More People Get Their News From Social Media Than Newspapers, Study Finds (engadget.com) 82
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, I would think that social media can do that even faster than TV?
One stupid social media thing goes viral...and whoosh, off it goes and can't be retracted if a mistake is found (not that TV does that much anymore, but it can do it).
Re: (Score:2)
"TV is terrible for news because it's the easiest way to make something sensational that doesn't need to be."
Care to give us a few examples of news that NEED to be sensational?
And where does the social media get the news (Score:2)
Everyone gets their news from the news sources.
Re: (Score:1)
Which thanks to social media, you can actually find.
It's not like the 1980's where only newspapers could have the organizational chutzpah to have people in the countries they were covering. It takes about a dozen clicks to find someone, and it's free to talk to them, to get a local PoV.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone gets their news from the news sources.
Um... no.
Some of it is mistakenly (or perhaps not mistakenly) referred to as “citizen journalism,” though perhaps, as citizens are not generally trained as journalists, and aren’t held to standards of any kind for rigor or integrity, and are only judged by whether something is riviting or capable of “going viral,” it should be called “shitizen journalism”. Some of it is journalism but imagining that sort of thing to be real journalism is like imagining the length of rope you replaced your fanbelt with to be a competent permanent replacement, instead of just something that might, maybe, manage to get you home.
Can you draw a distinction between this and what Jim Acosta does? Because, other than having a court ordered pass to roam the halls of the White House, I don't see any.
Re: (Score:2)
and TV is mostly a Comedy Central (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Are you unaware you're promoting Nazism? (Score:2)
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 wis
Re: (Score:1)
Given how much mainstream media was caught faking (Score:2)
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 pr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
And I'm not surprised in the least. Over here in Germany, the quality of reporting and especially commenting upon anything related to politics, the economy or most topics of society is considerably higher in comedy shows than on the daily news. I thought that a fluke the first time I noticed it, but over the years it has become even more so.
Maybe comedy is the only channel that still knows how to be critical? I'm not sure, but for a long time now, if you want to be informed about what's going on, a few come
Re: (Score:1)
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.
What's even funnier is the The Daily Show also won several Peabody awards over the years. I always found it somewhat odd that Jon Stewart would always brag about winning that but when asked if he felt any responsibility for his reporting he would insist it was just a comedy show and not news.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
When ever I have to fill out any information about myself I am always a black Jewish Lesbian that is over 100 years old and attended Harvard. The worst way to get information from people is to ask them questions in a survey.
I daresay a certain percent of people said they got their news from The Daily Show as a joke. Especially if the question was worded as such:
Where Do you get your news:
a) CNN
b) Fox News
c) The Daily Show
d-g) some other options.
People will see The Daily Show on the list and check it with
Re: (Score:2)
didn't Jedi get enough responses in the UK last time to now be an officially recognized state religion?
To answer myself, it got a little less than 1% of the responses in one census but was treated as a protest/refuse to answer response by the government. Unofficially it was the 4th largest religion reported in the census. Some areas got over 2.5% people saying their religion was Jedi. And this was on an official government run census where some people might surely fear legal reprisal.
Some random organization asking questions- you'll get way more people giving fake answers for a laugh.
They do watch - Daily Show rating vs NBC, CBS (Score:2)
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 cho
Nutrition (Score:2)
Well now (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually worse then that. Nearly all "local" newspapers are owned by the same gigantic media company, not only are local stories near to non-existent, but you can buy your local paper, and the major newspaper in another city 30km or 400km away. And they'll both have the same articles in it. The news media became a self-fulfilling failure because of two things, they cut the hell out of local reporters and relied heavily on wire services for the news, because they believed that international news was more
I get my news from YouTube (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately even the muckraking can be corporate propaganda. How do you distinguish an independently-researched expose, from a paid-for hit piece? What we need are quality independent journalists who are directly funded, without being hampered by an amoral editor who'll bury dirty laundry for a payoff or because it doesn't fit their agenda/biases.
It's usually not that hard (Score:2)
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 general
Newspapers == dying media. (Score:2)
Add to that the fact that most commercial papers are now just mouthpieces for their chosen political parties, its little wonde
Re: (Score:2)
a lot of tongue wagging on the media to do a 180
Personally, I'm going to turn around 360 degrees and walk away.
Hardly surprising, considering the media fight... (Score:4, Insightful)
...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.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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
Old news (Score:2)
BTW I get no news from social media, only stupid people do. Sadly, there are a lot of stupid people.
News (Score:2)
define 'news' (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
That worked so well for past US wars and UK politics.
yeah, its true (Score:2)
I have both (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you draw the distinction between this and what is aired on CNN, MSNBC and Fox?
Why not? (Score:2)
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.
Proof we have reached critical mass... (Score:2)
Of idiots.
Because it'easier to be stupid (Score:2)
Intelligence requires efforts.
It's like you get stock quotations from your neighbour TV instead of nyse.com.
What news? (Score:2)
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.
Social Media = Upgrade (Score:2)
shot in their foot (Score:2)
Nonsense! (Score:3)
This is nonsense as news is the original social media feed.
'Tis true... (Score:1)
Hopefully ... (Score:3)
... 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.
Re: (Score:2)
... 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.
In other words, hopefully the very crappiness of Facebook "news" helps people learn that.
I do this too .... (Score:3)
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.
Don't read newspapers, and don't watch the news (Score:1)
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.
I get my news from Slashdot! (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This just in: People tend to be stupid (Score:2)
"From" versus "Via" (Score:3)
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.