With the permission of NetSources, here is our interview. TrustedOut Interview in NetSources (in French)
Subscriptions are here. Enjoy.
Trust for France vs Others:
37% vs 49% for Radio and TV,
36% vs 46% for newspapers and magazines,
30% vs 45% for online information.
Beyond the question: “where do those people they know get the information”, we can also link this ratio of “twice trust when I know” clearly visible in this chart
The survey — conducted by Ipsos on behalf of the Centre of International Governance Innovation — looked to gauge the opinions of 25,000 internet users across the world on internet security and trust. [ref article]
Are you sharing this opinion?
“This year’s survey of global attitudes not only underscores the fragility of the internet, but also netizens’ growing discomfort with social media and the power these corporations wield over their daily lives,” said Fen Osler Hampson, a fellow at CIGI and director of its global security and politics program.
Distrust has a toll for individual, but also for businesses. Define Media Profiles You Trust, Get Content You Need.
This post is inspired by this Washington Post article
This number came from a 2018 Monmouth University poll.
We will not comment or enter in the political argument but focus on the definition of what “fake news” means.
“When you see the result, you don’t know what it means,” argued Tom Rosenstiel, executive director of American Press Institute, who has a background in polling with Pew Research.
“It could mean stories I don’t like, stories that are critical of a person I like, stories that have a factual error, stories that are fundamentally wrong, or stories made up out of whole cloth by pranksters or political propagandists,” he said.
And if “fake news” includes “factual coverage that I don’t like,” it’s no wonder the negative numbers are so high. If it also includes “editorial decisions” that reflect negatively on a particular officeholder, it’s even less wonder.
The level of trust on “Media I use” is 50% higher than Media in general.
In this article, Why The Most Trusted Brands Will Also Be The Most Successful, Which-50 Media writes: “According to the authors (2019 Global Edelman Trust Index), “Trust has changed profoundly in the past year — people have shifted their trust to the relationships within their control.”. Indeed, the study revealed an urgent desire for change. “All [customers] share an urgent desire for change. Only one in five feels that the system is working for them, with nearly half of the mass population believing that the system is failing them.”
This post is inspired from this The Guardian (UK Edition) article
“…with other developed nations such as France, Germany and the US not far behind. The attitudes contrast sharply with those in middle-income countries such as Brazil, India and Mexico, where trust is far higher…. just 12% trusted information from social media, compared with 83% who had little or no trust in platforms such as Facebook and Twitter.”
“In all, 23% of Americans said they trusted information gained from social media, as did 20% of Germans, and 28% of Canadians. In developing nations, however, the trust was much higher: a majority of Indians (52%), Saudis (52%) and Thais (52%) trusted information from social media – as did 51% of Poles.”
“Just two sources of information were trusted by a majority of Britons: national TV news channels (61%) and local news organisations (54%). Only the US was more mistrusting of information sources in general. According to the polling, local news organisations are the sole news sources that are trusted by a majority of Americans (58%).”
“The Cambridge Analytica scandal highlighted big tech’s ability and willingness to harvest data and subvert democracy, while the Christchurch shooting is the latest example of terrorism encouraged by online radicalisation.
YouTube has continually been found showing inappropriate content to children, and all the social networks have been implicated in nation-state information warfare, beginning with Russian trolls uncovered on Twitter after the US election.”
“Episodes such as these explain why Britain is leading calls for increased levels of regulation of social media and technology companies. More than 60% of Britons think those businesses should be regulated more than they are now, compared with just 6% who think there is too much regulation and 15% who think there is the right amount.”
From a previous post:
We are basing this post on theguardian.com UK Edition. Prior to write anything, we, of course, use TrustedOut to understand who they are.
They are no spotted as any toxic content, such as fake news, fake sciences, conspiracist… But are they knowledgeable about publishing? Let’s ask for TrustedOut Taxonomy:
We decided they were legit and wrote this post.
[this post is inspired by a Cision article]
Quiet Trendsetters: people less likely to be vocal about their attitudes and opinions, highlights both the use of and distrust of social media.
The results have implications as politicians ramp up their use of social media going into 2020.
Many turn to social media out of boredom or curiosity about what friends and family are up to. A few say they only log in when they are seeking specific information. However, these Quiet Trendsetters also see a dark side to social media and agree caution is needed when using these platforms.
Politicians eying 2020 runs can feel confident that Quiet Trendsetters will accept their social media use – this group understands their need to use social media as one more tool for outreach. However, they accept it as a means rather than an end. So candidates must stay on message and not appear to be fame-seeking.
Another caution is that, collectively, Quiet Trendsetters are less trusting of what they see on social media and than they may have been in the past and appear to be less impacted by the “influencer” model. To reach this population, social media engagement must be completely authentic.
The more Important a news topic is for daily life, the less interesting it is to follow.
Weather, Crime and traffic are top important for daily life but definitely not topics to follow.
This is to be related to:
and this, to save a declining situation:
taken seriously by Google, Facebook, Knight Foundation, Automatic…
There was advertising.
There was sponsoring.
There also was Commercial Brands creating their own media brand, such as (sources: Axios):
Robinhood, a trading app (raised $110M in 2017), instead of creating its own brand like seen above, is buying one: MarketSnacks , a newsletter and podcast media brand focused on financial trading. An interesting evolution for the media industry. Imagine, Nissan buying Car and Driver? Yes, I hear you. Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post, but it’s not Amazon and WaPo is not a straight coverage for Amazon either.
As written, trust in Media will come back with Privacy and Transparency. As long as you are aware of who is behind a Media, (or political orientation, or depth of expertise…) the content will be educational and useful as long as you accept the profile of the media.
If you are in Paris on April 11th, 9-11am, come and see us! Registration here.
If you have an hour, this video/conversation is definitely worth it. Matthias Döpfner, Axel Springer’s CEO, was blunt and asked the right questions, from a journalist, online and print publisher, EU guy.
My fav part is well explained in this Recode article and in particular, the News tab idea is great but, to me and unsurprisingly, only if the FB user can do its own curation of publishers meeting his/her trust values.
“And as Zuckerberg notes in his comments, he isn’t sure whether Facebook should be curating a mix of news for users or letting them pick most of what they want to see.“
As we wrote:
If you are in Paris on April 11th, 9-11am, come and see us! Registration here.