×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Internet Gains Ground As Trusted News Source

CmdrTaco posted more than 8 years ago | from the they-must-not-read-this-site dept.

214

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%)."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Days of our Lives (4, Funny)

foundme (897346) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257517)

I think the fact that we read about this survey on the internet says it all.

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 (2, Interesting)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257794)

The thing about the internet is that it opens up the media, and gives us the ability to hear directly from industry insiders. In contrast, the mainstream media has stagnated, settling for a relatively small ring of sources, interpreted, filtered and censored by an even smaller ring of reporters and media channels.

The question for me though is, how many of the people who read "internet news" are actively tracking down information from sources they respect (though not necessarily trust) vs. those who simply read Yahoo or Google or MSN(BC)'s news feed.

"We Report; You Decide" (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15257917)

Not surprisingly, Fox News is the most respected name in evening news. Fox News gives time to all sides of the story and in the proportion that they deserve. The side with the greater credibility gets more air time.

Contrast that approach with the approach of CNN. CNN gives equal time to all sides, including the side (e.g., the voice of the Beijing government) with the least credibility.

For further contrast, consider Al Jazeera. It gives greater time to the side with the least credibility: e.g. Osama Bin Laden or the Beijing government.

Here's the bottome line: " We report; you decide! "

The election is coming up. Please remember to write "Bill O'Reilly" or "Tammy Bruce" on the ballot if you despise the existing choices. There's no need to pick the least of the evils. Pick the best: "Bill O'Reilly" or "Tammy Bruce". They should be president and vice president, respectively.

What about News for Nerds?!? (4, Funny)

xmas2003 (739875) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257522)

I didn't see Slashdot, DIGG, Fark, etc. listed - why not?!? ;-)

Re:What about News for Nerds?!? (2, Funny)

xusr (947781) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257604)

yeah, I hear that this Dvorak guy is really on the money, too. *ducks*

Re:What about News for Nerds?!? (2, Interesting)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257645)

I didn't see Slashdot, DIGG, Fark, etc. listed - why not?!?

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 insight into what has been going on which the government has been slow to report. People in Egypt trust satellite and internet over the government spoon-feed. At least the government isn't cracking down on them, like say, the fair and honest chinese government. (Though from what I hear there are any number of small local papers all over the place in China which only be too happy to tell you what the government doesn't want you to know.

Re:What about News for Nerds?!? (0, Troll)

slashdotnickname (882178) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257653)

I didn't see Slashdot, DIGG, Fark, etc. listed - why not?!? ;-)

and let's not forget... no one sums up news about humans better than goatse.cx

Ah, but whom do you trust? (2, Interesting)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257529)


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 David Kelly) and is being restructured, so you never really know what your going to be left with. Cut-backs have certainly been visible in coverage.

I also visit Al Jazeera from time to time. Maybe there's some propaganda at work on the site, or maybe that's what I've been trained to believe from american media. Either way, they seem to have the credibility I once associated with CNN long before Ted Turner sold them out.

the younger generation is trusting internet news sources more and more.

I sure don't watch news on TV anymore. If I see something interesting I do my own digging, lest I get trapped in a honeypot news site with propaganda all over the place.

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.

Well, good, just take care where you read from and who you trust. I find a smattering of international sites gives a broader view and avoids the pitfall of buying into one nation's "truth"

Also in the article is the factoid that Americans consider Fox News the most trustworthy national news program overall (coming in at 11%)

An interesting and very, very sad tidbit. The country is in a war it never should have entered, China is financing USA debt, which will give it tremendous leverage, while the president continues to boost 'defense' spending at the expense of social programs, Iran is spearheading a move away from the Dollar for petroleum trading, and a lot more. It's only taken 5 years for some people to come around to the facts that this is not a forthcoming or particularly well run government. Thanks Fox News, you've helped make that possible by bluring corporate interference in the news room, info-tainment and politics.

Re:Ah, but whom do you trust? (1, Insightful)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257659)

Thanks Fox News, you've helped make that possible by bluring corporate interference in the news room, info-tainment and politics.

Look at it this way. For 89% of Americans, Fox News is NOT the most trusted News source.

Feel better? :-)

Re:Ah, but whom do you trust? (1)

BigCheese (47608) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257759)

I wonder if that implies that all the others got less then 11%? If so we distrust the news more then anyone.

