Get information from Traditional Media, have conversation on Social Media. Not the other way around.

Misinformation and biases infect social media, both intentionally and accidentally

This highly recommended article from The Conversation exposes 3 types of bias identified by Indiana University. Hereafter are our takeaways.

1/ Bias in the brain

More information means less quality content shared

“Cognitive biases originate in the way the brain processes the information that every person encounters every day. The brain can deal with only a finite amount of information, and too many incoming stimuli can cause information overload. That in itself has serious implications for the quality of information on social media. We have found that steep competition for users’ limited attention means that some ideas go viral despite their low qualityeven when people prefer to share high-quality content.”

Beware emotions in headline trap

“One cognitive shortcut happens when a person is deciding whether to share a story that appears on their social media feed. People are very affected by the emotional connotations of a headline, even though that’s not a good indicator of an article’s accuracy.”

What matters is where it’s coming from.

“Much more important is who wrote the piece.”

TrustedOut foundation: profile who’s behind to evaluate your trustworthiness appreciation and the path to greater trust in media:

Optimism and method for greater trust in media.

2/ Bias in society

Like seeks like (“Birds of a feather flock together”)

“When people connect directly with their peers, the social biases that guide their selection of friends come to influence the information they see. …social networks are particularly efficient at disseminating information – accurate or not – when they are closely tied together and disconnected from other parts of society.”

“Us vs Them”

“The tendency to evaluate information more favorably if it comes from within their own social circles creates echo chambers that are ripe for manipulation, either consciously or unintentionally. This helps explain why so many online conversations devolve into “us versus them” confrontations.”

We are right. Distrust in fact-checking

“…during the 2016 U.S. presidential elections [analysis] shows that Twitter accounts that shared misinformation were almost completely cut off from the corrections made by the fact-checkers. When we drilled down on the misinformation-spreading accounts, we found a very dense core group of accounts retweeting each other almost exclusively – including several bots. The only times that fact-checking organizations were ever quoted or mentioned by the users in the misinformed group were when questioning their legitimacy or claiming the opposite of what they wrote.

3/ Bias in the machine

Getting more of the same. Accurate. Or not.

“The third group of biases arises directly from the algorithms used to determine what people see online. Both social media platforms and search engines employ them. These personalization technologies are designed to select only the most engaging and relevant content for each individual user. But in doing so, it may end up reinforcing the cognitive and social biases of users, thus making them even more vulnerable to manipulation.”

Illusory truth effect. Repeat until it feels true.

“For instance, the detailed advertising tools built into many social media platforms let disinformation campaigners exploit confirmation bias by tailoring messages to people who are already inclined to believe them. Also, if a user often clicks on Facebook links from a particular news source, Facebook will tend to show that person more of that site’s content. This so-called “filter bubble” effect may isolate people from diverse perspectives, strengthening confirmation bias.”

Popularity bias. More clicks makes it feel more true.

“Another important ingredient of social media is information that is trending on the platform, according to what is getting the most clicks. We call this popularity bias, because we have found that an algorithm designed to promote popular content may negatively affect the overall quality of information on the platform. This also feeds into existing cognitive bias, reinforcing what appears to be popular irrespective of its quality.”

Get information from Traditional Media, have conversation on Social Media. Not the other way around.

Unsurprisingly, and somewhat reassuring, numbers from Reuters/Oxford (hereafter for the US) show trust in social media are the lowest with 13% vs 34% for news overall and the highest at 50% with News/Media I use. (we developed this with this post “While distrust is general, trust definition is personal.“)

Related posts:

Saving journalism. [updated 2/19/19]

Top 2019 predictions: Privacy and Transparency

TrustedOut’s market

Questions? Comments? Contact us!

 

 

Older people share more fake news.

Age predicts behavior better than any other characteristics (even party affiliation )

Researchers at New York and Princeton Universities, through their recent surveys, are saying older users shared more fake news than younger ones regardless of education, sex, race, income, or how many links they shared. [source: The Verge]

7 times more fake news sharing

“But older users skewed the findings: 11 percent of users older than 65 shared a hoax, while just 3 percent of users 18 to 29 did. Facebook users ages 65 and older shared more than twice as many fake news articles than the next-oldest age group of 45 to 65, and nearly seven times as many fake news articles as the youngest age group (18 to 29).”

