New media is dependant on association for credibility, according to an online credibility survey conducted by Belo Interactive, in conjunction with the Associated Press Managing Editors and the Ford Foundation. Majority of people are more likely to consider an Internet news source credible if it is associated with a print or broadcast organization they are familiar with.
Respondents also think that the Internet provides the second least credible information amongst four mediums.
Yet, almost all of them highly value accurate information when using the Internet as a news source.
Why we need to establish the credibility of new media
The advent of new media has made accessible more information from more sources to more people than ever before. And as much as this brings opportunities, it also creates much ado about veracity.
But with 84 per cent of respondents using the Internet more frequently than other news sources and 66 per cent before other news sources – all this while believing it less reliable – we need to make the credibility of new media comparable to its popularity.
How audience evaluate and how we can enhance the credibility of new media
As new media students, it is imperative that we learn how to be responsible producers for the discerning consumer illustrated above.
While the new age adage of better late than wrong to facilitate fact-checking is the cornerstone of credibility online, there are additional factors we, too, should consider.
Increased transparency
Executive editor Mark Glaser of PBS.org's Mediashift blog, which charts the technological changes in journalism, reckons increased transparency in new media can encourage trust. According to him, exposing your background and biases allows consumers to know their source, thereby promoting trust.
Similarly, Stephen Downes of daily newsletter OLDaily, who is also a senior researcher at the National Research Council of Canada, believes that making your motives, or the frame or worldview you are promoting, known is honest and therefore makes you trustworthy. This includes revealing any forms of sponsorship or financing for your new media platform.
Access to source
Downes also highlights the significance of providing your original source to complement your report. This quells any speculation that you may have misrepresented the content or quoted out of context.
The New York Times has also recommended in its report to give readers greater access to raw material such as key source documents, interview transcripts and databases.
By incorporating such elements tailored to increase credibility, we can push the quality of new media to match the height of its popularity.
Discussion
Here is some food for thought we can discuss:
What is your personal perception of the credibility of new media?
How do you think audience perception of the credibility of new media will evolve in the next few years?
Are there any other ways through which we can enhance the credibility of new media?
Feel free to share your views under the comments section!
Hi Kay,
ReplyDeleteI personally feel that the credibility of the new media is dependent on the source. As mentioned in your first paragraph, I thoroughly agree that I would consider a news source credible if the source is associated with a familiar print or broadcast organisation. I guess the establishment and reputation of the organisation lends credibility to the content as compared to other sources that may be lesser known.
I also think that while there may be means of enhancing the credibility of the new media, such as lending an expert voice in content, there are far more ways to decrease its credibility. And there is almost no way of stopping or censoring information that is inaccurate because of the freedom we enjoy in the internet.
In relation to Shea's topic, I think that exercising social responsibility in providing accurate information is one of the ways we can enhance the credibility of the new media.
Jovita Chua 0704536B
Hi Kay,
ReplyDeleteThis is an eye-opening post on the credibility of new media! I felt it somewhat absurd that people turn to the internet as a news source while "believing it less reliable", and yet I've realised I do the same.
I agree with Jovita's mention of Shea's topic - the credibility of new media depends on the level of social responsibility in cyberspace.
However, I think the perception of credibility, (which would lead to trust in a news source), is driven by common usage. How many of us actually question whether traditional news sources like the newspapers or television are truely reliable? The general population turn to and trust them daily for news, and in the next decade or so - we'll probably get so used to using the internet for news that we'll stop questioning whether it's a trustworthy source.
Other ways to enhance new media's credibility include dedicating full-time jobs to fact-checking and approving/disapproving of news websites. With the prevalence of the internet and such dependence on it as an information source, I think such jobs are definately in need!
Aubrey
0706227F
Hi Kay,
ReplyDeleteI feel that the credibility of the new media is dependent on the source. I would agree with what is mentioned in the first paragraph that i would only consider a news source credible if the source is associated with a familiar broadcast organization.
Therefore i think that not all the information on the internet can be deem as credible.
Hi Kay! As Weiren had said, I think that the credibility of new media depends on the source.
ReplyDeleteLike when Michael Jackson's death was reported, another article stated for a fact that Michael Jackson had actually died a few years ago, buried in his Neverland estate, and the one who recently died was an imposter who was hired to cover up the supposed "real" Michael's death a few years ago.
Sounds incredible huh? But there're some people who actually believed it. To me, some common sense and wisdom needs to be exercised when it comes to new media news.
Sharon
0805656F
Hello kay!
ReplyDeleteI agree with what sharon and weiren had mentioned... Credibility of new media depends on the source.
However, even if the source is from familiar organisation or prints, it does not necessary mean that it is credible... It all depends on whether the organisation is providing information for entertainment purposes or something.
Fiona
0800748F
Hi Kay,
ReplyDeleteI think credibility vs speed is an important battle that is being waged daily online when it comes to news reporting. Post the latest but potentially inaccurate news as an exclusive before anyone else does, or wait a while to ensure that it's genuine and risk other sites posting the same thing.
A combination of both would be ideal. TMZ.com has been that in recent times, reporting on the deaths of several celebrities before anyone else, with startling accuracy.
Shea John Driscoll
0701154G
Hello!
