Login
close
Login is restricted to DCN Publisher Members. If you are a DCN Member and don't have an account, register here.
Search

Digital Content Next logo

Menu

Articles by: "Rande Price, Research VP – DCN"

Industry-Research

Some good news, and some bad news, in Reuters’ annual report

Each year the Reuters Institute publishes an analysis on the state of the digital news ecosystem. The Digital News Report is vast, covering six continents and 40 markets across the globe. This year’s report explores the impact of coronavirus on news consumption and on the economic prospects for publishers. It looks at progress on new paid online business models, trust and misinformation, partisanship and populism, and the popularity of curated editorial products like podcasts and email newsletters.

The report provides a comprehensive review of the marketplace and incorporates and tracks core consumer metrics of trust and engagement. In particular, it offers insights into digital news publishers’ business models, their sustainability, and the overall impact on modern society.

Political polarization

With the rise and distribution of low-cost internet publishing and its usage to fuel political polarization, the news media as a whole has been called into question. Unfortunately, extreme viewpoints intensified by social media algorithms and the amplification of echo chambers produce a lot of noise and misinformation. Consequently, divided societies trust media less, as they are generally dissatisfied with institutions in their countries.

This type of dissatisfaction is reflected in the data with only four in ten respondents (38%) trusting news overall. However, close to half (49%) trust the news brands they know and use. Further, news in distributed environments (search and social) are trusted the least at 22%. Not surprisingly, social media leads as the biggest source of concern about misinformation (40%), twice the level of news sites (20%).

With a surge of politicize news sources, respondents want the facts. Close to two-thirds of Americans (60%) prefer to get news from sources that have no point of view compare to 30% who prefer to get their news from sources that share your point of view or 10% who prefer to get news from those who challenge their views.

Paid content

Many publishers added new opportunities for paid content to their business model, such as subscriptions, memberships, donations, and micropayments. Growth in subscriptions continues with 20% of respondents in the US paying for online content, up four percentage points in the last year.

Reuters identifies two waves of subscription growth in the U.S. Wave 1 was set in motion by the younger and more liberal voter population in 2016 who subscribed after Donald Trump was elected as president. This segment wants to be informed and to support journalism as a tool to maintain democracy.

The second wave is upon us now. It is fueled by a new election cycle and tighter restrictions around paywalls and what content is available for free. News publishers also experienced growth in new subscribers with the onset of the coronavirus. And that comes, despite many of them offering free Covid-19 content.

Access points

With more pathways to news content, just over one-quarter of consumers (28%) report accessing news websites or apps directly. Another 26% access via social media and 25% access through search. However, among 18-24-year-olds, only 16% have a direct connection with news brands. More than twice as many (38%) prefer social media for their news. Developing a relationship with Gen Z is an important target for publishers’ long-term sustainability.

News surge

Overall, the majority of consumers report that the news media did a good job in helping them understand the details of the pandemic. However, close to one-third (32%) reported that the news media sensationalized the seriousness of the situation. The coronavirus also showcased the need for local news, however long-term demand (and support) is in question.

With quality journalism in demand, digital news publishers must be highly consumer focused. Given that close to three quarters of consumers using backdoors to access their content, publishers need to increase their focus on brand value and customer experience. The 18-24-year-olds are a focal point for growth. And fostering a relationship with this younger demographic holds strong promise for news brands.

Industry-Research

Content moderation is serious business. Social platforms need to act like it

Content moderation is a big job for social platforms (i.e. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube). Much of the content posted on these sites is made up of user-generated postings, pictures, and videos. However, there is a sizeable amount of content from rogue publishers to contend with as well. At present, it is common practice for social platforms to outsource the role of content moderation.

NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights’ new report, authored by Paul Barrett, focuses on Facebook and questions its strategy of outsourcing content moderation. Facebook, by far, outsources the largest number moderators of all the tech platforms. Barrett makes the case that content moderation is central to social platforms’ business. Thus, as with other core business functions, Facebook should make this vital role that of a full-time company employee. To improve moderation, Barrett contends that Facebook must bring moderators in-house and increase the number from the current 15,000 to 30,000.

