Attitudes About the News Media

Fathom wrote: »

"Click bate" now mainstream media. Digital players luring top talent claims Pew Research. Social media increasingly becomes news source.

A recent UK study found that 28% of 18-24 year olds used social media as their news source, TV accounted for 24%. Given the (at times) unreliable information, this is not a good thing. Unless of course social media can eventually have some form of editorial control to churn out proper content.

Link: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-36528256

Black Swan wrote: »

Nonprofit journalism remains heavily dependent on foundation funding. Calls for diversification have not been as successful as needed, especially when Republican presidential candidate Romney signaled that he would kill Big Bird if elected by cutting government subsidies, and Republican president Trump has flagged such cuts when developing his current budget for congressional review.

Very much needed, there are reports that the money that is put into non-profit journalism by foundations can end up being used to skew media attention towards issues that are favourable to donors . This means that foundations are in a significant position of power and they end up demanding "civic impact, via circulation of free content, and economic sustainability, via paying audiences and corporate sponsors." The result being a pressure to perform just like the major commercial news outlets, but without the necessary financial backing.

Fathom wrote: »

Does this raise the issues of editorial control, advertiser profits and content influence, and journalism ethics?

Fathom wrote: »

Donor content driven nonprofits compared with advertiser content driven for-profit news media.

I guess it depends on the publication. For right or left wing publications, both their funders and the reading audience are probably expecting their own ideological slants to be represented. However, for publications that would be considered non-partisan, then where the funding comes from most certainly raises questions. For example, what happens if a company funding the publication is involved in a scandal, will the media outlet have full editorial control? Probably not. There is, and should be, a market for balanced journalism that gives all sides, if it was found to be favouring donors on either side then that publication is no longer objective. Bad for the idea of a free and fair media.

Black Swan wrote: »

To confound the validity and reliability of news media reporting, there appears to be substantial differences between what is considered factual in popular media reports, and what is only suggested by the application of research methods in scholarly reports. Such differences are exemplified by comparing searches using Google (generic default) and Google Scholar. The former uses fact-checking sources to confirm or debunk statements made by news media or other social media sources, which, from the latter scientific methods standpoint may be problematic. The scientific method can only suggest, so science relies not on black-and-white fact-checking per se, rather upon theory and the intersubjectivity of prior researches to support or challenge scholarly reports.

It really becomes troublesome when the popular news media cites scientific research as scientific facts, and not suggestive conclusions drawn from studies, including complex limitations and cautions, when interpreting results. Scientific methods results often fail to fit into a simple black-and-white nominal and mutually exclusive, either/or categorisation. Rather, such results may be very complex, sometimes with contrary findings included, which may far exceed the reading and comprehension levels of many popular news media audiences. Hence, oversimplification may occur in news media reports that can be misleading and sometimes spurious.

Fair point. I do wonder, if the representation of science in the media is deliberate, or simply an honest misunderstanding of the facts. Just to give an example, I recall a few years back there was a news report about a study on processed meat that showed a link to cancer. Of course, when one reads the study, it is not like that at all. Is there a link, quite possibly, the study does not come out with a straight yes or no. I am going purely on memory here, but it does more or less day that if you are not eating loads of processed food, you should be OK.

The way this was reported was sensationalised, not only in the usual suspects like The Daily Mail, but also in news outlets you would expect a hell of a lot better from (BBC, Guardian, Irish Times etc). I believe it amounted to eating processed foods ranking being akin to smoking. This claim takes so many liberties with the actual study content it borders on the irresponsible.

Which brings me back to my original point, is this on purpose, or is it just that journalists are receiving sensational bullet point reviews of studies from university PR divisions eager to get their research in the media?

Granted, some outlets, once they get past the clickbait headline, they eventually admit halfway or three quarters through the article that you are not in any danger. So, maybe everybody is aware of it, but the conscious decision is made to give it wings in order to publicise the research.

Edit: Here is the article from the Guardian: Processed meats rank alongside smoking as cancer causes – WHO