Posted on 07/03/2009 12:02:03 PM PDT by Jo Nuvark
We've done a lot of polling recently (I took this poll) on how people get their news and what sources they most trust. We wanted to find out more about why the Internet is in rapid ascendance, while newspapers are on the media endangered species list. (snip) When it comes to newspapers and how they have been impacted by the Internet, there is a consistent and significant ideological factor. Conservatives and Republicans don't like or trust newspapers, and Independents are not big fans either. However, if all Americans were liberals or Democrats, you would be buying newspaper stock.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
People trust the internet more because they choose their own sources — rather than simply suffering through whatever sources are piped through the television or delivered to the doorstep.
SnakeDoc
Independance Day Reading Ping!
That plus we can have our be voices heard (cf FreeRepublic, HotAir, PajamasMedia, AmericanThinker, et al) rather than having our letters flushed down the toilet by a lefty newspaper editor who refuses to even acknowledge other points of view.
Interesting Blogger comments here:
http://www.zogby.com/blog/loader.cfm?p=/2009/06/18/why-do-people-trust-the-internet-more/
I remember another article about the decline of newspapers that summed it up more or less as follows:
- Conservatives don’t read the newspapers because of their liberal bias;
- Liberals don’t read the papers because they are not partisan enough; and
- Moderates and apolitical types don’t read the papers because they are boring.
In my lifetime, I’ve met two people who argued that the MSM is actually biased to the right, on the premise that most of the outlets are owned by major corporations. Both of these people were bat$#!+ insane lefties.
People trust the internet more by default. Not because the internet is particularly trustworthy, but as a result of the MSM proving its untrustworthiness over decades.
You said — People trust the internet more because they choose their own sources
—
Yeah..., and I can put a little bit of a further refinement on that one, too...
I trust my own judgment (and most people do for themselves) and therefore, I choose those sites which match my judgment. And then, I use those sites as reference to what I was to show others for “proof” of what I say.... doncha know...
:-)
In other words, on the Internet — one *can always find* someone who matches your own judgment... and that becomes a “good source” for you to use...
Hmmm....
True enough. Seeking out your own sources is a double-edged sword ... the ignorant become more ignorant, the educated become more educated.
SnakeDoc
I can't believe some people still get their news by picking up a wad of paper off their driveways, or tuning into television news.
It's all bought and paid for by wealthy insiders and the powerful politically connected.
Those were the only two who actually said anything on that particular subject in my presence, and one of those opinions was unsolicited.
I trust the internet more because you can find all sides presented. On a particular issue, I usually collect as much factual information as possible, then begin to form the opinion based on what makes the most sense. That’s why I almost always wind up on the conservative side of the issue.
Newspapers present only one side of any issue— the one from the lib talking points.
I must say, though, the Fox “fair and balanced” usually drives me crazy because the Dem view is usually unfactual fluff, as they try to interrupt and shout down any opposition...
hh
I’m not sure, but I think “Times” in some other language translates to “Barf Alert.” :)
The internet is reliably unreliable when it comes to breaking news or news gathering. But, it quickly becoming the gold standard for opinion, editing and analysis. Essentially, while a newspaper will only have a limited, finite number of editors, the internet has an infinite number of editors and fact checkers.
This was most prominently on display in the Bush National Guard memos hoax that was perpetrated by CBS. The 60 Minutes editorial process completely fell down because all the people in the editorial process wanted the story to be true. And, it didn't help that the person with editorial control also happened to be the story's reporter, the corporation's news editor and the face of the organization.
I for one will miss newspapers. I remember with great fondness sitting on my father's lap watching him read the newspaper and trying to read the same stories as he did as quickly as he did. Newspapers gave me my love of reading, not books. But, the newspaper and other traditional media businesses have no one to blame but themselves. They've set the conditions, based upon their preferred political narratives, of their own demise.
True, but there are plenty of “barf alert” articles on FR. And it is fun to watch the members tear them apart. Some are hard to tear apart and that is where real reasoning and learning happen on this site.
Typical of Zogby, he concludes that those easily deceived conservatives, convinced of a left-wing bias in the media, simply don’t understand what they are reading, can’t distinguish bias from slick marketing and are pleased to fall for anything they are told just as long as it comes from a like minded blogger. His point...might as well read the NY Times cause that’s where all the “real” news comes from anyhow. And Zogby has a reputation of being a devout liberal. Darned if I can understand it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.