Re:Ah, but whom do you trust? (0, Troll)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257931)

Look at it this way. For 89% of Americans, Fox News is NOT the most trusted News source.

And only a small group of people tipped the balance last election and gave the president "political capital" which he meant to spend.

Feel better? :-)

Not much.

Wow... that's a leap of faith (2, Insightful)

DaedalusLogic (449896) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257805)

I agree with some of the other points in your post, however:

An interesting and very, very sad tidbit. The country is in a war it never should have entered, China is financing USA debt, which will give it tremendous leverage, while the president continues to boost 'defense' spending at the expense of social programs, Iran is spearheading a move away from the Dollar for petroleum trading, and a lot more. It's only taken 5 years for some people to come around to the facts that this is not a forthcoming or particularly well run government. Thanks Fox News, you've helped make that possible by bluring corporate interference in the news room, info-tainment and politics.

You just blamed a news outlet for starting a war, causing a trade deficit, budgetary and foreign relations problems and mistakes... at the behest of corporations?

Clarfiy this, is your whole jumpsuit made of tinfoil or is it just your hat?

News media tends to be a mirror of the public at large, and there are dissenting views in other outlets. You just said that you tend to trust those outlets. What you're doing in that last statement is trying to assign a "face" to the millions of people that simply don't agree with you. All media slants facts with opinion, so you're doing the right thing by cross checking news organizations to see that they are providing the facts... Which is what news is about... News organizations don't stay in business when they blatently lie and misrepresent the core facts of an issue.

I tend to find it "very, very sad" that less people vote than they should... I am also pissed off that Iran says that they're going to attack Israel if anyone moves against them... I am upset that my stocks went down in the market today... but blame NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox, and ABC... I'm not that crazy.

Re:Wow... that's a leap of faith (1, Interesting)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257896)

You just blamed a news outlet for starting a war, causing a trade deficit, budgetary and foreign relations problems and mistakes... at the behest of corporations?

No, I didn't blame them. They help make it possible. Any news outlet which simply parrots what government or corporate sponsors want said are not what the 1st amendment is there to protect.

Sadly, the Whitehouse (and particularly the president since a leader is responsible for those who work at his/her behest) may pick and choose who attends press briefings. The president's handlers have also made it a point in the past few years to keep protesters at bay, in a specially designated "not friends of the president" lot down the street during rallies.

I feel we are heading towards the type of press we vilified in Soviet times, where it was nothing but propaganda. Piss-off the Whitehouse and see if you continue to be invited to press briefings. TV is soft news. Newspapers are a bit better, but still beholden to corporate interests. Why the love-fest between Fox and Bush, I do not know, but perhaps it's explored in the film Outfoxed [imdb.com] I missed it when it was in town and should probably go rent it.

Your grasp of English SUCKS, pal.. (2, Insightful)

Khyber (864651) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257953)

BIGTIME... He didn't blame a news media company for starting the war - he blamed them for hiding the true information that would've exposed this as a bullshit war, therefore helping the government pull the wool over our eyes and screw us over. Again, a particular George Carlin quote comes to mind, pal. If you're gonna have such a knee-jerk reaction, at least make it a useful one involving you dragging a hacksaw blade across the major arteries in your body.

Re:Wow... that's a leap of faith (2, Insightful)

greg_barton (5551) | more than 8 years ago | (#15258011)

You just blamed a news outlet for ...

No, he blamed them for the fact that it's taken "...5 years for some people to come around to the facts..." They didn't start the war. They were the cover so it could be started with less opposition.

News organizations don't stay in business when they blatently lie and misrepresent the core facts of an issue.

The existence of FoxNews makes this statement demonstrably false.

Sad (0, Flamebait)

eln (21727) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257537)

Also in the article is the factoid that Americans consider Fox News the most trustworthy national news program overall (coming in at 11%).

More proof that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will start to believe it.

Re:Sad (1, Redundant)

RingDev (879105) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257574)

At the risk of being modded -1 redundant, I couldn't agree with you more.

-Rick

Re:Sad (1)

cduffy (652) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257581)

I haven't heard Fox News repeat any claim that they're accurate. They just claim that they're "fair and balanced" -- which has nothing at all to do with accuracy.

Re:Sad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15257630)

But everything to do with being trusted.