Outsourcing

According to Barrett, Facebook’s outsourcing was a purposeful decision. Their reasoning goes beyond the cost of bringing these employees in house. It is also a logistical – even strategic – decision to outsource moderation.

Sarah Roberts, an expert on content moderation at the University of California, comments that Facebook and other social media companies outsource moderation to minimize its level of importance. Roberts’ refers to this as “plausible deniability.” She explains, the work is mission critical. However, your full time employees don’t handle it directly. The company intentionally places a physical distance between the problem and its staff.

Facebook contracts third-party vendors, which hire temporary workers located at 20 sites worldwide. With the assistance of AI, this army of contract-moderators sift through approximately three million posts a day.

Business paradox

Facebook’s core business model centers on advertising. The goal of the platform is to add new users, to increase scale. This drives advertising revenues, which demonstrates growth to Wall Street. However, there is an intrinsic problem here. More users create ever more content to be moderated. This puts moderators on a hamster wheel with no end in sight.

With such a high volume of moderation, and a minimal level of content expertise, errors occur. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s CEO, quoted a 10% error rate in flagging content that should be taken down or taking down content that should not be flagged. Given this margin, there are at least 300,000 mistakes each day. Some of these are very serious mistakes. 

The consequences

What are the repercussions of postings remaining online when they should be taken down? There’s little risk for Facebook, at least within the U.S. Due to the Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, internet platforms are protected from liability for most content posted by users. Even with President Trump’s recent executive order to roll back Section 230, tech company protection from liability still appears in place.

Unfortunately, there are consequences for the workers. In a recent class action lawsuit against Facebook in San Mateo County, California, a group of former reviewers claimed that “as a result of constant and unmitigated exposure to highly toxic and extremely disturbing images,” they had suffered “significant psychological trauma and/or post-traumatic stress disorder.”

Facebook agreed, without admitting any liability, in May 2020 to settle the suit. The settlement could distribute millions of dollars to more than 10,000 current and former moderators in the U.S. (a minor slap on the wrist for a company that earns more than $70 billion dollar per year).

Importantly, there are also serious consequences for multitudes Facebook users as well. One such incident identified members of the Myanmar military as operatives behind a systematic campaign on Facebook to target the country’s Muslim Rohingya minority group. Facebook was warned of anti-Rohingya rhetoric and false claims posted on their platform (which were not removed). The United Nations and others blame on Facebook for the murder of more than 10,000 Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar and the displacement of hundreds of thousands more. Facebook eventually concluded there was a deliberate and covert Myanmar military operations but again there was no liability on their part.

Incidences like those in Myanmar also happened in Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Ethiopia, as well as other places.

Time for change

Barrett concludes his report with eight recommendations to change Facebook current practices:

  1. Stop outsourcing content moderation and bring the process in-house.  
  2. Increase the number of moderators from 15,000 to 30,000 to improve the review process.
  3. Hire someone to oversee content and fact-checking who reports directly to the CEO or COO.
  4. Expand moderation in at-risk countries in Asia, Africa, and other areas.
  5. Provide all moderators with quality medical and psychiatric access.
  6. Support research on the health risks of content moderation.
  7. Explore targeted government regulation regarding harmful content.
  8. Expand fact-checking to discredit false information.

Companies routinely outsource areas outside their expertise. However, this practice is far from common for areas core to their business. Content moderation is an area of expertise that Facebook needs to possess, and excel, in for the safety of its employees and Facebook users worldwide.

Industry-Research

Adding algorithms in the newsroom can help build trust

Building trust in the news media is a careful balance in accuracy, bias, and transparency. Unfortunately, news brands today don’t live in isolation. Adding social media to the mix alters this balance with its potential amplification of inaccurate, out-right fake, and politically manipulated news stories. With a surge in digital news consumption, it is important to examine new strategies to renew consumer trust.

