Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

62% Americans Get News On Social Media (journalism.org)

Posted by msmash on from the where-you-get-your-news dept.

More people in the United States are now turning to social media instead of traditional media for news. According to Pew Research Center, which surveyed over 4,500 people with various backgrounds, an increasingly number of Americans -- 62% to be exact -- are getting their news from social media platforms such as Facebook, and Instagram. Of the 62% people, 66% of them get their news from Facebook, 23% from Instagram, 21% from YouTube, and 19% from LinkedIn. From a Huffington Post article: It's easy to believe you're getting diverse perspectives when you see stories on Facebook. You're connected not just to many of your friends, but also to friends of friends, interesting celebrities and publications you "like." But Facebook shows you what it thinks you'll be interested in. The social network pays attention to what you interact with, what your friends share and comment on, and overall reactions to a piece of content, lumping all of these factors into an algorithm that serves you items you're likely to engage with. It's a simple matter of business: Facebook wants you coming back, so it wants to show you things you'll enjoy.

69 comments

  1. Filter Bubbles by ADRA · · Score: 1

    Nothing to see here, Move Along.

    --
    Bye!
    1. Re:Filter Bubbles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not dissimilar from Fox News and it's audience.

    2. Re:Filter Bubbles by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1
      From the summary:

      ...It's easy to believe you're getting diverse perspectives when you see stories on Facebook....

      No it isn't easy to believe that.

      .
      What is easy to believe is that you are getting perspectives that fit into your belief bubble. You are liking the things you want to see more of, that is why you click the like button.

      (instead of starting a new sub-heading, I chose to use the Filter Bubble sub-heading that was already available. No sense in duplication.)

    3. Re:Filter Bubbles by ElectricHellKnight · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Not dissimilar from Fox News and it's audience.

      Way to be so edgy and attack Fox News. Not that I think Fox News is "fair and balanced", but you have to be a goddamn fool to not acknowledge that every other major news network has a left-wing bias. Look at the numbers. There's a reason Fox News is consistently the most watched, because there's no other major news network that offers a conservative bias, but there are tons that offer a liberal bias. And don't reply to this with, "But Fox News has more bias!" If you seriously think that, you're beyond ignorant.

    4. Re:Filter Bubbles by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      The filter bubble is widely known, but this is the first article that I've seen with some hard numbers. It comes at a particularly interesting time due to the possibility of a Trump presidency.
      I see Fox News mentioned in one of the other comments on this thread. I think this shift to "social media" as a news source will do way more damage than Fox ever could. With Fox, you're still dealing with an old-style news organization... It's slanted more than most, but there's still some semblance of accountability. Their talking heads spout carefully crafted misdirections, but if they were to fabricate a story out of thin air, that would not stand. It'd go down like Dan Rather. A lot of this shit that goes around on Facebook would never fly on Fox News.

      Going a bit OT here but remember how much vitriol people directed at Bush? Say what you will about his policies (there's definitely a lot to say...) but at least the man was qualified to be a statesman. I'd take 8 years of the cowboy over 8 days of this rodeo clown they're running for 2016.

    5. Re:Filter Bubbles by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Going a bit OT here but remember how much vitriol people directed at Bush? Say what you will about his policies (there's definitely a lot to say...) but at least the man was qualified to be a statesman.

      [citation needed]

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Filter Bubbles by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      Fox is not merely biased. It's outright lying.

    7. Re:Filter Bubbles by ElectricHellKnight · · Score: 1

      Fox is not merely biased. It's outright lying.

      And other news stations don't? Like a local CBS station did right here?

  2. Idiocracy is here by DogDude · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Trump. Facebook. Angry Birds the Movie.

    Idiocracy is here.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:Idiocracy is here by hambone142 · · Score: 1

      Amen, bro.

      The era if the 10 second attention span is here.

      The dumbing down of the U.S. is making great progress.

      If Camacho were in the ballot, he'd be a front runner.

      Brought to you by Carl's Jr.

    2. Re:Idiocracy is here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the ballot only had Clinton or V. Putin, I'd vote for Putin. Since it's going to be Clinton or Trump, I'll choose Trump.

