×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Drudge Generates More News Traffic Than Social Media

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the nobody-cares-about-your-day dept.

The Internet 216

tcd004 writes "A report released today by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism shows that the Drudge Report is a far more important driver of online news traffic than Facebook or Twitter. In fact, for the top 25 news websites, Twitter barely registers as a source of traffic. The report hits on several other interesting findings about news behavior."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

216 comments

Ugly (2)

dragonhunter21 (1815102) | more than 2 years ago | (#36072232)

It might just be my connection, but for being such an important site, DrudgeReport.com is one uuuuugly site.

Re:Ugly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36072278)

It always has been extremely no frills. I think that's part of the draw. 3 columns and ads mostly positioned at the bottom.

Re:Ugly (0, Flamebait)

Moryath (553296) | more than 2 years ago | (#36072296)

Yeah. Everything to program the neanderthal Retardicans needs to be right at the front - they have a limited size buffer in those protohuman brains, if you overflow it everything else goes into the bit-bucket rather than into long-term storage.

Re:Ugly (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36072334)

I don't read the drudge report, but the layout beats the hell out of most sites, slashdot included.

Javascript isn't always a good thing and on news sites (or aggregators), it's just unnecessary.

Re:Ugly (-1, Troll)

MichaelKristopeit406 (2018812) | more than 2 years ago | (#36072412)

slashdot = stagnated.

Re:Ugly (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36072666)

Didn't I mod you down enough? Thought you and your duplicate accounts were gone from this site. By the way, it was wonderful going through all of your posts and modding you down 15 times in a row. Especially when I was getting mod points twice a week or so.

Re:Ugly (-1, Flamebait)

MichaelKristopeit406 (2018812) | more than 2 years ago | (#36072794)

you are a failure. your efforts have been proven futile. you find wonder in such pointless and hypocritically ignorant endeavors?

why do you cower in my shadow? what are you afraid of?

you're completely pathetic.

Re:Ugly (2)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#36072970)

I don't read the drudge report, but the layout beats the hell out of most sites, slashdot included.

slashdot = stagnated.

Wow, it's not very often you get a chance to post something semi-on-topic! Congrats!!

Re:Ugly (1)

x*yy*x (2058140) | more than 2 years ago | (#36072664)

Well, slashdot includes actual content like summaries and lots of comments. I do understand why the report it says it brings a lot of traffic to news site tho, since there is nothing else than external links to click on. Social media is a lot more than that.

Re:Ugly (0)

MichaelKristopeit407 (2018814) | more than 2 years ago | (#36072808)

Well, slashdot includes actual content like summaries and lots of comments. Social media is a lot more than that.

anything social is a lot more than anything slashdot.

slashdot = stagnated.

Re:Ugly (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36072342)

Yeah. Everything to program the neanderthal Retardicans needs to be right at the front - they have a limited size buffer in those protohuman brains, if you overflow it everything else goes into the bit-bucket rather than into long-term storage.

Way to elevate the discussion there, chief--call your ideological opponents subhuman. I could [i]so[/i] go all Godwin's Law on you right now and we're only 10 posts into this thing.

Re:Ugly (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36072482)

Nice italics bro but check out my doubles.

Re:Ugly (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36072598)

That's a good liberal, when confronted by something you don't agree with, attack it. How very tolerant of you.

Look in the mirror: (0)

Hartree (191324) | more than 2 years ago | (#36073044)

Yup. Yup. I is jes a brainless repub who's got a physucs degree. huh, huh, huh...

That brainless Rep. Vernon Ehlers must have paid someone for his PhD in physics too. Funny that he was chair of a physics department.

Get a clue.

A: People register/belong to political parties for all sorts of reasons. In some places, the real competition in elections is in the primaries. I live in a small rural highly Republican town. If I were voting in the Democratic primary, I'd have voting input into town politics how?

I've also lived in places where I registered as a Democrat because there was no real competition from the Republicans in the general election.

B: I hang out with a public radio journalist who gets stories taken nationally by NPR at times. He's hardly a conservative and he drops by drudge to keep track of what's on it. It also has links to all sorts of pundits and websites both liberal and conservative.

I'm sure you'll next be lamenting how partisan the politics has become.

Re:Ugly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36073064)

Everything to program the neanderthal Retardicans needs to be right at the front - they have a limited size buffer in those protohuman brains...

You would do more harm to the republicans and more aid to the democrats if you stopped posting. Nobody that reads your comment is going to walk away with the idea that republicans are the stupid ones.

