The thing is I didn’t discover this news on Twitter. For a start I don’t follow Clarence House, because frankly I’m not that interested in them (and even if I did follow everyone I found interesting I wouldn’t have time left to breathe).

But I am interested in seeing a variety of news stories; if I read only the news I gather myself then I will only ever see what I want to, and never discover anything particularly new or challenging. Curated news is still king for me, be that online or in print (and I’ve yet to find an online newspaper lying discarded in a train carriage).

Also I need to feel confident that I’ll find at least something of interest, and I want it to be written well. That takes skill in both writing and editing, and at the moment it remains the professional media that instills in me the most confidence in those areas.

Anyway, you’ve probably read far too much hot air on this subject; and so I say goodnight.

• Possibly related posts

  1. Will paid-for news create a new underclass?
  2. What works for dogs in social media doesn’t necessarily work for citizens
  3. Read All About It (In French)

• Possibly related posts

  1. The Digital Inclusion Champion hasn’t convinced me that she understands what she’s championing
  2. Young people see the media as powerful but don’t trust it: particularly not the tabloids

The research was undertaken last week by online pollsters YouGov, on behalf of the Citizenship Foundation. Almost 4,000 young people between 14 and 25 took part in the survey.

In answer to the question ‘How much, if at all, do you trust the following to tell the truth?’, journalists fared poorly. The scores for ‘little to no trust’ make worrying reading:

Or do they? Is it in fact reassuring that The Sun isn’t trusted by its vast readership, or that newspapers don’t necessarily hold as much sway over the public as maybe we believe?

Further information

• Survey results summary (pdf)
• Full survey results (pdf)

• Possibly related posts

  1. Young people don’t value the political power of social media, but they would vote
  2. Would you like more digital engagement knowledge-sharing events?
  3. Ordnance Survey OpenData: what is it? Come and discuss it at Moseley Exchange

(This is a very under-developed thought; I’m only putting it here because it’s too long for Twitter.)

I never buy the Financial Times, but I used to read the website before they started charging for content. So at that point I lost out on that news perspective. When other traditional media outlets start charging for online content I don’t expect I will want to pay for those either.

But Rupert Murdoch isn’t stupid, and I rather suspect that his paid-for news model has legs. Although there are plenty of other places to get content for free, they don’t have the same influence with the public and with policy makers; and, more importantly, they don’t command the same level of recognition and trust.

So does that mean that people who currently see themselves as connected, and to some degree influential, will either find themselves forced to pay for news content or face losing that connection?

Has the free news model given people a place in society that they are in danger of losing?

• Possibly related posts

  1. Yet another tuppence on why traditional media isn’t dead yet
  2. Young people see the media as powerful but don’t trust it: particularly not the tabloids

The House of Lords and the Hansard Society are running a competition for 11-16 year olds, in which they submit views to the Lords Communications Committee. The top for these submissions is the portrayal of young people in the media.

They might write a ‘think piece’, produce a presentation, make a short film or audio clip; all sorts. Whatever the method or format, they can draw on their own skills and experiences.

Those with the best submissions will be invited to the House of Lords to discuss their work with the Communications Committee.

Visit House of Lords Competition

• Possibly related posts

  1. Yet another tuppence on why traditional media isn’t dead yet