    3. Re:Idiocracy is here by tetraverse · · Score: 1

      Nice one, Idiocracy (2006)

    4. Re:Idiocracy is here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The era if the 10 second attention span is here."

      How many seconds would it have taken you to notice that typo?

    5. Re:Idiocracy is here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Drop out of society

      -- John Watson

    6. Re:Idiocracy is here by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Trump. Facebook. Angry Birds the Movie. Idiocracy is here.

      Trump, Angry Birds - redundant?

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    7. Re:Idiocracy is here by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      Amen, bro.

      The era if the 10 second attention span is here.

      The dumbing down of the U.S. is making great progress.

      If Camacho were in the ballot, he'd be a front runner.

      Brought to you by Carl's Jr.

      TL;DR

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    8. Re: Idiocracy is here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go away, batin'

  3. I have to sneeze... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah-Ah-Ahhh-Bullshit! I'm American, I don't believe any news on Facebook, Fox, MSNBC, or even CNN anymore. I find BBC is a little better, but not much. The news has turned into a thrill ride, it's not what it was 40 years ago when there were real news sources. Facebook is the worst, MSNBC comes in a strong 2nd place for bullshit news.

    1. Re:I have to sneeze... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      leave it to the narcissist to think this entire article was about their news habits

    2. Re:I have to sneeze... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      I find BBC is a little better, but not much.

      The BBC tends to be better because they are reporting on America from the outside. For the same reason, The Economist tends to be a good source of reasonably objective news about America. They are not as objective when reporting on Britain, where they tend to be pro-Tory, hate the SNP, and are rabidly anti-Brexit.

  4. Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But where are people getting the news they post on social media? Every claimed innovation of the past ten years has pretty much been an interface for functionality that already existed. News isn't coming 'from' social media, it's just being posted there. So actually, people *are* getting their news ftom the same sources, just via a different interface. Beware of swiss cheese logic in the 21st century - it likely means someone is trying to manipulate you.

    1. Re:Maybe by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

      But where are people getting the news they post on social media? Every claimed innovation of the past ten years has pretty much been an interface for functionality that already existed. News isn't coming 'from' social media, it's just being posted there. So actually, people *are* getting their news ftom the same sources, just via a different interface. Beware of swiss cheese logic in the 21st century - it likely means someone is trying to manipulate you.

      The tap water you drink probably comes from a nearby body of fresh water. But if you live in the average city, then I dare you to drink a big glass of water straight from the lake, river, or whatever. The difference, you see, is in the filtering and the sanitisation. Same thing with the news - the channels by which it's delivered have a significant effect on the content. Only in this case it's the raw source that's healthy, and the filtered one that can do long-term damage.

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
  5. Laziness and spoon fed... by bagboy · · Score: 2

    I've been guilty on occasion, but truth is we are more and more becoming citizens of the Wall-E concept. Someday you'll simply sip a slurpy from your robotic recliner.

  6. Why this is terrifying by PapayaSF · · Score: 1

    Facebook (especially) has the power to use the Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME) to influence what people see, and that has been proven to have a strong influence on how people vote:

    As one might expect, familiarity levels with the candidates was high – between 7.7 and 8.5 on a scale of 10. We predicted that our manipulation would produce a very small effect, if any, but that’s not what we found. On average, we were able to shift the proportion of people favouring any given candidate by more than 20 per cent overall and more than 60 per cent in some demographic groups. Even more disturbing, 99.5 per cent of our participants showed no awareness that they were viewing biased search rankings – in other words, that they were being manipulated.

    --
    Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
    1. Re:Why this is terrifying by Zocalo · · Score: 2

      "Terrifying" is right. What the approach used by Facebook's is clearly doing is creating an echo chamber so people mostly only get to see views that match their own, with all that entails for producing a skewed outlook on the world that is mostly based on the misperception that the overwhelming majority takes a similar view. Interestingly, it's not just happening on the conventional social media sites; there's a similar thing going on over on the BBC news site at the moment - in particular around the UK's EU referendum, but also around several other topics in various sections of the site. Check out any of the stories relating to the referendum where the BBC has enabled comments, sort by rating, and it's a classic echo chamber; all (and I do mean ALL) of the highest rated comments are pro-exit, critical of perceived bias in the BBC's coverage, and throwing insults at those with a pro-remain view - quite often demonstrating ignorance of facts and an amazing degree of bigotry and bias in the process.