Re:Sad (1)

devphaeton (695736) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257632)

I haven't heard Fox News repeat any claim that they're accurate. They just claim that they're "fair and balanced" -- which has nothing at all to do with accuracy.

And in their case "fair and balanced" also has nothing to do with "fair and balanced" either.

Re:Sad (1)

c_forq (924234) | more than 8 years ago | (#15258076)

That depends on your deffinition of the word "and".

Re:Sad (1)

Aadain2001 (684036) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257672)

That's the point, they are anything but "fair and balanced". The are very UNfair and UNbalanced when it comes to political view points. Sure if you take Fox News can compare it to say a San Franciso news station, they would 'balance' each other out and have 'fair' time for different political ideals between the two of them. But standing alone Fox News is incredibly concervative in their interpretations and in choosing which stories to run. Studies have already shown that people who only watched Fox News thought that we had found WMD in Iraq while those that got their news from multiple sources knew that we didn't. They are not fair or balanced, they have a very conservative agenda. They fact that they label themselves 'fair and balanced' is a blatent lie, sorry, marketing ploy, and I for one will never watch them because of that. If they were at least honest with their political slanting they could still be a good news site.

Re:Sad (1)

Arker (91948) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257786)

They aren't remotely conservative, in any meaning except, perhaps, 'social conservative.' Their slant is more accurately neo-conservative, which has far less in common with political conservativism than it does with Trotskyism. They're pushing a radically leftist political agenda, they just wrap it up in the flag, throw in a dash of 'social conservativism' to make it more palatable to the masses, and shout down anyone that doesn't agree.

Re:Sad (1)

DilbertLand (863654) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257782)

Exactly, the claim in the study is trusted, not accurate or fair and balanced. I'll give Fox credit in that they will make a point of making corrections when there are errors in a previously reported story. And, they will do it in the middle of "prime time", Brit Hume is very good about this. I rarely, if ever, see other news organizations do that. On the rare occation they do, it's only mentioned in passing - never given the same amount of attention the original story was. I give them a couple points for journalistic integrity there.

Re:Sad (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15257585)

That 11% for Fox was highest percentage for an American news source. However, compared to other countries, it was the lowest percentage reported, the minimax. That 90% didn't say Fox is very reassuring actually, think about it! Those 10% are probably the 10% hard right of the people in this country, sounds about right to me. I wonder what the other responses were.

Re:Sad (2, Insightful)

uncoveror (570620) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257618)

Indeed! If you trust Fox News, then everything you think you know is wrong. CNN is really no better. Those initials should stand for Certainly Not News. It is a shame we don't have something like BBC in the US.

Re:Sad (4, Insightful)

j. andrew rogers (774820) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257792)

If you trust Fox News, then everything you think you know is wrong. CNN is really no better. Those initials should stand for Certainly Not News. It is a shame we don't have something like BBC in the US.

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 (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257937)

The BBC as an organisation doesn't have any particular bias. Their reporters however cannot be free from it - some of them fairly obviously have agendas, others hide their bias below the surface.

The wierd thing is that individual reporters often have conflicting biases, so you end up with the BBC being accused of every form of bias simultaneously - it's Pro US, Anti US, Pro Isreal, Anti Isreal, etc. all at the same time..

Re:Sad (1)

Richard Steiner (1585) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257883)

Since the BBC is on the net, its physical location really isn't that important. :-)

Doublethink (1)

DeadCatX2 (950953) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257699)

Isn't that the premise behind Doublethink?

Re:Sad (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257704)

How is it proof? Proof would be 51% or more, not 11%.

Re:Sad (1)

eln (21727) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257740)

I said "people" not "the majority of people." The more the lie gets repeated, the more people believe it. Nowhere did I say that at any point the majority of people would believe it.

Re:Sad (1)

caluml (551744) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257848)

People means both people as in "we, the people" (i.e. the masses), or people = "undetermined amount of persons".

Re:Sad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15257846)

More proof that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will start to believe it.

Such as your own statement.

Re:Sad (2, Insightful)

smbarbour (893880) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257951)

Well, it's probably an artifact of the survey. There is a certain percentage of people who will believe what they are told without question, and apparently the "Red state" population outnumbers the "Blue state" population.

The more informed know better. The correct answer to "Which national news program is the most trustworthy?" is "None of the above"

Yeah yeah (4, Funny)

Unski (821437) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257549)

I bet they just got it off some website.