Newly honored research from the University of Florida  Consortium on Trust in Media and Technology offers insight into the value of adding algorithmic reporting to human bylines to increase positive perception of news coverage. T. Franklin Waddell research, Can an Algorithm Reduce the Perceived Bias of News? Testing the Effect of Machine Attribution on News Readers’ Evaluations of Bias, Anthropomorphism, and Credibility, examines the premise that machine-based news stories are objective and “free from bias.”

Adding machines to the process

Waddell conducted an online experiment to test this premise. He tested author attribution: journalist vs. algorithm vs. combined authorship from two news outlets (MSNBC vs. Fox News) on two story topics (Khan Conflict vs. Paris Accord). In all, there were 612 participants who were asked to read a news article that was written by either a journalist, an algorithm, or by a journalist and algorithm together.

After reading the article, the respondents were asked questions on article credibility, perceived bias, and the personification of human characteristics. Waddell’s research also explored whether news attributed to an automated author is perceived as less biased and more credible than news attributed to a human author.

Credibility results

The results of the study showed that algorithms were perceived as less biased than human authors. Machine attribution decreased perceptions of bias, which then related to message credibility. In other words, the research found that news automation aids credibility and helps to reduce the perception of bias.

More importantly, machine and human sources combined offered a more favorable credibility outcome and the perceived bias was less than a human or machine source alone.

Transparency

The research also discusses the importance of messaging this combined journalistic approach to news consumers.  Waddell found a positive impact on message credibility when using a combined byline of journalist and machine. Additional research needs to be conducted on specific labeling and consistency to accurately describe the degree of automation used as well as to heighten the credibility of the news products.

Waddell’s findings that bias perceptions lessen when news is attributed to a combined partnership of human journalist and machine automation is significant. While there are concerns about biases built in to AI itself, these research insights offer a promising step that could have a positive impact on consumer trust in media news. Automation alone does not appear to be the answer. But, along with historical context, background information and fact checking, it offers a starting point. And it is critical for the news media to explore ways in which it can reinforce the credibility of quality journalism.

Industry-Research

Research reveals the scope of Google’s digital ecosystem dominance

Fifty state attorneys general in the U.S. are looking into Google’s abuse of market power and use of anti-competitive conduct in the digital advertising market. These investigations are as complex as they are numerous. However, a new report from the Omidyar Network offers insight into the core issues under examination.  

Roadmap for a Digital Advertising Monopolization Case Against Google showcases the company’s market power, which it achieved through orchestrated acquisitions and vertical integration. The authors, Fiona M. Scott Morton and David C. Dinielli, delve deeply into the Market Study Interim Digital Report produced by the UK’s Competition and Market Authority (CMA) to continue the narrative. The detailed report includes a description of markets relevant to allegations of antitrust and a detailed explanation of anticompetitive conduct. It outlines and explores 20 specific instances. These showcase Google’s market dominance and the harm that causes to competition and consumers.

Key points

Audience and inventory

Citing the CMA report, 95% of all web users in the U.K. access at least one Google site or app each month. YouTube, a Google product, reaches 91% of the total U.K. web audience. And when it comes to inventory, Google Search is approximately 90% of the total supply. Serving as the main point of entry for the internet and controlling most of the supply for search advertising and a sizeable supply for display (especially open display and video) are strong indicators of market power.

Advertising intermediation

Google’s many data services, together with its stack, dominate the ad tech ecosystem, which targets and places digital ads. Google holds an overwhelmingly high market share in three functions plus in data services: the publisher ad server market is (90%+), the supply side platform/inventory (40–60%), and the demand side platform (50–70%).

Google’s role in advertising intermediation

Providing all of the functions in the ad stack allows Google to, essentially, manage the price. In the digital ecosystem there is a price charged by each intermediary in the ad tech supply chain (take rate). The take rate is the difference between what the advertiser pays and what the publisher receives. The CMA estimates Google’s take rate is at 40%, given it provides all the functions in the ad stack. In other words, Google keeps 40 cents of every advertising dollar.