      The self-deception is incredibly strong - easily in line with that 99.5% figure cited in your quote; there was one post that made me laugh (the Lulz at the more idiotic comments are the only reason I read them) about how all the polls (which mostly have it as a close-run thing with remain usually slightly ahead) must be wrong "because no one ever posts a pro-remain comment on the BBC". Someone being unaware they are viewing biased data and having their opinions skewed on a social media site is one thing; it's mostly gossip and celebrity "news" that has little bearing on the big picture anyway. That a similar thing is also happening on mainstream news sites relating to topics that will quite possible have a lasting influence on millions of people for generations is deeply concerning, as is the growning lack of any openness to consideration of alternative viewpoints, let alone some critical thinking about the topic, amongst the masses.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
  7. Slashdot by penguinoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Some people are even getting news from sites like Slashdot, though there's some dispute as whether that counts as social media or antisocial media.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    1. Re:Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what, I use to get my news from a comedy tv network (daily show)

    2. Re:Slashdot by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Slashdot exist to keep me amuse at work while I wait for a script to complete. I also love trolling the trolls. News on Slashdot... meh...

    3. Re:Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is all crazy. I get my news from Comedy Central.

    4. Re:Slashdot by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

      I only read the National Enquirer for the articles.

      --
      C|N>K
    5. Re:Slashdot by antdude · · Score: 1

      /. gives me news. Also, we can socialize or not. ;)

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  8. If... by edittard · · Score: 1

    It's easy to believe you're getting diverse perspectives when you see stories on Facebook.

    It is if you're so dumb that you didn't hear of cyberbalkanisation and similar theories a decade ago.

    --
    At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
  9. That explains why... by srichard25 · · Score: 1

    That explains why the main choices for President will be Trump and Clinton. Neither of these people would be elected dog catcher in a society that was actually paying attention and applying critical thought.

    1. Re:That explains why... by reboot246 · · Score: 2

      I'll go further and say that applies to Congress, state governments, county governments and even down to city governments. They're either corrupt, incompetent, or both.

      They say you get the government you deserve. I think the article explains a lot.

    2. Re:That explains why... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

      They say you get the government you deserve.

      That's because most people don't bother to vote. The 2014 election had the lowest national voter turnout in 72 years with 36% of registered voters casting a vote. A minority of citizens are deciding the government for the majority of citizens.

    3. Re:That explains why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're confusing cause and effect. The average citizen is well aware that their vote is meaningless.

    4. Re:That explains why... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      The average citizen is well aware that their vote is meaningless.

      Hence, they get the government that they deserve.

    5. Re:That explains why... by rsborg · · Score: 1

      The average citizen is well aware that their vote is meaningless.

      Hence, they get the government that they deserve.

      You forget the scrubbing of the voter registration that is happening constantly - in which case, we're getting the government that the government thinks we deserve. Sound about right?

      [1] http://www.wsj.com/articles/ne...

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    6. Re:That explains why... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      You forget the scrubbing of the voter registration that is happening constantly - in which case, we're getting the government that the government thinks we deserve. Sound about right?

      That goes back to not having enough people showing up to vote. Some countries require every eligible citizen to cast a vote or face a fine. If citizens got penalized for not voting, they would certainly keep an eye on the political process. With a 30% voter turnout in the US, no one cares.

    7. Re:That explains why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you think people would make more than the minimum required effort if voting was mandatory?

    8. Re:That explains why... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Why do you think people would make more than the minimum required effort if voting was mandatory?

      Some people might care more than other people. If enough people care more than those who put in only the minimum required effort, perhaps society will change for the better.

  10. They pay attention? by Vegan+Cyclist · · Score: 1

    Funny, they don't seem to be paying attention to the fact I haven't viewed my 'timeline' in years, because they manipulate it. Looks like the algorithm needs some tweaking..

  11. Easy by Livius · · Score: 1

    It's easy to believe you're getting diverse perspectives when you see stories on Facebook

    I have to disagree. It takes a certain amount of active disregard for reality to confuse Facebook with a diversity of opinion. The fact that 'like' is not the same as 'dislike' is not a difficult concept.