Profiling media sources…

“It won’t be easy: how to determine whether a person is digitally literate remains an open question. But at least some of the issue is likely to come down to design: fake news spreads quickly on Facebook in part because news articles generally look identical in the News Feed, whether they are posted by The New York Times or a clickbait farm.”

… to build trust.

Profiling sources so limit fake news spreading is similar, in logic, to profiling sources to limit misleading intelligence. We call it “Corpus Intelligence” and will focus on B2B solutions. In production end Q1 2019.

Trust, Media and Democracy

click here to read report

The Aspen Institute and the Knight Foundation recently released a report on a commission they organized about Trust, Media and Democracy. While coming from America, we believe most can apply wider.

If you don’t have the time for the length report, this medium page is very interesting. Here are our takeaways in the light of our previous posts, regrouped in 3 main categories:

10 ways to rebuild trust in media and democracy

Before starting up, we can not resist to simply cut and paste the introduction paragraph: “Our nation is experiencing a crisis of trust. We believe that reliable news is vital to our democracy, but many of us can’t name an objective news source. Concern about “fake news” is high, but we can’t agree on what that means. We can’t even assume every American is operating under the same set of facts. We retreat to polarized political tribes and don’t want to listen to anyone outside them.” – Superbly written and so much in alignment with what we believe and the motivation to create TrustedOut.

Of course, the purpose here is not a posture of “we know better” but rather than copycatting what the article says, simply note we wrote about most of those points and thus, are in agreement with them.

a/ Privacy and Transparency (#1, 5 & 6)

Top 2019 predictions: Privacy and Transparency

b/ Financial support (#2, 3, 4 & 7)

Saving journalism.

c/ Education (#8, 9 & 10)

Media trust over education stages

Feedback welcome. Go the bottom of any TrustedOut.com page…

Consumer trust is a vital and a key differentiator for publishers

Image taken from article in reference

Can’t resist just cutting and pasting the very first sentence here “Consumer trust is a vital and a key differentiator for publishers in a competitive environment. Fostering trust, prioritizing consumer rights and offering transparency of data practices is more important than ever before for premium publishers.” from this article from Digital Content Next

Sounds like our previous post on TrustedOut Market, doesn’t it?

So, unsurprisingly, we loved this article. Here are our takeaways:

Gap between trust in traditional and social media is now at an all-time high.

  • The US and Canada and European markets also registered significant trust in traditional media and search compared to social media. Trust in traditional media is at its highest-ever historical level at 65% in US and Canada and 60% in Europe, trust in search at 61% and 59%, respectively. However, rust in social media in both markets is at 34%.
  • The percentage gap between trust in traditional and social media is now at an all-time high of 31-points in US and Canada and a 26-point gap in Europe.
  • In terms of political differences, consumers who identify as Republican voters show only 33% trust in media compared to 69% of Democrats voters.

#MeToo shift from the “mass population” to the “informed public

Further, more women, think that the #metoo movement, (plus 23 percentage points year-over-year) than men (plus 18 percentage points) shift from the “mass population” to the “informed public” segment.

CEO to take the lead. Don’t wait for government!

People are also looking to leaders to take charge and initiate change. More than three-quarters (76%) of respondents report that CEOs should take the lead on change rather than waiting for government to impose it.

First priority: equal pay. Last: fake news

Specific needs for positive change include: equal pay (65%), prejudice and discrimination (64%), training for jobs of tomorrow (64%), environment (56%), personal data (55%), sexual harassment (47%) and fake news (37%). 

TrustedOut’s market

In its latest report on Social Intelligence, Forrester writes, straight right from the beginning:

Enterprises Are Still Not Using Social Intelligence To Its Full Potential” 

“Social Listening Platforms’ Current Offerings All Look Alike

Each social listening platform provider emphasizes its unique applicability and use across the enterprise. But each vendor also parades a roster of features and functionalities that largely look the same from one to the next. Buyers will struggle to distinguish major differences between each vendor’s current offering because social listening platforms all rely on the same data sources as the foundation of their platforms. … most vendors in this evaluation tap into the same third-party aggregators such as webhose.io for web content, LexisNexis or Factiva for news, … Social listening platform shoppers may find the breadth of data sources an important selection factor, but the discernment of data differentiation becomes increasingly difficult when all vendors source from the same well. ”  – Forrester, Q3’18

We couldn’t agree more.

Even more if you add the current crisis of distrust in content. Magnified but far, far more complex than just some fact checking to feel better with fake news being fixed. No, fake news are just the tip of the iceberg. The issue of trust in news and information in general is to, first understand who is talking before listening to anything they say, and then, ultimately taking any action.

