62% Americans Get News On Social Media (journalism.org) 69
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.
Filter Bubbles (Score:2)
Nothing to see here, Move Along.
Re: (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 igno
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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 [mije.org]?
Re: (Score:2)
...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.)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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]
Idiocracy is here (Score:5, Insightful)
Idiocracy is here.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:3)
TL;DR
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Trump. Facebook. Angry Birds the Movie. Idiocracy is here.
Trump, Angry Birds - redundant?
Re: (Score:2)
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 [economist.com] 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Laziness and spoon fed... (Score:3)
Why this is terrifying (Score:2)
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: [aeon.co]
Re: (Score:3)
Slashdot (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I only read the National Enquirer for the articles.
Re: (Score:2)
/. gives me news. Also, we can socialize or not. ;)
If... (Score:2)
It is if you're so dumb that you didn't hear of cyberbalkanisation and similar theories a decade ago.
That explains why... (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You're confusing cause and effect. The average citizen is well aware that their vote is meaningless.
Re: (Score:2)
The average citizen is well aware that their vote is meaningless.
Hence, they get the government that they deserve.
Re: (Score:2)
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... [wsj.com]
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
They pay attention? (Score:2)
Easy (Score:2)
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.
Clickbait squared (Score:2)
Geez (Score:2)
Confirmation bias... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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 wi
So what's new? (Score:3)
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.
Re:Facebook Legion (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
No way (Score:1)
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!
Huff Post Whining (Score:1)
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.
general thoughts about news (Score:2)
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 muc
Gossip (Score:2)
Gossip may be origin of human language (Score:2)
Instagram?? (Score:2)
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...)