Further, actions by Google can paralyze aspects of the market. Earlier this year, Google announced plans to retire the third-party “cookie.” The cookies websites place on a user’s browser to identify each unique user. This enables intermediaries in the ad stack to track consumers as they visit different sites. Google doesn’t rely on cookies in order to place targeted ads and track attribution. Its sites, aps, and devices collect user data. Google has no problem identifying users for targeting practices with or without the cookie. However, retiring the cookie has direct and negative implications for others in the ad stack.

Market dependency

Advertisers and publishers alike continue to use Google’s intermediation services. Otherwise, they can’t connect to Google’s must-have supply (YouTube and publisher inventory) or must-have demand (advertiser dollars). As a result, competitors have exited or become competitively irrelevant. A clear example is the fact that Google currently maintains a 90% share of the publisher ad server market, which means most ads cannot reach a publisher’s site without the go-ahead of Google.

This report clearly and persuasively demonstrates Google’s monopolistic practices. It provides an excellent resource for any researching the company and should inform the investigation by the states’ attorneys general and the U.S. Department of Justice.

Advertising | Industry-Research

ISBA’s new research challenges the programmatic supply chain

The promise of programmatic advertising has always been its ability to target the right audiences, in the right context, at the right time. Buy and sell side participants look to maximize advertising opportunities, at the best possible price, leveraging technology to efficiently and smartly manage decision making in a dynamic environment. Unfortunately, the truth is far from the promise. Today’s programmatic ecosystem is far from delivering on trust, transparency, and efficiency across the digital marketplace.

A groundbreaking new report from ISBA, the British advertiser group, Programmatic Supply Chain Transparency Study, offers an end-to-end analysis of the programmatic supply chain that uncovers many of the reasons programmatic is failing to deliver on its promise. ISBA, in partnership with UK publisher organization AOP, commissioned PwC to conduct this two-year-long study that outlines the deep complexities of the ecosystem and the revenue impacts on advertisers and publishers.

The findings overwhelming speak to the complexity and the need to reform the programmatic advertising supply chain.

Complex ecosystem generates tracking chaos

The study set out to track every impression. However, only 12% (31 million) of the total 267 million impressions were effectively identified through the supply chain.

In total, there were more than 1,000 distinct supply chains detected across the 15 advertisers. The 31 million tracked impressions were matched end-to-end across 290 supply chains to the 12 publishers. The multitude of supply chain combinations adds opaque layers and complexity to the programmatic marketplace.

Publishers receive only 51% of all advertising spend

The waterfall of advertising spend shows 34% of all ad dollars goes to agency fees, DSP and SSP fees, and tech fees. Unattributable costs account for 15%.

The 15% unknown delta – nearly one-third of the supply chain costs – represents winning bids in the DSPs that could not be matched to any gross revenue recorded in the SSPs. There are many possibilities for the unknown delta, such as DSP or SSP fees that aren’t visible to post-auction, bid shading or post-auction financing arrangements, foreign exchange rates or reseller participation. However, no data provided mapped to the 15% delta

The study included 15 advertisers, 12 agencies, five DSPs, six SSPs and 12 publishers and represents approximately £0.1 billion of the UK’s programmatic ad spend or nearly two-thirds of the AOP’s digital ad revenues.

The ISBA research demonstrates a clear need to reboot. The starting zone needs to include contractual reviews, standardization of taxonomies, definitions and data protocols with an overarching focus on transparency across the board for all participants. Further, if the digital marketplace is to thrive, the industry must find ways to drive a higher percentage of advertising spend to publishers.

Industry-Research

Newsroom staffs were in steep decline even before the pandemic

According to a recent analysis from Pew Research Institute, newsroom employment in the U.S. dropped 23%, year-over year. The situation has been severely exacerbated by Covid-19. In fact, by April 10th, the media industry had already seen 36,000 layoffs attributed to the economic effects of the pandemic. The situation has grown so dire that last month, the News Media Alliance and America’s Newspaper sent a letter to Congress and President Trump asking the government to provide direct support to local newsrooms.

