This article I found in the technology section of the NY Times relates to the “Filter Bubble” in many ways. About a month ago, we participated in a group activity regarding where we think most people get there news from and which source of news can be considered the most reliable. This NY Times article basically depicts the statistics received from research done. In this day and age news spreads like wildfire. News is spreading faster and further with the development of technology. Researchers found that “word of mouth” communication, emails, web posts and face-to-face conversations which are about news topics which are classified as “good news”. In my opinion I feel people are tired of getting the “bad news” (deaths, earthquakes, plagues, floods, etc.) from media such as television and radios, which is why people tend to share the “good news” through word of mouth, web emails, blogs, etc.
Also in this article is an opinion given by researchers that states news that spreads through conversation/word of mouth isn’t so reliable or credible. News spread through social media tend to be reliable sources. The article states, “We fill conversational spaces by saying what’s top of mind. But when you write something, you have the time to construct and refine what you say, so it involves more self-presentation.” Basically they are saying that the more time and thought we put in to spreading news via social media networks, the more reliable the story will become.
Any thoughts?
Here’s a link to the article if you are interested:
This is an interesting theory, but i don’t think that word of mouth is not too reliable. It depends on whose mouth the information is coming from. If the information is coming from an expert on the topic that we happen to be discussing i think that his words would be very valuable with out the editing. Also, news tend to travel in different ways because of so many different perspectives on the point trying to be depicted. This can be a good or a bad thing and the way you analyze whose point of view to listen to is by seeing who is the most credible for the information being given.
Daniel, when the article says, ““We fill conversational spaces by saying what’s top of mind. But when you write something, you have the time to construct and refine what you say, so it involves more self-presentation,” the point doesn’t seem to be that it makes more reliable; instead the point is that you are more likely to smooth away any rough edges from your story or what you’re saying. In face-to-face conversation, people blurt out things off the top of their head in ways that aren’t always so refined and polished. But when you take the time to type in (in Twitter or Facebook), you’re more likely to clean things up.
I may be straying a bit off the topic but, this post in some way reminded me of my grandmother. My grandmother is in her eighties, and is not very fluent in Nepali, where we live. So she likes to ask us from time and again, what is happening in the news and if anything is going around in the world? She is an old lady, so we normally tend to leave out the bad things in the news, which normally is most of the news anyways, so that she does not feel uneasy and her day is not spoiled. However, if there is something really good happening around, we always make sure she knows about it, because this could just turn her day upside down, and she is in a great mood for a long period of time.
And I think the article pointed out that ‘people need to be aroused one way or the other, and they preferred good news to bad’, and I hope this helps news companies change the way they broadcast news, and try to move away a bit from ‘the more suffering and mayhem, the more coverage’ part.
I can also completely relate to the piece, ‘Good News Beats Bad on Social Networks’. The news is almost always filled with ‘bad news’, however on social networks, you have the option of reading or playing videos that show something funny, hilarious, an act of kindness and that just changes your day. I normally tend to avoid anything that I know will make me feel uneasy, and yes I know I am building my own filter bubble right here, but lets just say, I am a very frail, sensitive sort of person. I cannot sleep well for days if I read something disturbing (Maybe I got it from my grandmother).
It is important for news companies to deviate away from personalizing and selling only certain types of news (bad stories) to its readers and leaving out the ‘good news.’
People tend to gravitate towards different kinds of news depending on what is happening around them (state of the economy, unemployment, personal conflicts, etc). I definitely agree that currently, its the good news that catch our attention. However, I think both word of mouth and social network posts can create a similar personal bias. I can interpret the story in my own way and pass it on in the light that I want to see it in. Yes, that is probably easier to do when I am telling the story and avoid mentioning certain details or emphasize something personally important; but on social networks it is more likely for a person to write a very opinionated post to reflect the image they want to present to their friends.