The immense problem today is to not profile who is talking and thus, the trust you can put in the publisher, before spreading and commenting which means adding your intrinsic support.

Intelligence needs data.

Nothing new here. AI with its deep and machine learning, needs data. Analysts need data… any kind of intelligence needs data.

Social Intelligence needs data.

Forrester makes a point by saying there is no differentiation of the offer because there is no differentiation of the data used for the Social Intelligence. Of course, we agree and that’s the foundation of TrustedOut: providing profiled media sources. Let’s have a look at the 3 references mentioned by Forrester:

Webhose.io, Factiva and LexisNexis are all about articles. We believe Media is what matters.

Webhose.io claims to be “Data As A Service”, provides articles. Factiva (Dow Jones) does the same but claims to be curated by (lots of) humans. LexisNexis does the same but focused on legal.

We totally respect those three and in no way, are we judging them. We are just saying they, all three, take an “article” approach. You could also get your articles by the author name but none is scoring them.

None of them is focusing on the media itself. TrustedOut does. Here is why:

Trust is based on a reputation. An article does not have a reputation.

An author may have a reputation but is temporary and linked to a matter.

A publisher brand definitely has a reputation and its values guarantee stability.

Bottom line: Your Trust is based on the publisher brands you value.

This is why TrustedOut is an AI-Operated profiling media database offering our clients to define their trust via sophisticated queries (65+ fields and 400+ categories) because ONLY you can define your own trust. No-one can tell you what you trust.

The distrust fix is in giving you the tools to define what you trust.

Update: Digital Content Next wrote recentlyConsumer trust is a vital and a key differentiator for publishers in a competitive environment. Fostering trust, prioritizing consumer rights and offering transparency of data practices is more important than ever before for premium publishers.”. This could be from us.

Company sizes.

LexisNexis has 10,000+ employees and $2.8 Billions in revenue, 5M users and is available in 175 countries.

Factiva was bought by Dow Jones in 2006 for $160 Millions when their revenue was $290 Millions, used by 1.8M users and 80% of the Fortune Global 500.

Webhose.io is a younger independent company out of Tel Aviv claiming 35,000 registered users, $5.5M in revenue and 115 languages.

Market is growing fast.

$4B in 2018 and according to BusinessWire: “The Global Social Media Analytics Market size is expected to reach $11.6 billion by 2023, rising at a market growth of 28.6% CAGR during the forecast period.”

Various Sector Demands is growing fast.

“Asset managers double spending on new data in hunt for edge” – Financial Times

“Investment groups have more than doubled their spending on new digital information sets and data scientists in the past two years… Asset managers last year spent a total of $373m on data sets and hiring new employees to parse them, up 60 per cent on 2016, and will probably spend a total of $616m this year, according to a survey of investors by AlternativeData.org, a trade body for the industry. It forecasts that overall expenditures will climb to over $1bn by 2020″

So, demand is fast growing…. better use content you trust.

The incredible story of a 10 year long fake, success story.

For 10 years. Fake pharmaceutical, fake CEO, real top-notch business school.

It’s the real story of the fake story of Berden and its CEO. Both are the result of a top notch curriculum at HEC in France. [HBR story here]. The course is to control Enterprise reputation and the challenge was to create a Co., Berden, and its CEO, Eric Dumontpierre. And the success was incredible. For 10 years, the CEO was beloved, the company was super visible, to the point a real competitor sent a cease and decease for a… fake product of fake Berden.

The trick: Do not talk to medias

“The students had only one constraint to respect: not to communicate directly with the media. They had to build their reputation organically, by building an online ecosystem of websites and social network accounts where they would publish press releases and other information about the company, its history and activities.”

The method: Spread false…

Recent studies show that false information is easier to peddle than true information

… bold…

Research on the dissemination of “fake news” shows that students have used communication techniques identified decades ago by researchers as drivers of this phenomenon. Readers are more likely to circulate strong stories that evoke emotions such as fear (river pollution), disgust (child labour) and surprise or joy (32-hour work week) than smooth stories.

… repeat, until it sounds true.

Researchers have shown that repetition increases perceived veracity. In other words, familiarity induces credibility.

The fix: Trust profiled medias.

As previously written here, the solution to avoid this chaos is for medias to have clear values delivered and defended by professional journalists. THE weak point, the trick used here is the absence of contact with medias.