A decade of decline

Pew’s new research highlights the plight of diminishing newsrooms across the country at a time when Americans are in extreme need of local news. They found that, in all, there were about 114,000 newsroom employees (reporters, editors, photographers, and videographers) across the industry sectors of newspaper, radio, broadcast TV, cable and other information services in 2008. In 2019, there were only 88,000. Now with recent layoffs due to the financial impact of Covid-19, newsrooms are being reduced at an alarming rate.

The research shows that most of the newsroom declines occurred between 2008 to 2014. From 2014 to 2019, the number of total newsroom employees remained at 88,000. While four of the five key newsroom industries remained relatively stable, newspaper newsroom employees declined by 51%. In 2018, newspaper newsrooms had as many as 71,000 workers across the U.S. Today the number of employees is approximately 35,000.

Further, across the five industries of newsrooms, job growth only occurred the digital-native news platform. The number of digital-native newsroom employees more than doubled (117%) from 7,400 workers in 2008 to about 16,100 in 2019.

Shrinking newsrooms now account for a significantly smaller portion of overall newspaper employment, from 62% in 2008 to 40% in 2019. Needless to say, the pandemic is devastating revenues across media outlets. None have been entirely immune to its economic and staffing impacts.

Business model shifts

Shifts in business models are taking place to compensate news publishers for their content after years of social platforms disruption of content monetization. The Australian government announced on April 21, 2020 that Google and Facebook would have to pay publishers for their news content in their country. This monumental decision requires compensation for news articles displayed on Facebook pages or in Google search result. This is an important move to ensure tech platforms pay for the content fueling their advertising revenue growth.  

Newsrooms must monetize their content to survive. Identifying ways to support and compensate publishers for their content on platforms outside their owned and operated sites is critical to sustain the media ecosystem.

Advertising | DCN-Research

It’s time to align data practices with consumer expectations

From General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) regulations in the Europe Union to the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), consumer privacy is a focal point for digital media. These new data privacy and security laws speak to the need to reassess the collection and use of personal information in the digital media ecosystem. Importantly, it is time to review consumer expectations around current online data collection practices.

To better understand consumer expectations with online data collection practices, Digital Content Next (DCN) surveyed a nationally representative sample of adults in the U.S. Over the past few years, DCN has also queried consumers to better understand expectations for Google and Facebook, as public examination of tracking by major tech platforms became a critical focus.

Get personal

Overall, consumers expect websites and apps to collect data about them to personalize, protect and improve their experience. In sharp contrast, consumers do not expect outside vendors to collect data about them for reuse or sale.

When consumers are asked specifically about their expectations about the data practices of outside vendors, few are comfortable with the future reuse (38%) or the sales (24%) of their data. Interestingly, when consumers are provided with a clear explanation of how their data will be used and the benefit (i.e. such as collecting online data to identify consumers across devices), their expectations better align with the practice (47%).

Opt out

Understanding there is an option to be tracked shows low awareness. Only half of all U.S. adults (52%) report that they are aware of ways they can choose not to participate in online data collection.

Consumers also report a limited understanding of what it means to “opt out” or how to opt out of online data collection. Fewer consumers stated they opted out of online data collection or will in the next 30 days (40% combined) than those who do not know how to or do not understand what it means to opt out (44% combined).

How to

Unfortunately, the top consumer actions for opting out of online data collection are quite ineffective. Deleting cookies or turning them off often results in turning off both 1st and 3rd party cookies. First-party cookies offer consumers a seamless log-in and authentications process for subscriptions and memberships. Removing these cookies, can actually lead to a frustrating user experience. Regrettably, the “Do Not Track” signal is ignored by many tech companies. Also, consumer use of ad blockers penalizes the entire media ecosystem including the publishers and their advertisers.

Expectations

As an outcome of opting out of online data collection, most consumers expect more privacy, a better internet experience and enhanced security.

