According to a survey by The Center for the Digital Future at the USC Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism only 56 percent of internet users agree that newspapers are an important or very important source of information. That statement is certainly reinforced by the sharp decline in readership and revenue for print newspapers and magazines. Even half of all journalists think their offline publications will eventually fold! Unsurprisingly, the place people are turning to for information is the internet with 78 percent of those surveyed saying that the internet is an important source of information.
The new breed of online news sites are coming under scrutiny and percieved to be less reliable than their traditonal paper counterparts
OK. So far, I follow. I’m not shocked by any of the above information; it feels like it’s what we’ve been hearing for some time now. So people go to the internet for news and information because they think it’s an important source….. interesting then that the study also found that only 14 percent of users said that a small portion of the information they find online is reliable. That’s just 14 percent think what they’re reading is reliable - 14 percent!
We’re increasingly choosing to get our news from online sources, but more than 85 percent of people don’t actually think the information they’re getting is reliable. I have to say, we hear a lot about how consumer media consumption is shifting, but I think it’s pretty darn interesting that we’re willing to give up almost all semblance of reliability for the convenience of getting information online in between checking Facebook or the latest gossip on Perez.
The places we’re looking to get information are increasingly becoming what I’ll call “new news sites,” a la The Huffington Post, Politico etc. It’s no small wonder that many internet users don’t deem information garnered through the internet as overly reliable, look at some of the journalist-terrorizing coverage these new news sites are receiving – pay per click news, 4am starts at the office, or unpaid bloggers creating content for major online pubs. These are the people shaping the news, this is how some new news organizations run. This is why we only believe what we’re reading a small percentage of the time.
All of this is reflective of the shifting social model that’s evolved over the past 10 years. We’ve completely changed how we access information, but more importantly that we’re willing to sacrifice reliability. As PR folks, should we really be focused on getting hits in online publications that have huge click through rates but little credibility with the public… or the tried, tested and respected media outlets with waning audiences?
If those journalists are right about the impending demise of all print publications, then I suppose we won’t have to debate much longer, it’ll be one size fits all. Maybe when online sites are able to make more money than the print edition of The New York Times, we’ll see a change of pace in the way the organizations are run and the work produced.
This blog is not to say that no new news organizations are credible or that they publish factually inaccurate and invalid news – but there’s certainly a public perception that will need to be adjusted over time.
{ 1 comment }
The one point that seems to be missing is a great many people access content from their preferred offline news outlets online. I for one have not bought a newspaper in years, but I read NYT, Guardian, SF Chronicle, BBC and Economist daily. It is the channel / delivery mechanism that changes. The NYT and BBC are both great examples of this—still incredibly trusted media brands that attract many Internet readers. The barriers to publishing are now removed—hence the amount of subjective dross that’s on t’interweb; but that’s great First Ammendment stuff!
Comments on this entry are closed.