Absence of media opens the door to total chaos in education, opinions and decision-making. TrustedOut Corpus Intelligence is here to profile a totally unbiased, AI-Operated, Media database so Intelligence tools are fed with the content business analysts trust.

 

Social vs Traditional Media Analytics.

Do they compare? Are they opposed? Is one already over? 

Yes, Social Media have changed and are changing Business Intelligence. But, while Social Media are definitely newer than traditional media, does it mean, one should be considered and not the other?

How do Social Media and Traditional Media compare?

According to Wikipedia: Social media outlets operate in a dialogic transmission system (many sources to many receivers). This is in contrast to traditional media which operates under a monologic transmission model (one source to many receivers)”

We agree.

Monitoring and Listening apply to both Social and Traditional Media.

“Social monitoring is identifying and responding to individual brand mentions on social media. Social listening, on the other hand, is collecting data from those social mentions and broader customer conversations, and pulling insights from them so you can make better decisions for your customers… Social monitoring is reactive. … where social listening, which is proactive,… allows brands to take those short-term interactions and build them to glean insights for a long-term strategy. … Through social listening, you can also unearth trends among your industry, competitors, and consumer experiences. You can then make necessary changes to stay ahead of the curve and keep customers happy.”- Sprinklr

We agree. For both. Monitoring and Listening apply to Social and Traditional Media. Monitoring is the PR/Alert and Listening is the Intelligence/Analytics part. Matter of fact, the Sprinklr post goes on with metaphors:

“There are many metaphors you can use to make this distinction clearer. Social monitoring is the trees; social listening is the forest. Social monitoring is the pixels; social listening is the picture. Social monitoring is the bandaid; social listening helps you find the cure.”

We agree again. All apply to both Social and Traditional Media.

Social and Traditional Analytics are both mandatory.

From the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA): “Therefore, thinking about both (social and traditional) as steps within finding, converting and keeping customers seems like a mentality shift we all need to make. This has already proven true… the smartest tactics from advertising, public relations, marketing and editorial together, regardless of the type of media. In essence, [clients] are merging social and traditional rather than thinking of them separately.”The Digital Research and Analytics group, a subset of Ketchum 

The mandatory need to profile what you are listening to.

The very same way you want to understand who is talking in Social Media Listening, you must profile the Traditional Media you are analyzing to understand who is talking in Traditional Media Listening.

Intelligence In makes Intelligence Out.

Not knowing the profile of the media you are using for your analytics means not knowing what comes out of your analytics tools.

In other words, not profiling what you feed your tools with, means you are totally wasting your time and money.

All intelligence processes are made or broken by the quality of what they are fed with.

Would you trust, and make decisions based on a survey where you don’t trust the sample used for that survey? (Here’s the wikipedia page on Survey methodology explaining sampling) and thus…

Corpus Intelligence makes Intelligence trustworthy.

TrustedOut Full Overview | Business cases: Content orientations | Media metrics impact | Country comparisons

Update: Traditional news media are back

in the just released Edelman Trusted Barometer

  • The number of respondents who consume traditional news weekly or more, and share or post news content several times a month or more, has increased by 14 percentage points from 26% to 40%.
  • Those who consume traditional news weekly or more has risen by 8 percentage points from 24% to 32%.
  • Inversely, the number of people who say they consume traditional news less than weekly has dropped by over 20 percentage points from 49% to 28%.

Trust in traditional media also continues to increase. According to the survey, trust in traditional media in the U.S. and Europe is higher than trust in search and social platforms. An earlier study from Gallup shows a similar rebound in media trust overall in the U.S.

 

“The overwhelming fakeness of today’s internet”

Less than 60% of today’s internet is human. The rest are bots.

Credits: Axios. Image taken off the article page.

Great article from Axios on today’s internet falseness.

Yes, we agree with theThe big picture.”

“Everything that once seemed definitively and unquestionably real now seems slightly fake; everything that once seemed slightly fake now has the power and presence of the real,” Max Read writes for New York Magazine.”

And yes, we also agree with “Why it matters.”

Legit media companies and businesses need to be making decisions for their human customers. That gets harder for everyone when bots and fake metrics swamp the internet.”

This sounds in line with our recent article Optimism and method for greater trust in media. and, of couse, our Corpus Intelligence.

Top 2019 predictions: Privacy and Transparency

In this Forbes article, 12 C-level leaders share their predictions for 2019.