The research findings show the importance of aligning data collection practices with consumer expectations. Consumers do understand the need for websites and apps to collect online data. However, there’s a major disconnect with 3rd parties reusing in the future or selling this data. Importantly, it’s critical to understand what consumers demand, align expectations to those demands to help grow trust in our industry.

If you are a DCN publisher member, please be sure to log in or register to access the special member’s only Report, which will appear below this notice once you have logged in.

Industry-Research

Calculating the value of media content

As media companies look to their portfolio of brands to build or maintain their role as content destinations, it’s important to evaluate the production and consumption cycles of their news and entertainment content. To better understand these cycles and their business implications, the World Economic Forum (WEF) surveyed more than 9,100 consumers in China, Germany, India, South Korea, the United Kingdom and the United States. WEF also conducted six workshops with approximately 100 executives across the media industry to supplement their findings. Their new report, Understanding Value in Media: Perspectives from Consumers and Industry, offers key insights for the digital media marketplace.

Destinations versus ecosystems

WEF makes an important distinction between content players. There are content destinations, those companies where their content is the end point for consumers, such as a TV series or a news article. In contrast, content ecosystems are media companies, such as Amazon and Apple where the content is used as a tool to generate incremental revenue from their existing users. Another distinction is that destination media companies compete to become leaders in their respective areas, whereas ecosystem players are there to capture time, spend and data.

Content engagement is strong

Consumers are engaged with news and entertainment media as daily touchpoints. Eight in 10 consumers listen, read or watch news while nine in 10 watch entertainment content within a 24-hour time period. Further, close to 60% of consumers qualify as fully engaged, defined here as those who completed some form of registrations, either free or paid. In terms of future prospect, 53% report a willingness to pay for news in the future, up from 16% who pay today and 70% are willing to pay for entertainment content, up from 44%.

Young consumers, ages 16 to 34, are the most likely to pay for content. An average of 61% currently pay for entertainment content and 17% for news.

Generating revenue

Paid news and entertainment services, now a complement to advertising sales revenue, may serve as the future alternative to ad sales. Currently, more than two-thirds of news publications (69%) in Europe and the US operate some form of metered access.

Consumers report a global willingness to pay for content with 35% agreeing that they should be responsible for paying for and funding access to news and 44% agreeing for entertainment. They also expect governments to play a role in funding news compared to entertainment (35% versus 18% respectively). The findings suggest that consumers recognize the importance of news publishers to ensure a healthy political discourse. Further, close to a quarter of consumers think that tech platforms should also be responsible for supporting and paying for content.

Key strategies for publishers

In moving forward, publishers need to strategic and thoughtful in their approaches to the media business. WEF identified three key strategies:

Identify economies of scale

Publishers must focus on growing subscriptions by expanding audiences. Seemingly already in progress, publishers continue to identify new products to market to current subscribers as well as news prospects. This strategy extends to technology and telecoms offering products across media verticals (e.g. Verizon and ATT).

Make the consumer the primary customer

This approach looks to match consumers’ interests with marketing that speaks directly to them. Usually this is a combination of unique content and personalization. WEF’s research shows evidence that consumers are willing to pay more for personalized media and tailored content and it also helps with churn rate. 

Focus on identity

The “identity economy” refers to expenditures on products and services to form self‑expressions for consumers. Major advertisers are building closer alignment with identities and values in order to create a relationship with consumers. Some brands execute by sharing a brand values or partnering with a cause (companies giving proceeds to charity, etc.).

As the digital marketplace continues to grow, it’s important to pay close attention to how ecosystem companies integrate media into their activities. Publishers need to continue to think about the supply and demand of their content. It’s time to rethink the process of content creation, monetization and discovery especially in a media ecosystem and in an on-demand environment.

Industry-Research

Survey confirms Covid-19 news differs by source, often with misinterpretation

Results from a new Pew Research Center study show that consumers perceive news differently about Covid-19 based on as their main source of political news. The research asked consumers to identify their single most source for political and election news. The responses ranged from the three commercial broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) to The New York Times, NPR, CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC, as well as individual social media sites. The data reflected here represents the three major cable news networks: CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC.

