anonymous Coward]

...from The Daily Show.

Political Agenda

[HJED]

I get some news from Facebook and I also post some (usually political) news on Facebook. Often Facebook provides you with news you wouldn't have otherwise read (not big enough to be on a major news site, unpopular, etc). You also have the advantage that you know your friends political views, which makes it much easier to tell if they are spinning something.

Pew Research...

[BlogTheHaggis]

Bwahahahahahaha...

Ewwww!

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook!

from traditional news in the f/b feed

[globaljustin]

facebook.com is does not employ reporters...they don't have a DC bureau...facebook.com does not report news

the news organizations (NBC, CBS, Fox, MSNBC, NYTimes, WSJ, etc etc)...**they** provide the news content that is viewed in the news feed

facebook, at best, can be seen as an aggregator of news content

NYTimes, CBS, your local paper...**they** report the news

facebook's news feed is an aggregator

ugh...IMHO this is just pointless to research this aspect from this perspective...a better research topic which would yield more useful data and results would be to study who closes their facebook accounts and why and if they suppliment it with other networks...that kind of thing would be value-added

Pew Public Relations & Human Affect Control

[globaljustin]

I totally agree...Pew and virtually all mainstream 'polling' companies are just awful

IMHO the entire way people are polled about things like what they watch (Nielsen ratings), their political views (take your pick...), and their attitudes on technology (Pew in TFA)...hell, even SoundScan, which reports music industry sales figures, is gamed out by the industry & is not representative at all of what music people obtain and listen to...

Go down the line...they all use 1950s methodology juiced up...sort of exactly like 'Master Command' in Tron....methodology that is **easily gamed out** by modern techniques

That's my main point...all these ratings systems are done by private companies using obsolete science...it remained obsolete b/c they had no incentive to improve...b/c their profit model was not based on receiving pay for scientific research (maybe long ago it was?)

They are PR companies...their work is to make PR and Propaganda look like plausible consumer/voter research...that's what ppl get with their money...not science

agree but more

[globaljustin]

you're right on here:

The pollsters missed it by the phrasing of their question. People aren't getting their news from Facebook. They're getting news from their friends and people they're following

but you missed directly from the News Company (CBS, MSNBC, NYTImes, etc)

the News orgs themselves post links to their stories...no reposting by individual 'friends' needed

I say this b/c a friend of mine uses facebook.com as essentailly a news aggregator and event calendar for rock shows and new films...his identity is made up and none of his friends are real 'friends'...he's kind of a privacy obsessive (nothing wrong with that) so he just wants to log on quick, check his feed and get what info he wants and be done

Other groups that give tailored content directly: sports teams, local news papers, local TV, individual reporters (esp ppl like Buzzfeed reporters), newsmakers (via f/b account reposting from twitter)

So you're right to criticize I just wanted to add that the organizations themselves also play a major role in that content...not just stuff from personal friends

Re:agree but more

[bickerdyke]

Back in my days, we used to have Google Reader for that.

Re:agree but more

[Todd Knarr]

That's the thing, though: none of the news stories in my feed were posted by those major outlets. They're posted by other people I know, linking back to those major outlets. If News Corp. posts something, relatively few people will see it. It's only if those people repost it and other people are interested enough to want to re-repost it that it spreads and a lot of people see it. If that doesn't happen, odds on most people will never see it no matter what News Corp. does.

Re:agree but more

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, it's a shame there aren't hundreds if not thousands of other RSS/ATOM aggregators that are still out and quite usable, for anything ranging from a command line interface to a gui to a web interface to a mobile app...hell, even to an email interface. And nevermind that most major browsers now include RSS aggregation as a feature to begin with. What EVER will we do now that Google Reader is gone?

If you're on linux, check out liferea (gui) or newsbeuter (cli). Believe it or not, rss aggregating doesn't inherently require the NSA checking over articles before they're delivered to you, and maintaining logs on the whole situation.

misinformation

[sumitjadhav137]

Thats why people are misinformed.

cybercom trolls

[JACKSONJIVE]

that explains why the u.s govt has so many shills on fb posting news articles

Lies and more lies

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps they tire of mass media lies.

Intelligent?

[Anonymous Coward]

That explains the reason for the lower intelligence level of 30% of Americans!
30% of Americans are obese!
30% + that are non-religeous
or 30% arrested by age 23
Its amazing what you can find by searching for 30% of Americans!

Great... the ignorant informing the ignorant

[Anonymous Coward]

Seeing the quality of so called "news" on facebook it's a wonder anyone relies on it for information about anything, too much chain mail, and too many modified stories. Facebook proves that news can easily be laden with fiction far removed from the truth.

Comedy Central

[xbytor]

I get my news from:
- Jon Stewart
- Stephen Colbert
- My personalized Google News page
- A "Liberal Left" friend of mine (on FB) who apparently likes HuffPo (more of an entertainment feed than news)
- www.icanhascheezeburger.com (because FU, I like cats)

That is why...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are so stupid.

Still better...

[Anonymous Coward]

Than Fox News.

This just in...

[MitchDev]

Grumpy Cat hates everything.... ... You friends need you help tend their farm in Farmville...
and
You may already be a winner (but if you spend the whole day logged into Facebook, we severely doubt it.)

"News"?

[vawwyakr]

I don't think "Jonny's just lost his first tooth" qualifies and investigative journalism.

Dammit, Slashdot!!1!

[Anonymous Coward]

News... oh, right! When I heard about this, I thought they said everyone was getting their friends' NUDES from Facebook. I was all set to create a Facebook account! Dammit, Slashdot!!1! Thanks for ruining the dream!

Sister study: %80 of Americans don't trust researc

[lordeveryman]

Is this a sister study to the one finding that %80 of Americans don't trust research? %40 of Americans believe God created the earth on May 18th 2012 when Facebook made its Initial Public Offering.

valuable data

[globaljustin]

see, this here is, IMHO actually valuable data:

if those people repost it and other people are interested enough to want to re-repost it that it spreads and a lot of people see it

I am usually extremely critical of the way f/b works...and similar companies...bottlenecking features, boxing-in user's privacy w/ changes to defaults, on and on...the hype chorus...

I hate when people say "Print is dead"...it's a distinction w/o a difference....exhitibit A is the point we all agree on...facebook isn't reporting news

Its still words on a page...just a different type of page

However...I'm no luddite...I used to work in news and was super stoked (i was practically a kid) to use all the new internet tech, satellites, etc to do better news...to **connect** with our readers/viewers better

data about what stories users choose to share, and with whom, and how many respond, and why they say...all of this is **absolute researcher gold**

it's 'rich' data...it has the specificity and lack of abstraction that only comes with 'case study' research, yet it is quantifiable, spreadsheetable, graphable, and analyzable in ways usually reserved only for numberic abstractions of human behavior

the 'richness' is the problem...the facebook.com's of the world don't know what to do with what they have...

it's like if the hottest girl in school asks the geek to be her date to the dance...is he really going to know what to do with her?

Can You "like"AP news??

[RobertLTux]

some version of that would be the best way to use FB to get news

I hadn't heard that!

[Tony Isaac]

Oh yeah, must be because I'm not on facebook, so I didn't see the news!

Depends on the definition

[Anonymous Coward]

Are we talking actual news, or "Facebook news" - big difference.

I got all my Slashdot news from FB

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot has a FB page where they autopost articles.

scary

[Anonymous Coward]

well, i think it's the same in canada if i check my friend's posting and sharing, they absolutely believe in any garbage they come upon.

it's scary

30% Facebook news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably all voted for O'bummer & most of the rest of the idiots in congress.