I don't mind idiots, really; but idiots who are convinced they're smarter than everybody else are really annoying.

Re:Ugly (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 2 years ago | (#36073116)

Yeah. Everything to program the neanderthal Retardicans needs to be right at the front - they have a limited size buffer in those protohuman brains, if you overflow it everything else goes into the bit-bucket rather than into long-term storage.

THIS [youtube.com] is for you!

Re:Ugly (5, Insightful)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 2 years ago | (#36072282)

It beats the hell out of the network news sites, with their pervasive cookies, auto-start videos, and general unwanted flash-a-palooza.

Re:Ugly (1)

dragonhunter21 (1815102) | more than 2 years ago | (#36072498)

From a paranoid (in the best sort of way) viewpoint, sure- but from an aesthetic viewpoint, I can get the headline and many top stories without scrolling from CNN. No such luck on DrudgeReport.

Re:Ugly (4, Interesting)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 2 years ago | (#36072662)

I would gripe that if you look at either CNN or Fox (or whomever's) website, it's so busy that it's offensive, even after you take out scripts, flash, videos, etc. Simplify. (Maybe just a personal preference)

My bane lately is the trend toward these major news sites linking to "stories" that are only videos.

I don't WANT to watch video unless I ask for it. I want to see text. I want to see a version of the information that is quiet and doesn't waste bandwidth or require flash. I want to be able to scan relevant details without clunking through some 3 minute clip just to get the one detail I'm after.

(sorry. rant over)

Re:Ugly (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36072792)

LOL, in other words you want to browse the tabloids (MSNBC, CNN, etc) discreetly while at work. Quit surfing and get back to work.

Re:Ugly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36072838)

Oh god this. I like to read news quickly, scanning for details and actual information amidst the bullshit. I don't need some glossy robot reading to me.

Re:Ugly (1)

dragonhunter21 (1815102) | more than 2 years ago | (#36072866)

If you're new to the site, it can be a bit overwhelming, I'll admit. However, for a vet like me (And you have no idea how much it hurts to admit that I'm a Fox veteran) the information is right there. I know what to look for and where to go.

No excuse, I know, but again, no scrolling.

Re:Ugly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36072890)

I would gripe that if you look at either CNN or Fox (or whomever's) website, it's so busy that it's offensive, even after you take out scripts, flash, videos, etc. Simplify. (Maybe just a personal preference)

My bane lately is the trend toward these major news sites linking to "stories" that are only videos.

I don't WANT to watch video unless I ask for it. I want to see text. I want to see a version of the information that is quiet and doesn't waste bandwidth or require flash. I want to be able to scan relevant details without clunking through some 3 minute clip just to get the one detail I'm after.

This is exactly why I find CNN's and NPR's approaches so interesting, despite both originally being more "traditional" broadcast news outlets. CNN often tries to force you to a video clip, as tripleevenfall described above. NPR, on the other hand, almost always has a full transcript (or a slight rewrite) of one of their radio stories available, with the option to listen if you want to.

Re:Ugly (3, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 2 years ago | (#36072760)

It beats the hell out of the network news sites, with their pervasive cookies, auto-start videos, and general unwanted flash-a-palooza.

Drudge has a javascript refresh in place, which is how they get their massive page views every month.
I really hate pointless page refreshing.

var timer = setInterval("autoRefresh()", 1000 * 60 * 3);
function autoRefresh(){self.location.reload(true);}

Re:Ugly (1)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 2 years ago | (#36072966)

They get massive page views from that? Auto-refreshing every 3 minutes? Who sits on the page for 3 minutes?

(And that's only to get one additional view)

Re:Ugly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36073110)

You do know that is for when the content changes, i.e. new article links are added, how would you know they were there?

Re:Ugly (1)

Unequivocal (155957) | more than 2 years ago | (#36073134)

What explains their positively massive referral rate, if their page views are grossly inflated? Seems like they must have some real, solid traffic to be driving referrals at the volumes Pew found.

Re:Ugly (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36072288)

That's because you don't need to waste money/time on making your site look pretty when you actually have content (yes, i am aware that the drudgereport doesn't really have any of their own content).
It's the old style over substance routine. When someone wastes all of their time trying to look good, they rarely have anything worth showing you.

Re:Ugly (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 2 years ago | (#36072358)

It looks more like they've spent time making it look bad, than "wasted" any time trying to make it look good. Seriously, I like courier/monospaced fonts in some places (coding/shells), but the way they've done courier and underlined.. yuck!

