Slashdot Mirror
More People Get Their News From Social Media Than Newspapers, Study Finds (engadget.com)
The Pew Research Center has found that more adults get their news from social media than newspapers. "In a survey conducted earlier this year, 20 percent of adults said they often get news via social media while just 16 percent said the same about print newspapers," reports Engadget. "Television topped the list, with 49 percent of respondents saying they get news from TV often while 33 percent and 26 percent of respondents said news websites and radio were significant news sources for them." From the report:
Though television is still the dominant news source for American adults, it has been on a decline -- 57 percent of surveyed adults reported getting their news from television regularly back in 2016. And Pew points out that when you look at online news sources together, so either news websites or social media, it's creeping up to TV as the top source, pulling 43 percent of adults combined. But there are significant differences between age groups. TV is by far the most popular news source for adults aged 50 and over while just 16 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds and 36 percent of 30- to 49-year-olds say they often get news via television. Among the youngest adults (aged 18 to 29), social media is the most popular platform for news, and for 30- to 49-year-olds, websites are the top news source.
Nobody but old slashdot readers bother with newspapers.
That's like saying more people get their nutrition from McDonald's than from the grocery store.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
That explains a lot.
More seriously: I recently resubscribed to our local newspaper after letting it go for about 4-5 years - before that, I’d been a subscriber for a couple decades. I’m debating if I want to continue. Thing is, the long-form journalism that is the strength of a newspaper has been cut way back - it seems they’re trying to appeal to the younger generation and their short attention span. But what they’ve really managed to do is cut down on the amount of information their product now offers. Not to mention that local news coverage is just about gone, excepting sports.
And the ads! I understand that they can’t rely on classifieds carrying them anymore, but it’s gotten ridiculous. You have to help not through the ads to find the newspaper.
#DeleteChrome
Secular Talk, Dave Packman, The Young Turks. To be honest they're mostly just commenting on BBC stories and some Al Jazeerez. I'll check CNN & MSNBC but both are more or less the Establishment party line. For general news there's Fark (not the comments section, but the aggregator part).
I think folks stopped caring about newspapers when they started to be 24/7 nonstop corporate propaganda. Back in the day newspapers would muckrake and dig up dirt on powerful men. That was something worth paying for. These days those men either buy out or sue the papers until they toe the line. What's the point.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
anti-social media
...to death for survival these days, anything goes it seems.
I'm older than 49 myself, and I def. do not trust general media, so I watch a lot of different media and make a "balanced" judgement based on observations from the various sources in order to figure out what "really" happens.
We've had numerous examples on how news-media can't be 100 percent trusted, for example - remember the independent journalist Tim Pool decided to see how it was in Sweden? Well, he traveled to the questionable areas that allegedly had lots of trouble, and he noticed that the police was following him around, warning him not to stick around.
Interestingly enough, that's not the story media in Sweden presented to the majority of the population on the national TV channel, they knew "nothing" of this, and denied everything, despite that - anyone who wanted could watch it on Tim Pool's youtube channel, uncut videos with 100% irrefutable evidence, because he was there, and filmed it all, nothing blurry, nothing cut or censored away, he just uncovered the pure reality.
And media lied it away, to make everything sound "Normal" to the Swedish population. From that day, those of us who wanted it - had clear evidence that it's being tampered with on a high level. To me - well, I suspected it all along, but - I had some kind of childish naive hope that in rich democratic countries like the Scandinavian countries, we would still be spared this, but no. Sadly not.
So who are we to trust? Trust no one - only your own down to earth judgement, don't buy the first story you hear, find a second opinion - and a third one, and absolutely NOT go by "popular opinion", always seek the truth, not opinions alone.
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
Print is dead. The story title is misleading.
BTW I get no news from social media, only stupid people do. Sadly, there are a lot of stupid people.
In japan we have our own stories, except for the few foreign selections we hand pick. The only thing we think is cute is when businessmen hog sleeping tubes when there is a long line. Is China similar? Maybe China pays additional tariffs to japan to handle goods - just a thought, donâ(TM)t mind me
Its all just click bait.
Everyone gets their news from the news sources.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
I don't use social media. I get home delivery of the Los Angeles Times(California,USA) which I believe provides reliable info about local and world news and events.Also read a variety of news websites from the US, Europe and Asia. I have always read a lot maybe because my dad read to me and my siblings when I was two or three years old. I trust young people to recognize fact from fiction,
So after checking the article, they are comparing to actual print newspapers. So any number much above zero is going to win that one. Plus this is one of those studies that ask people if they "often get" which adds up to more than 100% (144% actually). I'm more surprised that 16% still claim they often get news from print newspapers.