    Of course, wilful blindness does come easily to some people, but I still think 'easy' is not the right word.

    Maybe they think it's easy because the "journalist" is in his own confirmation bias bubble.

  12. Clickbait squared by g01d4 · · Score: 1

    Less than 1 in 5 'often' get their news on social media. It's likely the rest simply scan and occasionally bite on some of the clickbait headlines thrust in front of them - which today counts as news.

  13. Ideology reinforcer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "...serves you items you're likely to engage with..." In other words panders to your prejudices, never presents a contrarian view. Possibly doesnt matter as almost all of the true believers" (political, religious, whatever)I've encountered are completely closed-minded.

  14. Geez by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    This is no different then people getting their dietary requirements from fast food restaurants.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  15. Confirmation bias... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Most of my friends find news that reinforces their view of the world, never seeking out news that might challenge their viewpoints or require that they think. Take the 2016 election. There are plenty of emotional reasons to support Hillary, Bernie or Trump. But if you the analyze past elections, the 2008, 2012 and 2016 electoral maps, and fundraising capabilities, Hillary is going to win the White House with the least effort because all the numbers are in her favor.

    1. Re:Confirmation bias... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So wait, are you saying everyone who doesn't support Clinton should just give up, or support Clinton because she's going to win anyway? I'm having a hard time reasoning out how you relate the first part (reasons why candidates should win) to the second (claims that one candidate will win.)

    2. Re:Confirmation bias... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I'm having a hard time reasoning out how you relate the first part (reasons why candidates should win) to the second (claims that one candidate will win.)

      You're misreading it. Both are reasons for why a candidate should win. One is emotional, one is analytical. Most people go with emotional arguments because it's easier to do. The analytical argument requires critical thinking, considering evidence and alternative viewpoints, and forming a fact-based opinion. It's easy to scream that Bernie/Clinton/Trump will win than argue that the numbers favors Clinton more strongly than either Bernie or Trump. That doesn't mean the numbers are perfect and Hillary will win by default. The 2016 elections could easily be a historical anomaly — or maybe not.

  16. tough maths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those "increasingly numbers" are much harder to calculate than imaginary numbers.

  17. So what's new? by Megol · · Score: 2

    Media have always provided what the masses want to see. Not only tabloids (which only makes the skewed reporting more visible), not only politically motivated publications but even media that intends to provide unbiased facts. Until we can create real AI with no bias to do our reporting can we expect that to change - all humans are biased, at best we can be aware of that and try to mitigate somewhat.

    But even when we have AIs we will still get biased reporting. That's the way we want it - that's the way we gonna get it.

  18. No way by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 0

    You mean people use teh interweb to get news?? Hell, I wish I'd thought of this novel idea so I could patent it.

    "A means of obtaining information about current events by using an information-dissemination network" - PATENTED, BABY!

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  19. Re:Facebook Legion by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's not diverse, that's balkanized. It has all those things and more I'm sure, but each is in its own little ghetto, and most people rarely stray far from their own 'hood.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  20. Huff Post Whining by tomhath · · Score: 0
    FTFA:

    Facebook shows you what it thinks you'll be interested in.

    As opposed to Huff Post which shows you what it wants you to think, same as all the other media outlets like NYT, Fox, USA Today, Vox, etc.

  21. general thoughts about news by swell · · Score: 1

    This thread got me thinking. I spend too much time gathering news and I haven't given it enough thought to do it efficiently. Here are some questions I'm struggling to answer now:

    What is news? How can we benefit from news? What is the best way to find beneficial news? Is dramatic news more important than routine news about government & business? Is sports and entertainment a valuable part of news? How much time should be devoted to keeping up with news? How can news prepare people for elections? How much opinion should be allowed in news? How can one detect bias in news? Are blogs, podcasts, videos and social media valuable sources of news? Are attractive, authoritative news presenters beneficial? If there is an auto collision in your neighborhood, is that news? If there is an auto collision 20 miles away, is that news? If there is an auto collision 40 miles away and someone dies, is that news? How is news influenced by editors and publishers? How is news influenced by advertisers? How is news influenced by government? How is news influenced by religion, local moral opinions, ethnic traditions, geographical trends, etc? Specifically, what do we expect from business news, world news, local news, entertainment news, weather news, family & friend news, etc? What is the best source of each? Should we pay for news or let advertising pay for it?