I prefer functionality over style too, but the thing is.. once something works, it doesn't take that much to clean it up. Keeping things simple helps your design to feel classy. It would look much better without all the underlining.

Re:Ugly (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 2 years ago | (#36072436)

Just wait till there is breaking news and Drudge breaks out the police lights. Or Memorial Day and Fourth of July when all the text is red, white and blue, or Christmas when it's green and red.

Re:Ugly (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 2 years ago | (#36072586)

Meh, I'm sticking to Slashdot for now. If I frequented too many other news sites I'd never get any work done - plus here, the worst I can expect is ponies.

Re:Ugly (1)

rwa2 (4391) | more than 2 years ago | (#36072830)

Heh, I have a hard time believing the Drudge Report generates any more traffic than http://fark.com/ [fark.com]

At least I can tell what Fark is by looking at it... and I'm much more likely to click on the link just to try to figure out the punchline. Plus, Fark includes helpful analysis in the comments... with just about equal representation by loons from both the left and right... humorous (and actually quite civil) discourse I find lacking on most other sites.

If you keep up with Fark you can pretty much ace "Wait, wait don't tell me" at the end of the week.

Re:Ugly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36072308)

Indeed, never gone there before today, but damn!

It is ugLY!

Re:Ugly (2)

alen (225700) | more than 2 years ago | (#36072326)

in the middle in a huge font is the story of the day. the rest of the stories are in the other columns. makes it easy to get a quick read of the daily news for busy people

Re:Ugly (1)

dragonhunter21 (1815102) | more than 2 years ago | (#36072494)

I'm on a computer at 1440x900 resolution and I can barely see the top quarter of that headline. I had to scroll down two or three screen heights to see it on my netbook. That is NOT a well-designed site.

Re:Ugly (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 2 years ago | (#36072408)

So is Craigslist, they both go with the no frills minimalism to keep the page small and to reduce the work it takes to make them work with all the browsers out there.

Re:Ugly (1)

dragonhunter21 (1815102) | more than 2 years ago | (#36072522)

Minimalism I have no problem with- it's just that it can't be hard to design a site so you can get most of the info without having to scroll.

Actually, the design reeks of a mobile site- two birds with one stone, perhaps?

Re:Ugly (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 2 years ago | (#36072624)

Naw, Drudgereport has been the same since before mobile browsers. It really hasn't changed layout wise since 1996.

Re:Ugly (1)

brit74 (831798) | more than 2 years ago | (#36072884)

I think Craigslist does that to reduce bandwidth costs. They're a tiny company (about 30 employees) with 20 billion pageviews/month. For a long time, they had no way to generate revenue at all - until they started charging for job postings.

i consider it to be the most beautiful site (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#36072564)

because it is simple, elegant, utilitarian, and spare, like the google front page. it gets the job done without unnecessary showing off

whenever substance trumps style, i am an ally, even though i hate drudge's politics

Re:i consider it to be the most beautiful site (1)

dragonhunter21 (1815102) | more than 2 years ago | (#36072630)

On a computer rendering at 1440x900 I have to scroll down to see the headline.

Again, utilitarianism and simplicity are my friends, but when I have to scroll to see the info there are better sites. Fox, or CNN for example.

(note- this is not an endorsement of the content of Fox or CNN, merely they way they lay out their site)

Re:i consider it to be the most beautiful site (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#36073142)

yeah but you can see and read the headline. it isn't crowded out by a million little busy div boxes

sparse. simple. plain. perfection

Re:Ugly (1)

elsurexiste (1758620) | more than 2 years ago | (#36072716)

It might just be my connection, but for being such an important site, DrudgeReport.com is one uuuuugly site.

Really? I liked it! :) Perhaps it can be cleaner, but it's not ugly.

Re:Ugly (1)

elsurexiste (1758620) | more than 2 years ago | (#36072800)

Wow. Drudge Report is ugly: maybe it's the bold letters, so 90'. Although I am aesthetically retarded, I can tell I don't like the page design. :P

Re:Ugly (1)

JDAustin (468180) | more than 2 years ago | (#36072906)

Figuring Drudge has had the same basic site in place with almost no changes since the mid 90's (remember, he broke the Lewinski scandal the Newsweek tried to bury), of course the site is a 90's look.