If news means keeping up with your schoolmates- go with social media.
If news means deep celebrity or fashion insights - yeah, social media.
If news means more verbal vomit from the White House - social media.
If news means trends in money markets - go thou to conventional media.
If news means morning weather and traffic - look in conventional media.
If news means Brexit or the Middle East - trust the conventional media.
...omphaloskepsis often...
A few years ago there was a survey asking people where they got their news. The number one TV show people reported getting news from was The Daily Show, a comedy show.
So "news" these days, to most people, means Facebook or a comedian.
I find it interesting, and scary, to compare various news sources on the same day. You'll get a COMPLETELY different view of the world depending on which news source(s) you choose. Ever wonder why the heck the guy you're arguing with is so F-ing stupid, why he can't see things that are obvious to you? He's living in an entirely different world, that's why.
Every day CNN's front page has a story about a bad cop, or a cop who royally screwed up. It may be an update about something a bad cop did a year ago. These stories are mostly true. Also every day Fox has a story about a cop beimg hero, doing something generous or brave. These stories are pretty much true as well. Readers get a 180 degree completely opposite opinion of cops, depending on which stories their news source covers.
Same on any other topic. MSNBC will run a stories every day with a particular slant on the topic, the Washington Times will run some will the opposite slant - all true(ish). The Daily Show will do jokes that sound like news stories, slanted far enough to become fiction.
The other guy can't see your point of view because the news of the world in his world is the opposite of what you see every day. That's why he's being ridiculous - and you're being just as ridiculous, if you're like 95% of people.
Some one whatsapped me about this...
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
That would depend on when you saw the reports on Swedish TV.
There was some coverage after Pool's first two days of walking around Malmo, when he encountered - no trouble. It was later in his visit that he did experience the trouble you describe, and that was also covered in local media - but not a lot, because when there's masked gangs and rioting in your streets, frankly a non-violent encounter happening to some busybody foreign journalist doesn't seem all that newsworthy.
You're insinuating that there was a conspiracy to cover up the truth. To that I say, link or STFU.
Social media is good for friends and family, independent news, and news from all corners of the world. But its infinite (essentially)! Easily distracting and the biggest time sink humanity has ever created.
"The quality of life is determined by its activites."--Aristotle
I don't think you've thought this through. Unless of course you're a neo-Nazi.
There was a question about the policy of the South African government. I quoted the actual written policy of the government, the exact words of their announcement. What I quoted was, by definition, their announced policy, because it was their actual words. So my post is the very definition of truth.
Your assertion is that truth is Nazism, that truth and Nazism are the same thing.
You assert Nazism == truth.
I'm not sure that's a wise thing to say.
Ok I followed the link and there's nothing about Nazis there.
You're just one more of the retards that flames people about something they supposedly posted in the past when it's completely unrelated to this article or comments.
Get a life.
A few years ago there was a survey asking people where they got their news. The number one TV show people reported getting news from was The Daily Show, a comedy show.
So "news" these days, to most people, means Facebook or a comedian.
Given how much the mainstream media was caught faking the news, many perceive it as comedy already. So they probably decided they might as well watch a professional comedian do a more entertaining job of delivering honestly faked-as-convenient-for-him "infotainment-like art product".
At least he's more funny than the gloom-and-doom "news presenters".
Television news has been bunk since (at least) before the advent of Turner's original CNN. The network execs got the idea that people were watching news for entertainment rather than accurate information, and decided providing the former was cheaper. When all three (at the time) networks were doing it, there was nowhere for those who wanted TV news to turn, creating the market opportunity for Turner, and the new satellite/cable combination gave him the tech to seize it. (Unfortunately he sold out, first figuratively, then literally.)
Newspapers were ALWAYS one-sided and poorly researched bunk. (E.g.: "Yellow Journalism". Or all the way back to Franklin's health advice to avoid Jenner's vaccination.) Think: Did a newspaper EVER get it right for ANY story where you knew what was REALLY going on? Did they even spell the bride's name right?
Freedom of the Press works by letting ALL the biases have their own papers, giving every story, and all substantial sides of it, an opportunity to be heard. When newspapers consolidated down to one major outlet per city, that diversity was lost.
Now just about the only opportunity for news to flow freely is the Internet, and the main access point for those without an ongoing axe to grind is social media.