Top predictions, results of a lesson learned the hard way: 2019 will be the year of Privacy and transparency.

Hereafter are our favorite parts from the article:

In 2019, Marketers Will Strike the Right Balance of Personalization and Privacy.  Lynne Capozzi, CMO, Acquia

“… 2019 will be the year that marketers not only prioritize data privacy, but they start to get the balance right — offering the appropriate amount of personalization and privacy to build customer relationships based on trust. Consumers will continue to challenge brands to do so — otherwise they’ll move on. …”

Transparency Will Make Much Bigger Cracks Within the Digital Ecosystem as CMOs Prioritize Tech Partners.  Mike Pallad, President, Undertone (cross-platform synchronized digital marketing for the world’s most prominent brands)

“…In the coming year, the demand for transparency will finally force marketers to choose only the tech partners that most empower them to understand the reach, frequency, and impact of their campaigns (across all of their digital partners), allowing them to spend in the most intelligent ways….”

CMOs Will Stop “Going with Their Gut” And Truly Harness Data to Make Informed Decisions.  Matt Sweeney, President of Xaxis North America

86% of US brand marketers plan to invest in outcome-driven media over the next 2 years. In 2019, CMOs will make strides toward outcome-driven media, allowing them to tie their media metrics more directly to their business goals. … By truly harnessing their data, CMOs will no longer need to go with their gut instincts when making media investment decisions. They will be more agile with their budgets and media strategies, using data to deliver better returns and deliver the best consumer experiences.”

Better media, greater profiling.

Our takeaway here is two folds:

An opportunity for an improved trust in better media.

In our previous post, Optimism and method for greater trust in media., we wrote “to improve media should have Journalists to defend themselves and improve with more accuracy, more transparency and less bias with recognized sources and countered partisan perceptions led with their media brand values.”

This prediction confirms our reading of Gallup and Axios.

A strong need for media profiling.

As media strengthen their brand values and, at the same time, Marketers will get less intrusive customer data, they will rely, even more, on analyzing the media pulse within their well defined audiences. This is the market purpose of TrustedOut.

As this profiling must not be biased and permanently updated, only an AI-operated profiling can deliver this. This is the tech foundation of TrustedOut. 

Of course, do not hesitate to reach out if you have any questions.

 

Optimism and method for greater trust in media.

Better but still lower.

According to Axios, “efforts to bring transparency to media — including attempts by journalists to publicly defend their work, media literacy campaigns, more transparent funding and improved fact-checking partnerships — have helped the media recover a bit of trust with the public after hitting an all-time low in 2016″

How to continue to improve?

Journalists to defend themselves…

study from Louisiana State University’s Manship School of Mass Communication suggests that journalists can actually increase trust in the media by speaking out in defense of their profession …

… and improve with more accuracy, more transparency and less bias

… while also doing more fact checking.: Which is second with this “poll by Gallup and The Knight Foundation this year found that efforts to restore media trust among most Americans can work “particularly if those efforts are aimed at improving accuracy, enhancing transparency and reducing bias.”

… with recognized sources and countered partisan perceptions

“people are less likely to perceive a report or set of facts as being biased if they are unaware of the outlet producing them. It concludes that restoring trust in the news media may then require news companies to actually address and counter shared perceptions of bias and inaccuracy within partisan groups.”

… led with their media brand values.

“Transparency in funding can work, too, especially as more news organizations veer away from the advertising-funded model”.”Companies now have to lead with their values and offer transparency in the process,”

Sounds familiar? Yes. It’s all about Brands.

Not only, did we recently shared our takeaways from the 50 Big Ideas for 2019 and the desire for Trust in Brands but TrustedOut is based on the principle that branding in media is the sole solution to fight misinformation.

Values of a brand are the trustworthiness of a media,

A brand will fight for its value, here with media, for accuracy, for its perspective and tone and always deliver what you expect from this brand. An article may, accidentally, be wrong, an author may sometimes be wrong, the only safety net is the brand which will fight back, correct and improve.

In a chaotic and challenging environment, Brand values are the only solutions for stable trust.

Like with cars or food, some people may not like a brand and like another one, but those brands will always deliver, and fight for, the values you expect from them.

This is why, unsurprisingly, those surveys are aligned with our mission at TrustedOut: Focusing and profiling media brands so you can define those you trust and those you don’t. Define your corpus and feed your analytic tools or create your brand safety perimeter of your trust for your strategic decisions.

Did you know we have a FAQ page?