Re:Ugly (1)

zeptic (323902) | more than 2 years ago | (#36073000)

I use iGoogle.com and cannot see why anybody would use drudgereport.com. Everything is just headlines. In iGoogle you at least get to read the start of the article/rss-feed before you proceed. How many times haven't you clicked on a headline and got disappointed when you discovered the article was about something completely different from what you expected?

I know google tracks me but I don't mind when I get something in return. In this case a useful feature...

Judge Dredd (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36072236)

Sylvester Stallone could solve all of our country's problems, and kick all of our enemy's asses.

Redirects (3, Informative)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 2 years ago | (#36072250)

Don't most links on Twitter go via redirects like bit.ly? In that case I'm not sure how you would tell if traffic is coming from Twitter.

Re:Redirects (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 2 years ago | (#36072534)

Good point, in addition they only define news traffic as that inbound to big media, I would think that the younger audience of social media sites would tend to skew towards more diversified news sources.

Re:Redirects (2)

x*yy*x (2058140) | more than 2 years ago | (#36072842)

Even if they go via bit.ly the referrer still shows them coming from Twitter.

It's a stupid comparison anyway, people go to Drudge to read news (I guess, I've never used it before) and Twitter isn't the same. Also Drudge only contains links to news sites, so there isn't anything else to click on anyway.

Not twitter's problem... (1)

raehl (609729) | more than 2 years ago | (#36073164)

Twitter's real problem is many of their users are receiving tweets on devices that are not conducive to reading the news, and on devices being held by people who are far less likely to be able / want to read the news anyway.

Think about it - if someone's preferred method of communication is 160 characters or less, how likely are they to want to read an article?

PBS is about to get /.'d (1)

jonescb (1888008) | more than 2 years ago | (#36072254)

I bet PBS gets more traffic from /. today than from Drudge Report.

Or perhaps not, since nobody will read TFA (which is only a graph).

Uhm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36072262)

Isn't that because Drudge is a "news" site? I go to Drudge to get the news, I go to Facebook to see what my friends are up to. Not seeing the importance of this report.

Re:Uhm... (-1, Flamebait)

Moryath (553296) | more than 2 years ago | (#36072320)

If you go to Sludge for "news", you're already too far gone to save.

Re:Uhm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36072492)

If you go to Sludge for "news", you're already too far gone to save.

As opposed to other outlets where admitting the news is "fake but accurate" is an acceptable standard?

Re:Uhm... (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 2 years ago | (#36072504)

Hate his politics if you want, but Drudge often breaks news before other venues do and it's a quick and easy place for a bunch of headlines at once without a bunch of javascript and streaming video nonsense.

Influences the news cycle (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36072512)

Whatever you might think of Drudge's political leanings, there are a few things to consider:

* If it's on Drudge the larger news outlets will soon be talking about it. His page has become what the NYT front page used to be. The 6-year old kid and the TSA agent story became a mainstream story because it was on Drudge. This morning there's TSA inspecting an infant. Expect that one to be picked up by the news outlets soon.
* Drudge has influence over the political environment. One of the best ways to get a glimpse of the upcoming presidential race is to follow Drudge, even if it's with a "know you enemy" POV.
* Most of Drudge is simply links to other news outlets. Occasionally he has his own exclusives. 90% or more of the news links take you AWAY from Drudge to sites with an array of political leanings, both right and left.

Re:Influences the news cycle (4, Informative)

brit74 (831798) | more than 2 years ago | (#36073070)

> "90% or more of the news links take you AWAY from Drudge to sites with an array of political leanings, both right and left."

Heh, heh. Drudge isn't really linking to left-leaning articles. I used to visit Drudge for a while. Pretty soon, I'd play a game called "name the political party". Whenever they had a headline about a politician where I didn't recognize who they were or which political party they were with, I'd play a game called "name the political party". I was actually pretty good at it. If the headline was downplaying a politician's wrongdoing, then you could pretty much guess he was Republican. If it was a blistering headline attacking the politician, it was either a Democrat or a Republican that they were turning their back on because he had dome something they couldn't condone. The very fact that I could guess the political party based on how harshly they attacked them in the headline should be pretty good evidence of a right-wing bias.

I also thought it was interesting in the last election that they refused to give the electoral vote count between Obama and McCain, choosing, instead to show the popular vote. Of course, the electoral vote tends to magnify the gap between the winner and loser, and they wanted to minimize how badly McCain lost. I'd bet money that they showed the electoral count and minimized the popular vote count during the Bush-Gore election, since Gore won the popular vote.

