What media sources do you trust most?
If you're new here, you may want to view the multimedia in the left sidebar, as well as subscribe to the RSS feed. Feel free to leave comments, take the survey and send us email. Thanks!
A report came out recently from Forrester Research which summarizes the media sources that adults in the US trust most. Do you think that people who change their brand loyalties based on socially responsible information trust different sources than the average American?
Buy It Like You Mean It is all about providing people like yourself with trusted socially responsible product information. So it would help to know what types of sources you trust.
I would set up a poll for this but I’m a bit busy sending out holiday newsletters and year end donation reminders just now. But I’ll be happy to create a poll if that’s what ya’ll want!
—-
Data from Forrester Research Technographics® surveys, 2008. For further details on the Social Technographics profile, see groundswell.forrester.com.
January 22nd, 2009 at 2:49 am
The issue of how people interact with media seems important. A post that I noticed causing a lot of comment in the blogosphere last week was one by NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen. He describes how the internet seems to be creating a new media landscape where people are much more connected horizontally, to each other, compared to the mostly vertical connection “up” to big media before. He summarizes the phenomenon as “audience atomization overcome.” One feature is that it is easier for groups of people with common interest to find each other and realize their size.
One thing I like about bilumi is that it feels the opposite of lonely. As I research I see what other people are doing simultaneously and I click on their names to see what their take is on things.
http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2009/01/12/atomization.html
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:40 am
Thanks for your comment, Ben.
With several newspapers going under people are talking more about a kind of end of professional journalism. The article you mention suggests ‘That journalists affirm and enforce the sphere of consensus, consign ideas and actors to the sphere of deviance, and decide when the shift is made from one to another— none of this is in their official job description. You won’t find it taught in J-school, either. It’s an intrinsic part of what they do, but not a natural part of how they think or talk about their job. Which means they often do it badly.’
I wonder if bloggers and more casual journalists are better at deciding what is worth treating as worthy of comment? Or is the idea that they automatically have more personal perspectives since they are untrained?
http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2009/01/12/atomization.html
January 22nd, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Clay, that’s a good question and I don’t know the answer. Perhaps journalists are more implicit in the spin they give to things and bloggers are more explicit in their assumptions or base of beliefs.
The reason I brought up Rosen’s post is that I got the feeling from the wide response to it that us intakers of news and information are starting to think more about what you posted about … where do I get information I trust and am willing to act on? Wikipedia seemed so speculative when it started, and now is indispensible for many things … at the same time people have developed individual levels of trust for it, and for their uses of it.
One thing that seems cool about bilumi is the way one person can create an item, more can review it, and even more can quick-rate the review. And then another can flag something that goes wrong. Seems like a neat way to weave together community production of content.