ReplyDeleteI think Jovita brought up a good point about social responsibility being the key to generating credible content. Even if we allow access to our sources, we fall short of credible if these sources do not provide reliable data.
Aubrey mentioned that common usage in the case of newspapers and TV promotes credibility, but I think credibility promotes common usage. These traditional sources must have been credible, thereby encouraging continued use.
And while fact-checking will definitely amp up credibility, I don't think it is practical or even possible to do so for the "prevalence" of news websites, even if we dedicate full-time jobs to it. There are simply too many!
The MJ report Sharon highlighted is a good example of, as she puts it, how we should exercise "some common sense and wisdom." And that includes cross-referencing with other sources and understanding each particular source's background. This example is also in line with Fiona's point - perhaps the report was but a wry attempt, albeit in bad taste, at entertainment?
As Shea explained, speed is the greatest obstacle to credibility and vice versa. It will perhaps always be a see-saw, but content producers can attempt to strike a better balance by always referencing and cross-referencing the most reliable sources.
Jovita pointed out that there are "far more ways" to decrease credibility. Can anyone name a few such practices so we can take a look at what we shouldn't do on top of what we should?
Hi Kay,
ReplyDeleteI think credibility decreases when news websites provide only one factual view. For example, if a news website represents real-life attacks of racial group A on racial group B, but does not publicise the latter's attacks on the former - it would lose credibility.
Also - having too many speculations in a news article without a sufficient base in fact can decrease its credibility.
Aubrey
0706227F
Hi Aubrey,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your response!
You're right that we should take into account all possible viewpoints to ensure we get the full story. I suppose it's like telling the truth - if you tell a half-truth and get found out, you can be labelled as a liar; when we report one side of a story while other new media producers present the big picture, consumers leave with the impression that we are biased and unreliable.
I agree that too many speculations decrease credibility. In fact, trustworthy reports should contain only confirmed, factual statements - preferably no speculation unless it is a statement made by an official (professional voice).
Hi Kay
ReplyDeletePersonally, I find it hard to trust new media sources. This is because there are a lot of things that are just other people's opinion, and are thus hard to take as fact. That said, I'm not saying new media is completely unreliable, it's just that we can't take everything we see at face value.
For example, if we read something on a minister's blog, we can safely say that whatever information found there is likely to be true, because the guy has an obligation to put facts into his official blog, and he is unlikely to lie about it.
Mark Christian Klass
0906354F
Hey Kay,
ReplyDeleteWhen I first read the title of your blog, the first thing that came to my mind was 'Wikipedia'.
So far, I find it pretty credible, however, the thought of how anyone (and I mean, really ANYONE) can just change the information and 'lie' about certain things, takes the whole reliability off Wikipedia.
I think the most reliable New Media websites will always be established newsy ones such as todayonline or straittimes.com. Let's not talk about STOMP.sg here because, well we all know.
Personal blogs are definitely the least credible, since anyone can just talk about nonsense and have their followers believe what they say (defamation?).
I guess I agree with most of the comments posted that, reliability and credibility really depends on the source itself. =)
Daphne-rae Lee, 0701588F
Hi Kay,
ReplyDeleteI think that credibility of information depends on the source. But sometimes source might have some biasness in their information given. Usually big companies information seems more credible to me, because they have certain responsibility to put up information on the new media.
Wei Chong
0901463J
Credibility of information really depends on the source.
ReplyDeleteAny Tom, Dick and Harry can use the new media. But what they post may not be facts. ie. Unsupported and biased
Thats why you double check your information and triple check it. :)
Mak Ann Wei
0902851E
Hey Kay,
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Wei Chong and Ann Wei. The credibility of information in the internet really do need to depend on the source.
I've experienced reading a particular news being told differently in 2 different sources. Unless of course, the particular website has information that has credible-certified.
Farahin
0805286B
Some things that we overlook could affect our credibility as well. Simple things, even.
ReplyDeleteTake spelling for example. If someone spells many words wrongly and uses poor grammar and punctuation, would you take them seriously, as compared to someone with a perfect command of the language?
It may be all these simple things that add up as well.
-Shea John Driscoll
0701154G
Hello!
ReplyDeleteI think the knowledge of obligation being motivation (as Mark and Wei Chong pointed out) to post only credible information is the reason why new media consumers like Daphne, Ann Wei and Farahin trust based on the source. Knowing the new media producers have a price to pay should they neglect to be credible assures us what they say is true.
But as evidenced in Daphne, Ann Wei and Farahin's same comments, the irresponsibility of past and current new media producers sure has created a very hostile and challenging environment for aspiring new media producers. With little to prove their credibility, it will be immensely challenging for them to get on par with already established sources. I'd like to become a recognised citizen journalist, but it will be a sloooow climb as it stands!
And as Shea mentioned, simple details do add up, especially on the new media platform, which unfortunately has a bad rep. Paying attention to basics like spelling is a prerequisite, and mistakes will detract new media consumers 10 times more than they would on any other platform.
Hi, Kay
ReplyDeleteIn my point of view, I think the credibility of new media is very important. For example, if I want to buy something through eBay, but it is the first time for me to use it, therefore, I will doubt the reliability of seller. And if they can provide some trust document will more comfortable to buy goods online.
Hence, I think in the few years later, online shops should put more effort on the quality and credibility of new media by good customer feedback and recognized documents.
Mengying
0906481G