Trusted news (2, Interesting)

evildogeye (106313) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257552)

Well, since the majority of the news on the Internet comes from the same companies that publish newspapers and run the TV stations (cnn.com, foxnews.com, washingtonpost.com, etc), for all intents and purposes the Internet is almost exactly equally trustworthy as them. As for Fox News, their spin is hard to deal with and makes them almost untrustworthy. Not that the other networks are a whole lot better, although Tucker Carlson is running a great show with a pretty objective and fair perspective on everything these days. He is not the "Partisan Hack" that John Stewart once called him any longer.

Re:Trusted news (5, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257596)

Well, since the majority of the news on the Internet comes from the same companies that publish newspapers and run the TV stations (cnn.com, foxnews.com, washingtonpost.com, etc), for all intents and purposes the Internet is almost exactly equally trustworthy as them.

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 (3, Interesting)

Ryan Amos (16972) | more than 8 years ago | (#15258014)

Because most English language papers are not on the same level as Americans in their political leanings. Even the most liberal Americans are right-wingers over in Europe. People like what they read to agree with what they already "feel" as some sort of validation that their feelings and opinions are correct. This is not a conspiracy, it's human nature. We like to be right, even if that means redefining what it means to *be* right.

Re:Trusted news (2, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 8 years ago | (#15258048)

Because most English language papers are not on the same level as Americans in their political leanings. Even the most liberal Americans are right-wingers over in Europe. People like what they read to agree with what they already "feel" as some sort of validation that their feelings and opinions are correct. This is not a conspiracy, it's human nature. We like to be right, even if that means redefining what it means to *be* right.

A bit like the US administration being highly critical of Al-Jezeera, during the invation of Iraq, for showing graphic footage of the dead, while american audiences were fed, and I quote one network anchorman, "This is shock and awe!" Yeah, americans saw something which looked like quite a few Hollywood films. Al-Jezeera put a human face on "shock and awe", showing civilians with their bodies blown apart, and on image of a boy with only a partial head I will never shake the memory of.

Re:Trusted news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15257817)

That's funny,Media Matters nailed him again today. Check it out, he's front and center. Perhaps he's not fully recovered yet eh?

Re:Trusted news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15257900)

A round of applause for Tucker Carlson, everyone!

The difference is... (2, Insightful)

arrrrg (902404) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257981)

sites like Google News, which let you see an aggregate of all the mainstream sources at once. This pretty much ensures that you get to see all stories from all angles, which is quite different than if you stuck to a single print (or online) news source. There's also the added social factor, in that you can read blogs, sites, etc. that will point you directly to articles on a given topic or with a given viewpoint that might interest you, regardless of what source they came from. Ideally /. would be in this category, but I can hardly remember the last time I felt the urge to RTFA on a story here ... the editors are a joke, but the comments keep me coming back.

Because you can ignore whay you don't like (3, Interesting)

El Cubano (631386) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257556)

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.

overly simplistic understanding of media dynamics (1)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257888)

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.

I have never liked this line of reasoning; it simplifies an entire segment of society that people spend their entire lives trying to study/understand. If you are close-minded and believe that one information source is enough, or can't distinguish between news commentary and reporting, nothing will "save" you from being "mislead", including internet news.

You've asserted that the internet makes viewpoint-shopping easier and that the public "shops" for news sources based on viewpoint. It has increased the public's news-gathering ability (or "mobility"), given the public greater access to more potentially diverse viewpoints, and news now transcends local, state, and national borders...and hence all but draconian government controls. I can bring up the BBC's website and see the UK perspective, for example. If I don't want to read what some washington press core reporter says happened at a white house briefing- I can damn well go to the Whitehouse website and download the transcript myself.

The Internet has also given non-populist viewpoints much easier access to the news marketplace; coupled with the ease at which one can compare news sources. Hence the explosion of "web loggers" engaging in news commentary and the increased onus on major media outlets to get their facts straight.

Re:Because you can ignore whay you don't like (3, Interesting)

DilbertLand (863654) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257935)

Being able to ignore "news" isn't always a bad thing. I don't feel the need to waste my time and sit through the 578th Natalee Holloway, Scott Peterson, Duke lacrosse team, or Michael Jackson story. I can learn all I need/want to know about those in 1 60 second setting. They will spend 30 minutes a day for months on those things, yet things like Space Ship 1 first flight gets a 3 minute blurb on the day of the flight (and live video - you know, just in case it crashes).....then back to the non-stop trial coverage. I just don't understand.