Do you really think Drudge would get an approving nod from Rush Limbaugh if he wasn't a right winger? "Matt Drudge is the man who is to the Internet, what I am to broadcasting." -- Rush Limbaugh

I think Drudge's favorite newsource is Andrew Breitbart, who is most definitely conservative.

Re:Uhm... (1, Interesting)

cultiv8 (1660093) | more than 2 years ago | (#36072558)

I read Drudge b/c I want to know what Republicans are saying, and then I go to Salon (and oddly enough, Jon Stewart) for the other side. Drudge has a powerful voice; he puts his spin on the news through his "clever" (ie. biased) phrasing of news events, which is usually picked up by the local and regional news stations. So the news might be (real-time example) "Too Much Fear? Package Threat Forces Evacuation Of Dallas DART Station" but Drudge titles it "USA FREAK OUT: TERROR FEARS; FALSE ALARMS". Interested to see what Fox has to say about it this evening...

If I'm looking for "real" news, I usually go to NPR or /.

Re:Uhm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36072968)

If I'm looking for "real" news, I usually go to NPR or /.

A small protest in eastern rural Botswana against local bread prices led to a minor scuffle in which two protesters received minor injuries. Coming up next a half-hour interview with a mother of three from At-Bashi, Kyrgyzstan about her life as a clay pottery store owner.

click

- The GPL vs BSD license; which is more free?
- Random senator mentions a rather dumb idea; all Americans assumed to share similar view
- GIMP version 3.5.1.3a.4.0.1 released with updated color-selector logic

meta refresh (1)

1_brown_mouse (160511) | more than 2 years ago | (#36072284)

How often does Drudge force a reload to drive up counts?

Re:meta refresh (2)

Cytotoxic (245301) | more than 2 years ago | (#36072310)

Drudge forces a reload of a linked site? Neat feature, how's that work?

Re:meta refresh (1)

multipartmixed (163409) | more than 2 years ago | (#36072466)

maybe they load the linked site in an iframe, then inject a new iframe directly on top of it every now and then?

Re:meta refresh (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36072640)

Except that they don't, good point.

Everything is a direct link.

Re:meta refresh (1)

1_brown_mouse (160511) | more than 2 years ago | (#36072570)

You are not thinking I read the article or actually visited his site are you?

That site gave me cancer in 2000 and I am just now getting over it. I only have hives now.

What is traffic? (1)

headhot (137860) | more than 2 years ago | (#36072340)

Is the amount of data moved by the site counted or is it the transactions/sessions. The data moved by twitter would be small, but the transaction count would be high.

Re:What is traffic? (1)

genrader (563784) | more than 2 years ago | (#36072402)

Apparently you haven't went to Drudge to discover that they, gasp, link to other news sites and do very little reporting of their own.

news? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36072356)

Drudge Report is "news" in the same way that fox "news" is "news"

Attention, Attention! (3, Insightful)

GoNINzo (32266) | more than 2 years ago | (#36072382)

Just so we're clear here, a news aggregator site creates more traffic to news sites than a social media site.

Breaking news: People reading a news site are more likely to read other news sites than people playing farmville, news at 11.

Drudge Doesn't Host News (1)

ideonexus (1257332) | more than 2 years ago | (#36072636)

Parent makes an important point. Drudge doesn't host any news. It's sole purpose is highlighting content elsewhere on the Internet. The Huffington Post generates far more traffic than Drudge (source [compete.com] (this is debatable, I know)), but the site doesn't drive traffic elsewhere. It will link to another site only for as long as it takes them to copy that site's content and get their own page up to keep you on the HuffPo.

I'm curious about how they measured this also. Twitter and Facebook drive traffic to lots of places not news-related. I follow hundreds of scientists of Twitter and we don't link to the news stories about research, we link directly to the research papers themselves. There's a wide variety of "news content" that involves going directly to the primary source instead of having it mistranlated by some non-specialist. Pew has a very silly and antiquated definition of news.

So I take this study as interesting trivia, and like most trivia it's not terribly informative about the importance or influence of any of these media.

No Surprise--Facebook is apparently not for news (2)

ktappe (747125) | more than 2 years ago | (#36072386)

Everyone I know who is on Facebook is annoyed when I post news stories/links. They all seem to envision FB as being thoughtless fun. Sports posts are fine, what I had for breakfast is fine, people dying in Syria or Exxon buying the fracking rights under their land are verbotten. Seriously. FB is the new vast wasteland, so is it any wonder there are fewer news clicks coming from there?

