I have written before on the disturbing decline of newspapers and the need for "reliable" news sources in today's ever changing and conflicting climate.
Now, over to broadcast news: With a record number of news outlets showcasing numerous differing opinions, it has also become increasingly problematic for society to discern fact from fiction in all news of the day. As people turn away from conventional news sources in favor of social media outlets such as Facebook and Twitter, the reporting by major news outlets are questioned, fueling the propaganda that is “fake news.”
In today’s thousand channel news environment, it is difficult to envision a time when everyone was, more or less, on the same page; to recall a less contentious and fractured framework for disseminating information.
Such a time did truly exist. Sometime between Marconi and Musk, viewers enjoyed a reliable and secure sense that their news was true. It was the heyday of global network news coverage. Like today, viewers opinions differed wildly and like today, the narratives told often featured protagonists and antagonists. It was the delivery mechanism then that so contrasts the way we get our news today.
This was a time when the news landscape was owned by the “Big 3” networks. Yet, it was far from a monopoly. Each “Net” fervently represented their own historic brand and whose founders and stewards viewed news gathering and reporting as a sort of civic responsibility. The news divisions, with their vast assemblage of domestic and international bureaus, were everywhere and anywhere news happened. Their fact-based reporting and broadcasting were void of the talk show opinions and interpretations so omnipresent today. Budgets were enormous because viewership was enormous. Everyone’s ‘set’ was ‘tuned-in’ to the national news to get the straight scoop on what was happening in the world. Anchormen were more trusted than Presidents and Prime Ministers. The reporting was riveting, the stories were real. There was nothing ‘Fake’ about it.
But alas, that was then...this is now!
There is a general reluctance today for the consumer to pay for news in any form, especially when they can get it on line for free. The problem is, can free news be trusted.
When it comes to self-tailored media, or “echo chambers,” of current times, the main causes are twofold. The first is that many people share and interact with news stories they agree with or of which they approve. In addition, social media users are free to select which media outlets to follow, and which ones to block.
The result is a potential bubble of information that may discourage engagement with challenging viewpoints.
Even more, if the view or information reinforced by these media choices are inaccurate, it may lead to a personalized information trap of unreliable sources. This has created concern among readers who don’t want to miss challenging viewpoints.
To address this issue, some consumers are turning to news aggregates. In fact, according to the Reuters Digital News Report, 57% of respondents said they prefer news aggregates in order to access a variety of sources.
News aggregates like Google News and Yahoo Japan are already quite popular with people whom prefer to receive news from multiple sources. In China a new app called Bingdu combines news aggregation, user-driven advertisements, and Facebook-style recommendation algorithms to attract around 10 million active users.
Another Google DNI funded initiative comes from Europa Press Comunicación via a news platform that aims to “facilitate the use of open-data both as a source of news and as a fact validation instrument.”
The problems of fake news and echo chambers will not be solved overnight. We have already seen a shift in news production by leading media companies to ensure credibility in this changing media ecosystem. Innovative emerging publishers should continue to foster a strong relationship between publishers, readers, and researchers. This is an essential first step in building a more positive media landscape for the future.
Some people are “news bumpers,” meaning they primarily get their news by bumping into it without seeking it out or turning intentionally to particular sources. Other people are “news seekers,” meaning they look for topics and issues they are interested in and actively and intentionally hunt for them. In subsequent studies of all age groups, we have seen the same pattern. There are seekers and bumpers across all demographic groups. Older people are more likely to be seekers, though there are plenty of younger people who also seek out news rather than simply bump into it.
Three-quarters of those who pay for news fall into the category of being news seekers. That suggests seekers are the largest and most likely group for publishers to try to understand.
The challenge is intimidating for one who has lived in the "old" world of news gathering. Would that I could provide answers that are conclusive and today oriented.
No comments:
Post a Comment