Lost me on Fox News... (1, Flamebait)

RLiegh (247921) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257558)

So, the same people who consider Fox News reliable also consider the internet a reliable news source? Might not be the best group to get a representative sample from, if you ask me...

Re:Lost me on Fox News... (1)

Silverlock (36154) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257723)

"Fox believes in presenting both sides of the story -- the president's side and the vice president's side."

http://www.thankyoustephencolbert.org/ [thankyoust...olbert.org]

shifting target (2, Interesting)

ch-chuck (9622) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257575)

I think as soon as something becomes 'trusted' the advertising jackels and political propagandist quickly move in and use it to their own ends. Then, as it becomes more and more obvious that it is so, they move on to something else. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Re:shifting target (1)

RLiegh (247921) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257610)

You mean like this [slashdot.org] , or like this [slashdot.org] , or both?

But see that's the brilliant part (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15257614)

I think as soon as something becomes 'trusted' the advertising jackels and political propagandist quickly move in and use it to their own ends.

Ah, that may be a problem for the internet, but that's the great thing about Fox News! Fox News will never meet the fate you describe-- because it was founded by advertising jackels and political propagandists! And if they know nothing else, they know how to keep control of the message on their own network.

People never quite seem to realize, nobody guards a henhouse as well as a fox-- because the fox doesn't want any of the other foxes to eat the food out of his henhouse.

Begin Fox News Bashing!! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15257579)

Asked to name the news source they most trusted, without any prompting, 59 percent of Egyptians said Al Jazeera, 52 percent of Brazilians said Rede Globo, 32 percent of Britons said the BBC, 22 percent of Germans said ARD and 11 percent of Americans said Fox News, each leading their respective nations.

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.

Re:Begin Fox News Bashing!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15257976)

Why the FUCK is this rated "informative?"

FOX fucking "news" puts Pravda to shame when it comes to towing the party line for the current administration.

Any "bashing" of this fake news network is well warranted. It's a pity we can't all laugh at it like we did Pravda though, given how many vegetables (like yourself) consider this garbage to be "trusted news."

Sounds like liberal bashing to me! (4, Interesting)

Guuge (719028) | more than 8 years ago | (#15258125)

How many liberals would jump to the defense of a major news network before even a word of criticism is uttered? Almost none. Yet you have to defend one and attack all liberals at the same time, even though the article has nothing to do with liberalism and has not mentioned any flaws of Fox News.

You may not realize it, but you are reinforcing certain stereotypes regarding blind loyalty and subservience among conservatives.

Fox ??? (-1, Troll)

sfjoe (470510) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257601)

Also in the article is the factoid that Americans consider Fox News the most trustworthy national news program overall (coming in at 11%).

I think I'd want to see the actual methodology of the survey before I'm going to believe this. Maybe I'm too naive but I have a hard time believing my fellow Americans actually trust the Republican mouthpieces at Fox more than any other media.

Re:Fox ??? (0, Troll)

rjung2k (576317) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257644)

It wouldn't be hard for Fox to just take the bottom 11% of the audience -- after all, 50% of the populace has a below-average IQ anyway...

Re:Fox ??? (1)

mattkinabrewmindspri (538862) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257814)

Actually, most people seem to have an IQ near the average.

It's only the top 10 or 11 percent which are noticeably above and the bottom 10 or 11 percent which are noticeably- hey, wait a minute.

Re:Fox ??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15257670)

Also in the article is the factoid that Americans consider Fox News the most trustworthy national news program overall (coming in at 11%).

I think I'd want to see the actual methodology of the survey before I'm going to believe this. Maybe I'm too naive but I have a hard time believing my fellow Americans actually trust the Republican mouthpieces at Fox more than any other media.


Only 11% do, so about 1 in 10 people are foolish enough to think this. 89% of us realize there are better sources. Considering Bush is still at 33% approval, 11% believing Fox seems too low by two thirds.

Re:Fox ??? (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257682)

I have a hard time believing my fellow Americans actually trust the Republican mouthpieces at Fox more than any other media.

Look at the posts immediately before and after your own.

Think hard about what all those numbers actually mean.

KFG

Basic math for the stupid. (2, Insightful)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257605)

100% - 11% = 89%

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. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15257655)

Don't you mean 89% of people surveyed? Maybe you should take your own "Basic math for the stupid".