    What questions have I missed? Are there good answers to any of these?

    --
    ...omphaloskepsis often...
    1. Re:general thoughts about news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish the "news" would leave sports, weather and entertainment mostly to the niche sources that are dedicated to them.

      Some of it is worthy of being reported nationally or globally (like the threat of Zika at the Olympics or a really major storm), but several news networks I watch do a global weather report just showing different cities around the globe and their temperatures and whether it's sunny or raining for the next several days. I want to know the weather where I live and I can do so in about 10 seconds on the internet or just by looking outside.

      I timed all the fluff - including sports scores and self-promotional videos and a quick recap of the news stories just presented and it was 10 minutes of a 30 minute broadcast (and this wasn't filled with commercials like most American "news" networks).

      And then there's the click-baity news (even on streamed news). I've seen the "news" about the laughing wookie mask over and over in the past week.

      Then again, I keep the news "on" the TV as background much of the time - usually international news because the ads on US-based networks are just unbearable. (Yes, wookie mask woman is international news even).

      And they can't get enough of the cell-phones MAY cause cancer story although most of them I've seen are rather skeptical of it once they get past the shocking headline.

  22. I do this myself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm tired of traditional media outlets putting political spin on everything. I'm not a mushroom. Don't keep me in the dark and feed me ... At least on social media, you have a chance of talking with real people. If you fact check, the news is generally accurate.

  23. Gossip by Vyse+of+Arcadia · · Score: 1

    Facebook is modern gossip, and I'm pretty sure > 60% of people have gotten their news through gossip for all of human history.

  24. Re:Facebook Legion by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    It has all those things and more I'm sure, but each is in its own little ghetto, and most people rarely stray far from their own 'hood.

    Welcome to the world.

    Fortunately, it's a diverse enough world, so you can make your own way and choose your own community or choose to move to another.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  25. Instagram?? by CCarrot · · Score: 1

    Okay, I can see FB, maybe, because people post articles on there and maybe you trust your friends more than the networks to curate your news for you...but Instagram? Isn't that just a photo sharing service? Are the people you follow posting photos of news events, or is this just for 'local' news (like OMG HUGE BURGERZZ HERE! CHECK IT OUT!!!)?

    (Don't know, don't use either service, although have seen more FB pages than Instagram pages...)

    --
    "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
  26. and? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    at least 62% of news outlets get their news on social media.

    Its disgusting that most news seems to focus on being a race to repost whatever's trending online. I could handle it if they added some value somewhere, like say, fact checking, but for now things are a complete joke.

  27. Re:Facebook Legion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fortunately, it's a diverse enough world, so you can make your own way and choose your own community or choose to move to another.

    That's not the solution, that's a restatement of the problem.

  28. Poor choice of words. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They don't choose social media, they choose social networks for their media.

    Why does everyone keep referring the network as the media when the content itself is the media whether it be on a online network, broadcast, print, etc.

    Social media = content.
    Social networks = the services providing content.

  29. This is News ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who [didn't] already know that? .. Now [ THAT ] would be news.

  30. Who remembers Googlezon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In 2004, Robin Sloan and Matt Thompson published a video (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPIC_2014) predicting the rise of something called Googlezon. Googlezon would present people with personalized front page news. "What if individuals could create and affect news stories simply by reading, viewing, and/or listening to them?"

    It all came from a 2003 speech by Martin A. Nisenholtz, CEO of the New York Times Digital,

    I remember the discussion from 2004. Most people thought that they were too extreme, that it could never happen that wayl

  31. Gossip may be origin of human language by peter303 · · Score: 1

    In social primate troops everyone watches everyone else as much as possible. Then they regulate hierachy and economic sharing. Gossip is for filling in the details when some members go out of view for a while. Maybe some have gone off hunting or foraging. Or visiting relatives in another troop. News is distilled gossip.