Re:No Surprise--Facebook is apparently not for new (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36072426)

I think people on FB care about the news in Farmville.

Re:No Surprise--Facebook is apparently not for new (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36072556)

From the Farmville Almanac?

Posting anonymously because that is incredibly lame.

Re:No Surprise--Facebook is apparently not for new (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36072928)

No, from the DrudgeFarmReport of course.

Re:No Surprise--Facebook is apparently not for new (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36072538)

Thats half the reason I don't do FB.

Re:No Surprise--Facebook is apparently not for new (1)

Foolhardly (1773982) | more than 2 years ago | (#36072550)

If anything, I've always seen Facebook and Twitter as a distraction from reality (in the US). Perhaps the reasons too few people care about US foreign policy, Wikileaks information, and voting is because they're busy playing Farmville or catching up on the lasted Royal Wedding details.

Re:No Surprise--Facebook is apparently not for new (2)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#36072736)

Perhaps the reasons too few people care about US foreign policy, Wikileaks information, and voting is because they're busy playing Farmville or catching up on the lasted Royal Wedding details.

I suspect it's more that they've tried voting for people who promise Change! and discovered that it makes no difference.

Re:No Surprise--Facebook is apparently not for new (1)

Homr Zodyssey (905161) | more than 2 years ago | (#36073132)

It's been my experience that even the people who post news and political rants, seldom actually want to actually discuss the things they're saying. I had a guy post a rant about a political candidate. When I commented on it, politely expressing an opposing view and asking where he got his information, he first called me names, then accused me of drug-use, then complained about people always thinking they're experts and wanting to tell him how to vote. Finally told me to keep my political opinions to myself. This was all after he posted a political opinion in a public forum...

Needless to say, I removed the jerk from my "friends" list. I guess I learned not to put people on my friends list just because they lived in the same dorm as me in college.

Well, Drudge doesn't have Slashdot editors (1)

poity (465672) | more than 2 years ago | (#36072424)

So you know it's concise and up to date :D Nowadays I've got breakingnews.com in its own window. Yeah, it's owned by MSNBC (not that there's anything wrong with it) but you get updates on freshly posted stories from popular news sites as well as twitter posts from journalists. I'm sure they have human editors to filter through everything, but they seem to be actually doing their job since stories and tweets are linked within minutes of going online.

Re:Well, Drudge doesn't have Slashdot editors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36072990)

Yeah, it's owned by MSNBC (not that there's anything wrong with it)

As long as you acknowledge that MSNBC is the lefty equivalent of Fox and is the spawn of an unholy marriage of Micro$oft and GE, there's nothing wrong with that.

No surprise (1)

Kabloink (834009) | more than 2 years ago | (#36072448)

People flock to social media sites to see information about friends, family and other people they are interested in. If they want news, they go to the news site or a news aggregate site like Google, Yahoo, or Drudge.

No shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36072470)

Facebook/[name_a_social_network] isn't a news site, it's a gossip site.

FudgePacking more exciting than being sociable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36072588)

unraveling & repackaging centuries of fatally deceptive fictional deity dogmatisms, has got to be better than tweeting whatever murderous neogod propoganda's on cnn. you call this 'weather'? drudge on.

disarm. there'll be less hell to pay immediately. thank you,, again?

social media = young = uninterested in news (1)

peter303 (12292) | more than 2 years ago | (#36072668)

The purpose of social media is find out what your friends or contacts are doing, not far-away news.

Only focusing on those that hit www.*.com? (1)

aztektum (170569) | more than 2 years ago | (#36072770)

Most people I know with a Facebook or especially Twitter, do updates from an app on their phone. In Twitter's case there are also dozens of desktop apps available. I believe there are some for Facebook as well.

Traffic measured by hits to a URL isn't giving the whole picture.

Redirects make this study useless (1)

jaffray (6665) | more than 2 years ago | (#36072896)

Of course Twitter refers almost no traffic to news sites - Twitter sends traffic to bit.ly and the like, which then redirect to news sites. To a lesser extent, so does Facebook.

Looking through the original study, they don't even attempt to address this issue. Remarkably shoddy work.

care-o-meter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36072934)

look at that god awful website, who cares.

How Odd (1)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | more than 2 years ago | (#36072992)

How odd it is to see the phrases "Excellence in Journalism" and "Drudge Report" in the same sentence.

Re:How Odd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36073126)

How odd that you would consider it odd that highlighting news that Obama's sycophants in the media try to bury is a sign of mediocrity.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...