Re:Basic math for the stupid. (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257679)

No the Summary, I am unable to get the linked server to serve me the page.

Basic English - look into it.

Re:Basic math for the stupid. (1)

Garse Janacek (554329) | more than 8 years ago | (#15258061)

He explicitly said "according to the summary." It wasn't an absolute statement of fact. And the summary does, in fact, just refer to the general population, so the GP was completely correct.

Clearly, despite the summary, this percentage is determined by a survey, and will thus have some error, probably on the order of a few percent depending on the sample size. But in general, assuming the survey was honestly conducted, the result is probably pretty close, and thus still useful for discussion. It isn't useful to prefix every statement about survey percentages by "Of the N people involved in survey X, conducted by organization Y..." You either decide that the survey was honest, and use it, or you decide it wasn't, and discard it. You don't just insult people for using standard shorthand terminology that is already understood in context.

Re:Basic math for the stupid. (1)

DarthChris (960471) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257677)

Presumably what it means is that 11% is the greatest single figure. There's lots of different places to get news from, and if this survey differentiates between news channels, it likely also does so with, for example, newspapers.

Re:Basic math for the stupid. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15257715)

100% - 11% = 89%

This means that 89% of the American public, according to this summary, do not think that fox is the most trusted name in news.


Yes, but if you read the article:

"Asked to name the news source they most trusted, without any prompting, 59 percent of Egyptians said Al Jazeera, 52 percent of Brazilians said Rede Globo, 32 percent of Britons said the BBC, 22 percent of Germans said ARD and 11 percent of Americans said Fox News, each leading their respective nations."

That means that no other news source was named "most trusted" by 11% or more of Americans (of course, based on a representative sample size). So, yes, sadly Fox News is the "most trusted" news source in America, if that sentence is true.

Re:Basic math for the stupid. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15257795)


That means that no other news source was named "most trusted" by 11% or more of Americans (of course, based on a representative sample size). So, yes, sadly Fox News is the "most trusted" news source in America, if that sentence is true.


I think if you used IRV, you'd find Fox News one of the first to drop off the polls, since most people would have multiple sources listed ahead of Fox News as compared to the number of people that had Fox News listed first.

Re:Basic math for the stupid. (2, Insightful)

John Newman (444192) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257927)

So, yes, sadly Fox News is the "most trusted" news source in America, if that sentence is true.
Not exactly, because it was a single-answer free-response question. The fact that Fox News led at only 11% shows that in a nation awash in news sources, Fox News viewers are the most monolithic block of news comsumers in America. In other words, people who get their news from Fox are more likely to only get it from Fox - a finding supported by other surveys. I'm actually surprised that Fox News didn't poll higher, given its near-mythical status among 30% or so of the population, including most of the government.

Re:Basic math for the stupid. (4, Funny)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257793)

Runners up to Fox in the U.S. :
  • Elvis
  • Aliens
  • David Letterman
.
.
.

Re:Basic math for the stupid. (3, Interesting)

Garse Janacek (554329) | more than 8 years ago | (#15258027)

Thank you.

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. (1)

antibryce (124264) | more than 8 years ago | (#15258100)


More interestingly is that Fox News scored higher than any other news source in the US. That means no other news source has even 11% of Americans trusting it. That says a lot about the public's view of the news.

Too general (4, Insightful)

GillBates0 (664202) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257626)

Saying the "internets" are a trusted news source is like saying that television is a trusted news source or newspapers/books are a trusted news source.

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 (4, Insightful)

dada21 (163177) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257637)

Whenever I see a big mainstream news headline and read the story, I'll usually hit Google News to see what opposing views there are. Lately I've typed in some headlines and found 200 newspapers using the exact same wire article, verbatim. After wading through that junk, I'll slowly find opposing views -- views that were impossible to find just a few years ago.

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.

The only news I trust.... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15257660)

...is http://www.nakednews.com/ [nakednews.com] .

Re:The only news I trust.... (1)

fohat (168135) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257870)

I'd ping them anytime.

Schools attempt to fight this in some places (1)

saskboy (600063) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257664)

Schools bear some responsibility, by accepting sources on the Internet as valid footnotes in essays students make.

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 behind one of the "fakes" [abandonedstuff.com] , which is actually a real item I sell, but is clearly a joke as well.