Factual orientation

Consumers were asked if had seen mostly the same set of facts or conflicting sets of facts about the pandemic across various main news source. Three-quarters of all Americans who identified MSNBC as their main news source stated they had mostly seen the same facts. Of those who named FOX News as their main news source, only 53% reported that they saw consistent facts on the network. For those whose main source was cited as CNN, 65% stated that they mostly saw consistent facts.

While networks offer news reporting as well as opinion and commentary-based programming, the comprehension of truly factual information appears to be compromised. For example, one in four of FOX News consumers (39%) report that the virus originated in a laboratory (either intentionally or unintentionally).  Only 37% of Fox News consumers report the virus came about naturally. In contrast, 66% of MSNBC consumers report that they believe the virus came about naturally.

Further, consumers referring to MSNBC as their main political news source are far more likely to say the media covered the outbreak somewhat to very well (92%) compared to the Fox News followers at 58%. Followers of MSNBC are also much less likely than those who name Fox News as their main political news source to say the media exaggerated the risks posed by the pandemic (35% of the MSNBC group vs. 79% of the Fox News group).

Once again, consumers who refer to CNN as their main news source fall in between the MSNBC group and the FOX group (82% rate the media as doing somewhat or very well covering the outbreak; 54% say the media exaggerated the risks).

Political make-up

While not surprising, it’s interesting to see empirical data regarding political affiliation and how it differs by main news source. Slightly more than three-quarters of those who name Fox News as their main political news source identify the viewers then conservative Republicans and Republican-leaners, while 57% who name MSNBC identify as liberal Democrats and Democratic-leaners. Approximately four in 10 Americans (38%) who name CNN as their main political news source identify as liberal Democrats, with another 40% stating they are moderate or conservative Democrats.

Regardless of consumers’ political affiliation, the Pew research findings suggest that editorial commentary across the networks can distort facts. News outlets needs to identify, perhaps in BIG BOLD LETTERS, what is factual and what is personal commentary to help consumers distinguish between the two formats.

Uncategorized

On the alert for filter bubbles

There are currently no products, vaccines or drugs approved to treat or cure the coronavirus. However, that wasn’t the news on social media. There was much misinformation and many false claims populating consumer news feeds. In fact, Facebook is now coordinating with health organizations to make accurate information about the virus easier to find. Unfortunately, there are still many paths to misinformation.

Platform algorithms selectively guess what information a user would like to see. By filtering content, these platforms sort out news that we may disagree with or dislike. Filter bubbles narrow the opportunity to learn from differing perspectives and that’s cause for concern. Richard Fletcher at the Reuters Institutes explores these concerns in his study, The truth behind filter bubbles: bursting some myths.

Further, with heightened interest in Corona news, consumers seek platforms (e.g. Facebook, Google, Twitter) for their daily updates. It implores us to try to understand the impact of filter bubbles created by socially curated and algorithmically driven news content.

Personalization

Fletcher’s study contends that offline news sources, without algorithms, provide a natural filter effect. Offline readers self-select their new sources. The report refers to this as self-selected personalization. It’s the personalization we do by selecting what newspapers to buy, what TV channels to watch, and at the same time which ones to avoid.  

In contrast, online news consumption is often about pre-selected personalization, where choices are made for consumers by algorithms, without the consumer’s knowledge or understanding. Social media includes both self-selected personalization and pre-selected personalization. We know that people may choose to follow certain news outlets and not others. Algorithms offer no choice; they are not exposing people to news items outside of their interests or likes.

Polarization

Significantly, Fletcher’s research investigates the level of polarization that exists in online news consumption compared to offline news environment. The research looked at 12 different countries and found in general, online news environments are more polarizing than offline.