Sure it's a mix of facts, falsehoods, and fluff, and you have to do your own filtering. But the "professional news media" has pretty much ALWAYS been that. There were a few decades where broadcast was king, the cost kept the number of players down to those you could count on one hand, and they pretended to give accurate and unbiased coverage to everything of importance. But that illusion has been popped by general access to unedited Internet distribution.
Let's hope "The Invisible Hand" and "The Internet sees censorship as failure and routes around it" keeps that access open, as the major social media providers impose their own censorship.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
Most newspapers these days do nothing but repost trending topics from social media and impart their own lies and biases to boot.
Why wouldn't most people go directly to social media to get the same information sooner and with less spin?
Journalism is dead. Honest and accurate reporting is a lot of work and it doesn't make much money anymore.
Of idiots.
When radio and television came along, they assumed the responsibility of providing the news, mostly by buying it from reputable journalists. When social media came along, the corporations weren't interested in being responsible or giving-back to subscribers: That cost money, besides the business model was repackaging free content, not providing more than the US ban on nudity and recreational drugs.
Intelligence requires efforts.
It's like you get stock quotations from your neighbour TV instead of nyse.com.
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
Until the invasion of Iraq, I never got news from any designated channels. My informative behaviour changed, though, as a result of the national downward slide that I found distasteful.
I imagine the youth of today that don't have a perception of "before" will be similar now to how I was before.
Just because it's social media doesn't mean it's any worse. You still are allowed to think rationally and interpret the information for yourself. It's more dangerous to have a "trusted" source of information you never question or cross check, which can happen in any medium.
Social media is a sewage pipe with occasional diamonds in it. I've watched it rip apart the fake news being pushed by mainstream media - as you note in Sweden, but also in the US and UK.
No wonder the establishment wants it controlled - and the mainstream media wants its place back as the messenger of the establishment.
> Secular Talk, Dave Packman, The Young Turks. To be honest they're mostly just commenting on BBC stories and some Al Jazeerez. I'll check CNN & MSNBC but both are more or less the Establishment party line.
It's weird that you say that after saying that most of your news is from state-run news agencies.
My local newspaper is pay walled and I don't think it's worth $285 a year just to read the first couple of pages and throw all the other bullshit away. I'm saving trees and money. Television? I thought that died with those phones you plug into the wall.
This is nonsense as news is the original social media feed.
Well, this isn't really news, anyway. Social Media and Newspapers are about equal in quality and depth of reporting.
The only real difference, and the reason I will still have newspapers delivered, is because newspapers make really good lining for my bird cages, and are useful for starting fires in the fireplace. For just pennies a day I have both use cases covered.
Honestly, I've never bought a newspaper in my adult life and I'm near to pushing 40... Almost all of the same content can be found online without the 24 hour time delay. The problem traditional print media has with this isn't losing out on the $1.50 they used to get but the huge advertising revenue from a near captive audience. Online advertising doesn't generate the same revenue.
Add to that the fact that most commercial papers are now just mouthpieces for their chosen political parties, its little wonder they've lost all trust amongst the general public and they are only kept alive by subscribers who are actively trying to avoid reading news that conflicts with their warped world view... Which is why papers like the Daily Mail are losing readership the slowest.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
I stopped buying newspapers over 20 years ago. Very little news, mostly advertising. Price increases for a paper that was onion skin thin. Complete waste of money. The online versions are cheaper but with just as many ads so screw them too. TV/Radio and Twitter are basically my sources today. Newspapers can blame themselves for putting themselves out of business. The post office is no better, they're pricing themselves out too and the service seems to be getting worse. More news stories of mail being dumped by postal employees in woods and dumpsters.
... it helps people realize that what is "news" has always been subjective.
It's not like the three big sellers of laundry detergent ads, or the big syndicate sellers of classified and print ads, had some sort of magical truthy dust that made their "news" super accurate.
Newspapers tend to be bought out by capital groups, defunded, assets sold, budgets slashed, then left to go bankrupt on their own, after all their assets are raided.
Problem is that between this corporate raiding, and the propagandization of news sources, it is hard to obtain actual coverage other than directly from social media sharing.
The headline makes it sound like a bad thing. But in reality, I have a lot of Facebook friends who are into news related to science and tech, as well as politics and current events. They're often posting URLs linking back to relevant news articles of interest. And especially these days, they're all rather careful to pick and choose the sources because of all the "Fake news!" backlash.
(Even if I already know about something that happened that's clearly legitimate news, like a celebrity death or a new tech announcement from Apple or Intel, I try to find a respected news site with the article to link to, vs. some blog page that covered it.)
Facebook is just kind of an aggregator of knowledge people feel like sharing. It helps me find news items of interest without sitting through a whole night's TV news broadcast to get only 30 second summaries of things, and a whole lot of "fluff" I don't care about at all.