Holy generalization, Batman! (1)

jeblucas (560748) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257676)

Also in the article is the factoid that Americans consider Fox News the most trustworthy national news program overall (coming in at 11%).
Ugh, man, do not spread this tripe as fact.* I recall a documentary that mentioned that people who watch Fox News believe it is the most accurate while simulataneously being the least accurately informed members of the newswatching populace. The poll asked people to name their most trusted newssource. 11% of Americans named Fox News. The article summary is ambiguous on this point--it means that 89% of Americans do not trust Fox News the most. Thank God for that.

Does one spread tripe? Is it like butter? I've never had it.

Re:Holy generalization, Batman! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15257964)

I've had it. Its intestine. Its rather rubbery and needs to be very very clean. It's also my favorite type of meat.

Chew on that.

Re:Holy generalization, Batman! (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 8 years ago | (#15258049)

Wow, you learn something new every day.

It depends... (1)

robyannetta (820243) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257691)

I wonder how many of those surveyed claim to get trustworthy news from The Onion [theonion.com] ?

Well Hell (1)

Walzmyn (913748) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257694)

Every other week the New York Times is retracting / appoligizing for something it printed that was wrong. I think this is just a reflection of the Internet losing it's monolopy on crazy people posting weird stuff that's not true.

Extremists trust extremists? (2, Insightful)

Dark Paladin (116525) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257701)

While it's perhaps unfair to label both Fox and Al Jazeera as "extremists", but let's be honest: the people I've known who tend to rely soley on one or the other of these two news organizations tend to have very particular views (most hard-core Republicans I have known tend to swear by Fox "the only fair news" as they tell me).

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? (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257711)

A mere eleven percent think Fox News is the best?

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 "unwashed masses", I guess.

Look at the raw numbers (1)

kaufmanmoore (930593) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257716)

The raw numbers from this study are available here [globescan.com] .

If you look at the US numbers: The most trusted specific news sources mentioned without prompting by Americans include FOX News (mentioned by 11%), CNN (11%), ABC (4%), NBC (4%), National Public Radio (3%), CBS (3%), Microsoft/MSN (2%), USA Today (2%), New York Times (2%), CNN.com (1%), Time Magazine (1%), and friends/family (1%).

Trusted and untrusted sources (4, Insightful)

orzetto (545509) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257724)

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 (1)

ElephanTS (624421) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257735)

Seriously I thought no one trusted this now but I spose there's always the bottom 11% to consider.

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 events. This is also more entertaining because one has to verify everything you read and not take it for granted - you naturally become a more adept critical thinker this way.

I think governments are pretty worried about this and are trying to find ways to reduce the amount of independent information out there. This is what worries me for the future . . .

Remember, there are millions of Americans.... (1)

Itninja (937614) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257736)

Americans consider Fox News the most trustworthy national news program overall (coming in at 11%
This should read: Americans, at least the ones with the time to answer surveys (i.e. old folks), consider Fox News the most trustworthy national news program overall (coming in at 11%).

Uh huh (2, Funny)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257737)

"Yahoo is reporting that the younger generation is trusting internet news sources more and more.
Yeah, right. I'm supposed to take Yahoo.com's word for it?

Re:Uh huh (1)

BigCheese (47608) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257841)

Yahoo! isn't a news source. It's an aggragator for Reuters/AP newsfeeds. AFAIK they do not produce any of their own news.

Multiple sources hopefully... (1)

kuwan (443684) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257743)

Lets just hope that those that trust the Internet are using multiple sources to get their information. That's one of the best aspects of the Internet - to quickly get information from many sources.

Hopefully people aren't putting all their trust in Joe Schmoe's blog (or any other single source).

Modern Journalism (1)

devphaeton (695736) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257757)

Unfortunately, i notice that a lot of internet news tends to be the same 3-sentence paragraphs repeated over and over in different wording. It's not so much about bringing any real content as it is about being the first to report something. Anything.

It's progressed until they've got 3 and 4 page articles to tell you something that can be summarized into 6 sentences (more ad exposure, maybe?). If seen some t.v. news reports (On Faux News, no less) do the same thing, but the internets are the worst.

Let's see if i can do an example:

The car sped down the street and hit the man on the bicycle. One witness saw the incident in the 400 block of Windsor street.

