"Other" Responses:
This first question was meant to see which mediums the respondent uses as a means for following current events. I should note that these were not exclusive choices. As the chart states above, a surprising percentage of respondents cited print as one of their means of following current events, while just as many follow entertainment-oriented news talk shows as sources of information. One less person uses cable TV news networks for their news than their accompanying websites. This would coincide with the overall perception of a drop in cable subscribers as well as a drop in those that care for the 24-hour coverage networks as a whole, vying for more immediate and succinct news blips-- if not for the fact that entertainment-oriented talk shows are just as high as print media. This discrepancy could be a result of either the availability of the entertainment-oriented talk shows on streaming sites or the dark nature of current events-- the fact that they primarily cover negative topics-- benefits greatly from a comedic boost to lighten the impact or simply acts as a degree of separation from the negativity of the situation.
Roughly half of the respondents cited news aggregate websites as sources. This suggests the individuals either prefer getting multiple sources regarding the same story or prefers increasing the likelihood that any particular story will surface; some agencies don't post about certain topics until after another agency did so, and some falsely report. Alternatively, they only follow the news aggregate websites focused on particular topics of interest or, in the case of Fark, find the headlines funny. Some specifically listed Reddit as their source, though it technically counts as a news aggregate site due to the way it operates.That being said, 'Print' is the real outlier with 75% of respondents stating they use it enough for it to count. Well, aside from the .edu/.gov sources.
Lastly, Facebook is listed as a source, suggesting said individuals do not actively pay attention to current events unless in response to another person's reaction. It makes sense: Why hunt down news if someone else is going to post about it anyway? However, in my own Facebook feed I've seen this behavior in practice; many times the sites turn out to be hoaxes or less-than-scrupulous Onion knockoffs which intentionally exist to spread articles meant to illicit anger so their site receives more links. Many times the articles are easily refuted with a Google or Snopes search and two minutes of my time. Even so, those that had responded on average use multiple mediums.
"Other" Responses:
Here I wanted to see, of course, which news networks they followed specifically. I see that two people skipped this particular question. Again, they were non-exclusive answers alongside an "other" category. Two more people follow CNN than MSNBC or Fox, which both received four respondent marks. The Blaze-- Glen Beck's news network-- actually received a mark. One person actually mentioned PBS, another mentioned the Sourcefed network on YouTube, and NPR was made mention with a solid two.
I notice they did not include NPR in the previous question's set. Either that's a failing on my part or they simply did not consider including in in the previous question's data. CNN is viewed by over half of the remaining respondents. This suggests that these individuals habitually view CNN at the very least for the sake of verification-- or it's the other way around. Either way, there's definitely overlap regardless of medium.
"Other" Responses:
This is starting to paint a fairly clear picture. It's beginning to seem as though CNN's website is at the very least the go-to site for verifying a news article seen elsewhere and at best their primary website and cable news network source with seven respondents. This is in contrast to Fark with a whopping zero-- despite its user-aggregate and comedic overtones. A very significant portion of respondents rely on Reddit, another aggregate site that may or may not have comedic overto9nes in a post title. Digg is used by some, as is Fox, though not many. One individual points to blogs, NPR, and interest-based aggregators, another pointed to BBC's companion website. Still, one person focuses on .edu/.gov sources.
With this data, I'm beginning to see the data form a cohesive picture. My theory is that, for Websites, CNN is the main go-to for current events once someone is made aware of it by another source. This most likely occurs with news aggregate sites or Facebook: A person makes a post linking to the article, so someone checks CNN to see if it's a real thing that's going on, and they move on to anther source. Alternatively, it's directly linked by the aggregate site itself, bringing them to the page.. The basis for aggregate sources is that it's user-driven rather than executive-driven, meaning that the user-base determines the frequency of which any given site is linked.
This reinforced my theory that CNN is at least checked s a method of verification. More importantly however, it shows a level of distrust regards of a single news source: nobody that took my survey chose zero on this question. This means they always verify a current event story with at least one other source they consider credible. This suggests that the people I reached out to, on a whole, don't fully trust any one source. The numbers diminish from five to three with every additional source used to verify an initial source. This suggests they follow the "Trust, but verify" model of thinking. IN this case, it could very well be they want to verify certain facts aren't just wild speculation on the original source's part, however it could be to simply verify the story is, in fact, a real one; as I've stated earlier, some websites exist solely to receive links, and include both real and false current event articles in order to keep their readers on their toes.The more sources used to verify information, the less the individual trusts the initial-- or any-- one source. This suggest that the prevailing issue is in regards to false stories.
I wanted to know where people went to for their primary source, and asked them to specify:
Two people skipped the question entirely, and one person failed to follow basic instructions; another person's was vague. However, CNN, Reddit, and Facebook posts seem to be the most widely relied on as primary sources. However, what about trustworthiness of a news source?
There you have it: Each of my ten remaining respondents stated they prefer verifying every article they come across to make sure it's legit or correct. Some are simply distrustful of the Internet, and others cite experiences with news agencies being incorrect or falsely reporting in the past. Not a single respondent has a significant enough level of trust to not worry about story verification.
No comments:
Post a Comment