It’s important as consumers continue to receive their news on social platforms, that they actively seek out a range of news brands. Further, platforms are changing the way they serve news to people each day. It’s essential for the media industry, consumers and social advocates to critically examine the effects of algorithmic selection on news impact on society. Social platforms effort to ensure accurate information on the Coronavirus is easily accessible is a step in the right direction.

Industry-Research

Republicans are more likely than Democrats to suffer from news fatigue

Most Americans are stressed by the amount of news they get each day. In fact, this sentiment has been building for some time. According to a Pew Institute study seven in 10 Americans (66%) feel worn out by the amount of news they are getting. The study was conducted among more than 12,000 U.S. adults.

The news cycle is faster than ever before coupled with instant notifications on cell phones. Today, the news comes at the consumer 24/7. Yet those watching or reading the news feel a sense of detachment.

Political differences

Interestingly, news fatigue is more common among those the least politically engaged. Even consumers not engaged in political or election news report feeling exhausted from it. There’s a similar attitude for those more generally interacting with political. Consumer who discuss politics a few times a month report feeling drained by the news by at least 10% more than those who engage in political news almost every day (69% vs. 59%, respectively).

Republicans are more likely than Democrats to feel wiped out by their news intake. Seventy-five percent of Republicans report being exhausted from the news compared to 59% of Democrats.  This same gap was reflected in 2018.

The toll

This Pew Institute study show the consistent impact of news consumption on consumers.  The reality of a 24/7 news cycle and its immediate availability appears to be taking psychological toll on consumers.

Immediate questions to ask include whether consumers will begin to tune-out and distance themselves from their sources. Publishers may want to talk to their readers to provide context and healthy distancing patterns in order for news content to be less stressful in the consumption process.  

Industry-Research

How flagging content really affects the perception of truthfulness

In an attempt to act responsibly, social platforms now flag content that is certain to be false. However, flagging disputed content has some unintended consequences. False headlines that aren’t flagged are often thought to be true. In fact, according to new research, The Implied Truth Effect, conducted by Gordon Pennycook, Adam Bear, Evan T. Collins, and David G. Ran, false headlines that fail to get tagged are viewed as more accurate. Thus, the research appropriately questions whether the policy of using warning tags to fight misinformation is effective.

False news headlines with flagging

This research includes two studies. In the first, the control group was shown both true and false news headlines without any warning labels. The test group was shown both true and false headlines; the false news headlines included warning labels. Participants were asked how accurate the headlines were and if they would consider sharing the story on social media (such as Facebook or Twitter).

The first study confirms that content with warning labels decreased the belief in items that are flagged (the Warning Effect) but increases belief in items that are untagged (the Implied Truth Effect). In other words, headlines that were not flagged in the test group, were rated as more accurate, by at least one-third, than those in the control group

True news headlines with flagging

The second test included a control group and two test groups. Participants were presented with news headlines and asked whether they would share on social media. They were told that 75% of the headlines had been fact-checked by Snopes.com.

The control group was shown true and false news headlines without any labeling. The first test group was shown false news headlines, half with a “FALSE” stamp and the other half without any stamps. The second test group was shown false news headlines with a “FALSE” stamp and true news headlines with a “TRUE” stamp.

The findings show that participants in the first test group were less likely to consider sharing false headlines tagged with a warning compared to false headlines in the control group. Further, participants in the second test group were more likely to consider sharing true headlines tagged with a verification compared to true headlines in the control group.

W = Warning, W+V = Warning + Verification

This research identifies the consequence of attaching warnings to some inaccurate headlines but not all. It’s safe to assume that a large percentage of false headlines will continue to appear on social platforms and remain untagged. However, it is important to note that it may be even more valuable to tag true headlines.

Labeling truthful and verified headlines helps consumer identify what is true and suggests that everything outside this stamp is potentially false. While this research was is experimental in its design, it’s important to take next steps to explore the impact of full stories. Future work should investigate the impact of warnings on the users’ likelihood of clicking through to read the full articles, and the impact on sharing after reading the article.

©2024 Digital Content Next. All Rights Reserved.