Slashdot Log In
Internet Gains Ground As Trusted News Source
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Wed May 03, 2006 04:31 PM
from the they-must-not-read-this-site dept.
from the they-must-not-read-this-site dept.
Khammurabi writes "Yahoo is reporting that the younger generation is trusting internet news sources more and more. From the article, 'The survey confirmed that media consumption is shifting online for younger generations, as 19 percent of those aged 18 to 24 named the Internet as their most important source of news compared with 9 percent overall.' Also in the article is the factoid that Americans consider Fox News the most trustworthy national news program overall (coming in at 11%)."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Days of our Lives (Score:5, Funny)
Personally, internet is my most important source of news, but also the least trusted. It's like watching "Days of our Lives", you simply don't want to miss a single episode, but it's the same emptiness after each one of them. This is also the reason why we just keep on posting comments even if it's a dupe.
Source vs. Sources (Score:3, Interesting)
What about News for Nerds?!? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What about News for Nerds?!? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:What about News for Nerds?!? (Score:2, Interesting)
I didn't either see mention of the grass-roots media growing in Egypt, outside government control. Small newspapers and even a few small TV stations are flourishing. Giving at least some insigh
Ah, but whom do you trust? (Score:2, Interesting)
Heard about this on the BBC this morning. One of the sites I get a lot of my info from, however even the BBC is under certain strain these days after fallout from accusations of the Blair government (The Bush-Blair memo, Hutton Inquiry, suicide of Davi
Re:Ah, but whom do you trust? (Score:3, Insightful)
An interesting and very, very sad tidbit.
Actually, I find this very encouraging for the USA. As the article states
Your grasp of English SUCKS, pal.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wow... that's a leap of faith (Score:4, Informative)
A news article on the Fox News website during October 2004 by Carl Cameron, chief political correspondent of Fox News, contained three fabricated quotes attributed to Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. The quotes included: "Women should like me! I do manicures", "Didn't my nails and cuticles look great?" and "I'm metrosexual [Bush's] a cowboy".
http://mediamatters.org/items/200604040009 [mediamatters.org]Gibson falsely claimed that FISA court judges said Bush "didn't break any law" in authorizing warrantless domestic surveillance
http://mediamatters.org/items/200604030007 [mediamatters.org]O'Reill
On March 23, 2003 the FOX News channel headline banners were rolling: "Huge chemical weapons factory found in Iraq... Reports: 30 Iraqis surrender at chem weapons plant... coal. troops holding Iraqi in charge of chem. weapons." On the next day the Dow Jones Newswires reported, that, U.S. officials had admitted that morning that the site contained no chemicals at all and had been abandoned long ago.
Yeah yeah (Score:4, Funny)
Trusted news (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Trusted news (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you read outside your own country? If not, why?
The beauty of the internet is getting past political and physical boundaries. I can read english language sites beyond the scope of political parties or central governments who would prefer to spin things one way.
Re:Trusted news (Score:4, Interesting)
How Fox News hurts my country (Score:4, Informative)
Did you say "almost untrustworthy"?
The difference is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Because you can ignore whay you don't like (Score:4, Interesting)
The survey confirmed that media consumption is shifting online for younger generations, as 19 percent of those aged 18 to 24 named the Internet as their most important source of news compared with 9 percent overall.
It is much easier to find news sources on the Internet that overlook the things you want overlooked. I.e., if you have the opnion that the war in Iraq is going great and there are no problems, you can find a news source that will give you only information that supports that view. If you think the war in Iraq is a debacle/illegal/disaster/whatever, you can also find a news source to support only that view. It's nothing new. Poeple go where they hear the things they want to hear because it's easier than hearing everything and ignoring what you don't like.
Re:Because you can ignore whay you don't like (Score:3, Interesting)
shifting target (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:shifting target (Score:2)
Begin Fox News Bashing!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, let me go out on a limb and predict where the slashdot crowd will direct their wrath on. Behold, Fox News.
I'll admit Fox News has its ups and downs, but the ire and hatred that liberals have for it is over the top.
I doubt you'll hear a peep about Al Jazeera or the BBC on this thread.
Sounds like liberal bashing to me! (Score:5, Interesting)
You may not realize it, but you are reinforcing certain stereotypes regarding blind loyalty and subservience among conservatives.
Re:Begin Fox News Bashing!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps because Al-Jazeera is the only non state-run media organisation in the Middle East. And the BBC is arguably the most independent and un-biased news source in the world. Neither i
Basic math for the stupid. (Score:3, Insightful)
This means that 89% of the American public, according to this summary, do not think that fox is the most trusted name in news.
Re:Basic math for the stupid. (Score:5, Funny)
.
.
Re:Basic math for the stupid. (Score:4, Interesting)
It's frustrating when such blatant statistical nonsense gets into an article summary, and then there's a whole mini-flamewar about it ("See, Americans are stupid!"/"What's so bad about fox news?!") without any acknowledgment that the original claim is a sham.
