searchengineland: When it comes to getting general news and information, consumers worldwide put as much trust in search engines as they do in traditional media — and more in both than they do in social media. Also interesting in the Edelman Trust Barometer 2012 (where the data above come from), media was the only institution to …
[From Executive Summary]
Trust in NGOs remains high, with an overall 88 percent of countries surveyed over 50 percent (the highest is Mexico, an emerging market, at 83 percent; the lowest is Japan, a developed market, at 37 percent). The most notable change over time is in China, where only ﬁve years ago trust in NGOs was 48 percent; today it is 81 percent. Three of the top ﬁve countries with the highest trust in NGOs, like China, are emerging markets.
Trust in media, at 57 percent globally, continues to improve with a ﬁve-point increase from 2012. Sixty-two percent of countries surveyed have a trust score of 50 percent or above, compared to 50 percent of countries surveyed in 2008. Trust is signiﬁcantly higher in emerging countries than in developed countries (ﬁgure 3). Large gaps in trust also exist in how the general population view types of media, with emerging markets placing more trust in social by 32points, traditional by 14 points, online search engines by 24 points, hybrid by 24 points and owned by 22 points. Trust in media breaks down along generational lines, as well. Among all ages in the general population, trust in traditional media and online search engines is highest. But trust in the other three categories of media drops among older generations particularly (age 45+) to an average of 34.5 percent for hybrid, 34 percent for owned and 33 percent for social. Among the youngest generation (ages 18-29), trust is highest in online search engines (61 percent) and lowest in owned media (44 percent).
While China Daily does not entirely avoid critical engagement with state policy, it tends to report on the topic within very narrow bounds. Don’t hold your breath for much in the way of speaking truth to power. China ranked sixth from bottom in the Freedom of Information index 2011-2012, rubbing shoulders with the likes of Iran, Syria and Turkmenistan. In October, China’s state agencies closed and interrupted sites from the New York Times and the BBC after the New York Times’s report on the family wealth of Premier Wen Jiabao. The Ethiopian government is reported to have taken $1.5bn in Chinese loans for training and technology to help its own efforts to block websites, according to the the New York Times.
China Daily’s backers might retort that the current China-Africa narrative, beset by hyperbole and inaccuracy, hardly shows journalism at its best. And they would be right. Talk of ‘floods’ of Chinese migrant labourers, for instance, might apply to Algeria, but not Ethiopia, where nationals are well represented in the payroll of Chinese firms. China’s government has done business both with sanctioned states like Sudan, as well as stable and democratic ones like Mauritius and Ghana . Talk of China’s involvement in ‘100 dams’ in Africa, meanwhile, have little evidence to back them up, said%
The FT reports in December 2012 on China Daily’s new weekly Africa edition.
How the media should cover media policy related stories is always a difficult issue. Newspapers, of course, have their own interests to consider as well as those of their readers. Is it acceptable that they should use their influence to protect their own interests, or should they always give a balanced view of the issues?
The coverage of the Savile scandal and McAlpine by the BBC had serious flaws. But the BBC did eventually show that it was capable of setting its own journalistic watchdogs to work on itself, putting public interest journalism before any narrowly defined corporate interest.
Now it is the turn of the Press. Over the coming days, we will see the extent to which newspapers can bracket off their own interests and give a balanced view of the Leveson Report, including the criticisms he is likely to make of the press.
For media researchers it is an interesting laboratory in which to study the press. Will they report Leveson in a balanced way, or will they will use their power to turn public opinion against the report or its author? Will they skate over what is likely to be excoriating critique of newspapers, and try to rubbish the recommendations? Or will they give some space to criticism?
After all, one of the key issues Leveson himself has been pondering is whether, because of their ability to shape public opinion, the press, or elements
The reach and anonymity of the web have made engaging in abusive, malicious, and criminal online behavior more common and less costly while greatly amplifying its effects. Online forums, news portals, and social media channels are flooded with sexually explicit language and hate speech, threats of violence and malicious links, and phony offers from fraudulent accounts that distract from and drown out intelligent conversation. Types of mal.content, like the people and behaviors that generate it, vary greatly in motivation and intent. One trait they all share, however, is the potential to inflict real damage to your users, your brand, and your bottom line.