"He was struck by the car as it headed eastbound" the witness reported. "He was just riding his bike and got hit". Police estimate the car was traveling in excess of 40 mph.

"It was moving at a high rate of speed" Police spokesman said. "By time he struck the bicyclist, he was traveling anywhere between 35 and 40 mph"

The bicycle lay in disarray on Windsor street, the site of the incident. It was on the corner of Windsor and Chalmers, in the 400 block.


Or something.

You want to see some other repetition though, go read Consumer Reports auto reviews.

To ride a recent wave... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15257770)

...in the words of Stephen Colbert, "Fox News gives you both sides of every story: the president's side, and the vice president's side."

In related news (0)

0racle (667029) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257806)

19 percent of those aged 18 to 24 named the Internet as their most important source of news
In related news, a new study points to at least 19 percent of those aged 18 to 24 are idiots.

It's been a long time since any news source wanted to inform you.

Why is Fox so trusted? (1, Interesting)

leereyno (32197) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257903)

Fox news has risen to prominence because it is the singluar major news outlet that doesn't pander to leftist sympathies. Roughly 1 in 4 americans is a "liberal." The rest are either moderates or conservatives. All of the other major news outlets are competing for that 1 in 4, and ignoring the rest of us. The success of Fox news is due to the fact that it works to attract the 75% of the country that the other news outlets aren't interested in. What wasn't mentioned in this story is the fact that the Nielsen ratings for Fox news are higher than those for CNN and MSNBC combined. It all comes down to who your viewers are, and there are quite simply more conservative and moderate viewers out there than there are liberal ones.

Fox news is not alone in this either. A similar phenomena can be found in print media where long time bastions of liberal journalism like the Washington Post, the NYT, and the LA Times are suffering from a loss of readership. Both the LA Times and the NYT have had to lay off workers because of this. Meanwhile conservative-leaning newspapers like the Washington Times are experiencing record subscription levels.

I think that the internet also plays a large role in this. I'm sure that everyone here is familiar with the role that bloggers played in what has come to be known as "Rathergate." They say that online no one knows you're a dog. The internet is a virtual soap-box from which anyone with even a dial-up connection can speak to the world. The blogosphere represents a ruthlessly democratic medium where no single ideology reigns supreme. This is wonderful because it means freedom of information, freedom of thought, freedom of conscience. The days when those with a particular ideological bent could blithely put their special spin on the news are over. It also puts to rest the silly notion that anyone can be unbiased. Everyone operates off their own prejudices. 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.

Lee

Re:Why is Fox so trusted? (1)

nagora (177841) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257970)

Too many people believe what they are told

Which neatly brings us back to Fox News.

TWW

Re:Why is Fox so trusted? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15258040)

"Leftist sympathies?" Fucking please. The Limbaugh-spewed bullshit about the "librul media" is so transparently false that a grade-A moron can see it these days.

But forget that. I suppose that it's better to have a fake news network that has blatant RIGHTWING sympathies then? Why would a mythical left-wing news source be "bad" but one that is blatantly right-wing be good?

FOX is anything but fair and balanced. You've said as much yourself.

Fox defenders are the very reason thinking people have turned elsewhere for their news--like the Internet. We're sick of listening to the Mouth of Sauron blather the party line.

Uncomfortable truths (3, Insightful)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 8 years ago | (#15258107)

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.

There were the days... (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 8 years ago | (#15257938)

My short wave radio was my most trusted source. I still use it a lot. I like having stories read to me. And it shows the continued advantage of wireless. Screen readers sound so robotic. Does anybody have a "Walter Winchell" voice that I could download?

A bit wide isnt it? (1)

martonlorand (938109) | more than 8 years ago | (#15258073)

This is a pretty wide area. IMHO you cant really compare the sources - those are news staions not the whole TV and in the article they mention the general Internet.

If they want to compare they should compare the TV the Radio, the newspaper and the Internet. Otherwise just compare BBC, CNN, FOX, Al-Jazeera with Slashdot and google news:) [news] )

Do their news sources know where Lousiana is? (1)

kbielefe (606566) | more than 8 years ago | (#15258089)

This is the same group where 1/3 couldn't find Louisiana on a map, half couldn't find Mississippi, 60% couldn't find Iraq, and 30% thought the U.S./Mexico border was the most heavily fortified in the world.

Whatever online news sources they trust should be put on some sort of blacklist.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?