I don't think it's surprising, or even depressing, that Fox is the most trusted single news source, at least not when it only got 11%. Fox tries to present itself as the only really honest news source, and people who actually watch it are more liable to buy that. The more "balanced" :-P folks realize that you can't just trust one source for all your news, and are thus less likely to overwhelmingly go for one particular news source as the most trusted one. If you asked me that question, there are half a dozen sources that would spring to mind, none of which have a decisive advantage. I would rank Fox as my least trusted source (at least among the big players), but the most is much less defined.
All of which is just to say... among the Fox demographic, Fox news is likely to be the most trusted name. But among (say) the New York Times' demographic, there are a number of other news sources that would probably be similarly trusted. This isn't surprising, and I'm actually very encouraged that 89% trusts other sources more than Fox -- I'm rather cynical, and would have guessed a much lower number.
Re:Basic math for the stupid. (Score:3, Insightful)
Too general (Score:5, Insightful)
Neither of these claims are true in a generic sense. All of these are mere information channels containing good as well as bad information sources (definition of "good" and "bad" left as an exercise to the reader). It is up to the individual to discern which particular websites/channels/newspapers are worthy, and which are not.
Discriminating between fiction and non-fiction is one of the most important skills kids could and should learn.
Internet News prevents marginalization (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure that any news is really news anymore; more and more news is colored by opinion. That is fine with me, but I would like to see more sources given tribute and more news reporters coming up with unique news rather than regurgitating the same stories over and over again. I figure why don't these major news outlets just run an RSS feed of the AP and be done with it?
For me, I prefer the news that was normally marginalized out of existance. It gives me a dose of unique opinions, and it also helps create interesting debate topics that help in relationship at home and my relationships with friends and customers.
I think more and more people are starting to think outside the box -- and the Internet is a great place to find every opinion. Are all of them newsworthy? Probably not.
With companies like BlogBurst.com bringing amateur news and opinions to large mainstream media outlets, we'll see more and more integration of the sidestream media, and maybe we'll see less and less need to rely on sources such as CNN and FoxNN.
Re:Internet News prevents marginalization (Score:3, Insightful)
Thats an interesting point you make. The question remains, did the box get smaller, or did people get wider views? As much as I would like to embrace the second option, I do believe that mai
The only news I trust.... (Score:5, Funny)
Schools attempt to fight this in some places (Score:2)
However,I found a school making a page for children to show them what a "fake" website on the Internet looks like. Here's the background behin [abandonedstuff.com]
Holy generalization, Batman! (Score:2)
Extremists trust extremists? (Score:3, Insightful)
So is it that people give greater trust then to news that reinforce their own views (which is why I'm sure more progressives would swear by Slate and Salon instead)? I'd be curious to see how news organizations do against political/religious/ethnic/age background (though this study at least looked into age).
And which one is the most "accurate"? It reminds me of a study done back in the 2004 elections who shows that viewers of "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" scored higher on current events and political events accuracy than watchers of any other news organizations (including Fox).
Either way, it's interesting to see the Internet rising, but that's not surprising as the population gets older. I know I rarely watch TV news anymore save for the "Daily Show" (and that's not for information, but for perspective so I can laugh at the world a bit) and Sunday talking heads shows (so my children can ask me why I'm telling the people in the TV to "answer the question, you hack!").
A mere eleven percent? (Score:2)
The way everyone's been spinning things, I honestly thought that you'd see much higher numbers than that for Fox - I mean, I was really expecting numbers three or four times as high So much for the "unwashe
Trusted and untrusted sources (Score:5, Insightful)
Before everybody correctly points out that the Internet is not a reliable source, I would like to point out that newspapers are not really up to the standards they are purported to be. Every time I read a newspaper article on a subject I know well, I very, very rarely read anything insightful, and very often loads of bullshit. Most of the times, the writer probably had to finish an article and deliver X lines, and put a few "facts" together—possibly naïvely got from the Internet as well.
I tend to trust sources where readers can write down their views, integrate, and if necessary insult the writer. I trust Slashdot commentaries (the whole page, not single comments), an often-edited Wikipedia article or a high-traffic blog way more than an article in a newspaper, because if there is something to be known you will probably find it. Even if you have to wade through flame wars and moderators on crack, it's likely there.
There's no such thing as a totally reliable news source, anyway.
Faux news (Score:2)
Personally I gave up trusting the MSM (mainstream media) a couple of years ago and have developed my own preferences for sites to visit for news and world eve
Uh huh (Score:3, Funny)
these are all pretty bad news sources (Score:3, Insightful)
What really bugs me, is just what kind of uninsightful hacks they have anchoring CNN, FOX, and MSNBC. I want the news to report politics, not to get political. These guys don't seem to get that, and think that to report politics means they have to pick a side, and demonize whatever party they don't like. I want them to report all the pertinent *events that actually happen* and let me make my own judgements. Anchors can render their own judgement on a situation when appropriate, but there's a clear distinction between that and the constant political hackery that goes on. Don't even get me started on the interviews they give...
