France: People trusts almost twice more someone they know than news media

According to Ipsos, information from a acquaintance inspires almost twice as much confidence as information from a media outlet, according to Ipsos.

French trusts way less.

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.

64% do trust someone they know.

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

Finding trusted sources is the foundation of TrustedOut:

A database of AI-profiled Media.

”For analytics and brand safety,
what’s not Trusted In, can not be Trusted Out.”

Questions? Let us know!

 

 

Almost 6 in 10 Canadians blame the United States on the effect of fake news in Canada

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]

89% of Canadian internet users think social media is the main source of distrust in the internet.

Are you sharing this opinion? 

86% falling for fake news at least once.

And you?

“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. 

Importance for Business Intelligence:
No trust, no Intelligence.

Distrust has a toll for individual, but also for businesses. Define Media Profiles You Trust, Get Content You Need.

Deliver Trustworthy and Smarter Social Intelligence.

Can you make strategic decisions on doubtful insights?

Questions? Contact us!

 

“Fake news” means almost nothing.

This post is inspired by this Washington Post article

3 Americans out of 4 believe traditional news organizations report “fake news.”…

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.

… but what does “fake news” mean?

“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.

Are “fake news” “factual coverage I don’t like”?

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.

It’s not about “fake”, it’s about “your definition of Trust”.

The level of trust on “Media I use” is 50% higher than Media in general.

… and your definition of trust is what TrustedOut is all about.

TrustedOut:
A database of AI-profiled Media.

”For analytics and brand safety,
what’s not Trusted In, can not be Trusted Out.”

Questions? Shoot!

 

People have shifted their trust to the relationships within their control.

Only 1 in 5 believes the system is working, and 1 in 2 thinks the reverse.

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.”

Why? Growing distrust in Media and Gov.

Distrust is, both in Media and Gov, and both in Europe and the US.

Reminder: Customers (readers) will give the most value to brands that they trust to do the right thing by them.

1/ Proof: 50% more trust on media I use vs media in general.

While distrust is general, trust definition is personal.

2/ Point: Consumer/reader Trust is Brand value.

Consumer trust is a vital and a key differentiator for publishers

3/ Caution: Hazardous ad placements impact brand value.

Brand Safety Violations: Consumers question brand’s motives.

Bottom line: CMOs must analyze and advertise on sites they trust.

Deliver Trustworthy and Smarter Social Intelligence.

Can you make strategic decisions on doubtful insights?

Fix Brand Safety with AI-operated WhiteListing.

Can you afford to put your brand at risk?

Questions? Contact us!

 

 

 

 

Developed nations distrust Social Networks, Developing ones don’t.

This post is inspired from this The Guardian (UK Edition) article

More than four in five Britons distrust platforms such as Facebook and Twitter…

“…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.

Less than 30% trust in Social Networks in developed nations, more than 50% in developing ones.

“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.”

UK and US do trust Local news orgs.

“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%).”

Cambridge Analytica, Christchurch, US Elections… all had a toll on Social Networks.

“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.”

The desire for regularization.

“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.”

Social Media vs Traditional Media

From a previous post:

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

Must gauge who’s talking.

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:

TheGuardian.com UK Edition classified by TrustedOut AI-Operated Taxonomy.

We decided they were legit and wrote this post.

Questions? Shoot!

 

 

Quiet trendsetters quietly distrust Social Media.

“Quiet Trendsetters Study Highlights Distrust of Social Media, with Implications for the Political Class”

[this post is inspired by a Cision article]

Quiet Trendsetters?

Quiet Trendsetters: people less likely to be vocal about their attitudes and opinions, highlights both the use of and distrust of social media.

Why it matters?

The results have implications as politicians ramp up their use of social media going into 2020.

Boredom or curiosity but both with caution.

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. 

No fame-seeking and less impact from “influencers”.

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. 

Questions? Shoot!

Important does not mean interesting. Quite the opposite.

Inversely proportionated.

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.

Gov and Politics #1 in not important for daily life and a third of interest to follow vs Restaurants, Clubs and Bars.

This is to be related to:

The decline of local newspapers impact on democracy.

and this, to save a declining situation:

“Local leads to trust”

taken seriously by Google, Facebook, Knight Foundation, Automatic…

Saving journalism. [updated 2/19/19]

Questions? Shoot!

 

 

 

Brands buy Media Brands.

Reaching out to customers. Potential and existing.

There was advertising.
There was sponsoring.
There also was Commercial Brands creating their own media brand, such as (sources: Axios):

Now, Brands buy Media Brands

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.

All about transparency.

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.

Top 2019 predictions: Privacy and Transparency

04.11.19.900.Paris

If you are in Paris on April 11th, 9-11am, come and see us! Registration here.

Questions? Shoot!

 

Facebook’s news tab is a great idea IF users can curate her/his sources.

Screenshot from Facebook

The new News tab idea…

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.

… if the user can define her/his trust criteria.

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.

Trust is personal. No-one can tell you what you trust.

As we wrote:

While distrust is general, trust definition is personal.

This is the foundation of TrustedOut.

04.11.19.900.Paris

If you are in Paris on April 11th, 9-11am, come and see us! Registration here.

Questions? Shoot!

Online lie detector or Machine learning how to lie.

Online lie detector or Machine learning how to lie.

Interesting article in Wired “RESEARCHERS BUILT AN ‘ONLINE LIE DETECTOR.’ HONESTLY, THAT COULD BE A PROBLEM”

Yes, it’s a first attempt. Yes, it should be taken very cautiously.
But yes, it has merit.

Typing and writing.

The way you type and the words you use show a level of lie or truth, from your standpoint. While recording and analyzing the typing part sounds more like a lie detection test, the word used are, in fact, much more accurate.

TrustedOut uses a similar method.

As mentioned, TrustedOut uses extensively machine learning. In this previous post, we explained how machine learning is the basis of our classification. For taxonomy or how to spot how a media is perceived on the internet.

The How and What: Mixing attitude and expertise.

Now, imagine you mix an attitude, such as lying or being blunt, or positive, or sarcastic and a taxonomy classification, and you mix two or more classifications based on machine learning. And you get the how and what…

04.11.19.900.Paris

If you are in Paris on April 11th, 9-11am, come and see us! Registration here.

Questions? Shoot!