But I also do not get my news from Social Media.
I have a list of sites that I go to for the news.
CNN
Local News Site
CBSNews
USA Today
LA Times
ABC News
Washington Post
National Review
Time
Yes, I am republican. I am sure it breaks the few bigoted liberals here that they don't see Fox news listed. Can't stand Fox news, reminds me of MSNBC. Just as uninformed, just as biased, and just as bigoted.
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
Seriously, the good thing about a forum like this is, if someone spouts BS, the people will jump on them. Of course, if it's not BS, they'll still get jumped on, but at least there's a chance of reading both sides.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
The good thing about a paper is that it stays that way once you print it. If the news screwed up, you physically need to throw away the old one, and buy a new one. If we had no printed media, I don't think we would have heard of anything Snowden released.
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart had ratings as high or higher than NBC and CBS news. Particularly among the 18-49 age group. So they are / were watching. How much efect does constant exposure to propaganda have? We don't know exactly, but we do know that companies and politicians spend billions on advertising because it works.
Multiple surveys showed that a significant percentage of people thought Sarah Palin said things that were actually said by Tina Fey. In a photo line-up, people were more likely to choose Fey than the real Palin.
Wow what a surprise, didn't see that coming! :-(
News comes FROM a source and is delivered VIA a medium.
Facebook does not participate in journalism or news distribution. People post articles from news media organizations on Facebook and people read them.
Similarly, one doesn't "get their news" from Google News. They get news from Reuters, New York Times, LA Times, Boston Globe, WSJ, etc. and its delivered via Google News.
Of course, one could also "get their news" from the New York Times via their print newspaper, but that's arguably inconsequentially different from reading the NYT online.
just go look at other content made by the same media outlet. It's no secret Fox News is in the tank for the GOP or that MSNBC is in it for the Clinton wing of the Democratic party. 20 minutes on either site will tell you that. Similarly folks like Secular Talk are part of the left wing progressive movement while Alex Jones and crew again are tanking it for the GOP.
Now, how to get folks with little or no critical thinking skills to do that is beyond me. It is something that can be taught, but you generally need to do that when they're kids or they're too busy to learn...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Also including the objective fact that people who consume news only from the Daily Show are much more informed about reality than someone who gets their news from Fox News, Breitbart, Drudge Report, and all the right wing outlets. The state of news in America is outright sad, and it's almost completely due to the fact that some snowflakes can't handle reality unless it fits their worldview, which created a market for right wing fake news to make them feel better about themselves.
In fairness to us, the news is so unremittingly aweful that we NEED to have it sugarcoated to render it possible to swallow, Before maligning people for getting news from commedians or commedians for making something actually redeming and useful to society of their longtime habit of being topical, bear in mind that, sad as it is to say, if there weren't commedians, a lot of people would be less informed than they are.
Try watching Democracy Now, (democracynow.org) a few days in a row instead of the flaming propaganda bullshit that has become of corporate-owned “news” “organizations” and you’ll likely have to have a drink, or several. If you knew what was actually going on, you’d need medication just to get through a day. Now imagine a commedian taking what Amy Goodman, Juan González, or Nermeen Shaikh (et al.) say daily, and making them funny and therefore less horrible.
I’d watch that.
If you’re curious about them here’s their “about” text:
Democracy Now! produces a daily, global, independent news hour hosted by award-winning journalists Amy Goodman and Juan González. Our reporting includes breaking daily news headlines and in-depth interviews with people on the front lines of the world’s most pressing issues. On Democracy Now!, you’ll hear a diversity of voices speaking for themselves, providing a unique and sometimes provocative perspective on global events.
Democracy Now! is broadcast daily across the United States and Canada as well as in countries around the world. Our program is on Pacifica, NPR, community, college and satellite radio stations; on PBS, public, community and satellite TV; and viewed by millions of people online each day. Our headlines are broadcast in Spanish on radio stations across the U.S., Central and South America, and in Europe.
Democracy Now! launched in 1996, airing on nine radio stations. More than two decades later, we have grown to be one of the leading U.S.-based independent daily news broadcasts in the world.
As an independent news program, Democracy Now! is audience-supported, which means that our editorial independence is never compromised by corporate or government interests. Since our founding in 1996, Democracy Now! has held steadfast to our policy of not accepting government funding, corporate sponsorship, underwriting or advertising revenue.
People don't like having to “eat their vegetables,” but we need to. Commedians take those veggeis and make them more palatable.
Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.