Really, newspapers are the best source that I've seen, but not all newspapers. The Seattle Times is a really good paper, and family run so that they aren't totally beholden to corporate interests. They do a lot of investigative reporting, and I rarely see them putting sensationalistic trash (celebrity murders, hyped up disasters that aren't actually that important, etc) on their front page like many other sources. Many people across the country seem to read the New York Times, but I'm a little iffy on them. It seems that their reporters have been caught lying, and doing other unscrupulous things a number of times.
I haven't been listening to NPR recently, but I remember they used to give really good interviews.
House Hippos (Score:4, Interesting)
The ad shows a very small hippopotamus (3-4 inches long) in various scenes in a normal house.
The following claims are made in the ad, in a voice that looks like Attenbourough on BBC nature programs:
- house hippos are friendly, but will defend their territory if necessary
- house hippos live in bedroom closets, where they make nests
- house hippos sleep 16 hours a day
- house hippos come out at night when they search for food
- house hippos like to eat chips, raisins, and crumbs
The ad then says something like : "Do not believe everything you see on TV. Ask questions".
Read the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org], or see the UK version of it here [mediasmart.org.uk]
--
2bits
The Baheyeldin Dynasty. [baheyeldin.com]
Re:Sad (Score:2, Redundant)
-Rick
Re:Sad (Score:2)
Re:Sad (Score:2)
And in their case "fair and balanced" also has nothing to do with "fair and balanced" either.
Re:Sad (Score:2)
Re:Sad (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sad (Score:5, Insightful)
The BBC is not unbiased either, just differently biased.
The real problem is the very assumption that there are unbiased news sources. If you think a news source is "unbiased", all it usually means is that the news source just happens to share your bias. Conflating shared bias with lack of bias is a very common failure of critical thinking. When people on every side of the political spectrum accuse news sources of being biased, they are all correct.
Re:Sad (Score:3, Insightful)
The more informed know better. T
Re:Lost me on Fox News... (Score:2)
http://www.thankyoustephencolbert.org/ [thankyoust...olbert.org]
Uncomfortable truths (Score:4, Insightful)
Fox news has risen to prominence because it is the singluar major news outlet that doesn't pander to leftist sympathies.
Or it could be that Americans want feel-good news. Good reporting digs up uncomfortable truths. After being barraged by many uncomfortable truths in the 60s and 70s, Americans ushered in the feel-good-about-America Reagan Era. Arguably it was America's collective desire to avoid complicated reality in favor of a more jingoistic and easily-digestible view of the world that led both to the rightward political turn of the last two decades, and the simultaneous rise of Fox News and breathless "as it happens" reportage devoid of context or depth.
You don't have to be a leftist to understand that America does actually make mistakes, but you do have to practice willful ignorance if you watch Fox and expect you're getting an unvarnished look at current events. As for the Washington Times, calling it "conservative-leaning" is like referring to the John Birch Society as "mildly conservative."
The most an information consumer can hope for is to be cognizant of the prejudices of the source. One can only hope that as the blogosphere and internet media evolves as an information source, the critical thinking skills of consumers experiences a similar evolution. Too many people believe what they are told and a free society will not long endure when so many of its citizens are damned fools.
Being cognizant of the prejudices of the source is vital. I definitely agree with you there. It's a pity that so many people still take most of their news from one TV network. TV is the most easily-manipulated, most infotainment-oriented, most passive news medium. I find it baffling that anyone could watch Fox, CNN, NBC, CBS, or ABC, and think that they're being informed in anything but the most minimal fashion. Read one issue of the Economist, the Financial Times, the Wall Street Journal, or the NY Times, and compare that to a week's worth of TV news viewing. The difference in the amount and quality of information received is staggering.
Sadly, I'm not sure that the blogosphere is much better than TV. Disinformation and spin can be passed through the blogosphere just as rapidly as via TV. When everyone's opinions are equal in weight, the opinions that fit our own predispositions and desires (as with feel-good Fox TV reporting) get amplified. Minority voices do get heard in the blogosphere, which is good. But ultimately we're still left with the fact that most of what we read on blogs is opinion, derived from primary sources in the mainstream media. If the MSM isn't doing its job and practicing good, in-depth journalism, bloggers can act as primary information gatherers, but it's not easy, particularly in places like war zones and Congressional office buildings.
Re:Why is Fox so trusted? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well... Unfortunatley, I don't have any blond missing daughters.
But seriously, I find Fox News offensive and I co
Re:Well Hell (Score:3, Insightful)