Why not go to the source?

  fourm member 10:10 09 Feb 14
Locked

If I'm right in thinking that Facebook 'shares' is a way of measuring the number of people reading an article, I'm puzzled to see that (at the time of writing) Nick Clegg's article in today's Observer has 139 'shares' but the article about the article has 653.

Can anyone tell me why people prefer second-hand information?

  spuds 11:57 09 Feb 14

"Can anyone tell me why people prefer second-hand information?"

Not sure what the real answer to that is, but I can only take a negative guess that some people 'select' where they want to get their information from, and are perhaps not all that intelligent in getting it from just one positive reliable source?.

Facebook and Twitter seem to be the mainstream of information nowadays for some group's of people!.

  Aitchbee 12:51 09 Feb 14

Facebook and Twitter seem to be the mainstream of information nowadays for some group's of people!.

I rely mainly on BBC R4's:-

'What The Papers Say' / 'The News Quiz' / 'The Now Show'

for all of my up-to-date second-hand-news requirements.

  Algerian peter ™ 13:57 09 Feb 14

It may be no one trusts or beleives a word Nick Clegg says and would rather seek someones interpretation of his comments.

  fourm member 14:28 09 Feb 14

Algerian peter

I fear you may be right but isn't that an admission that they don't trust their own intelligence and critical facilities?

  Algerian peter ™ 14:31 09 Feb 14

No.

  Aitchbee 19:11 09 Feb 14

Everything that is gathered to one's senses, wether that be through TV, Radio, Internet, Newspapers, Books, Songs, Religion [can you see where I am coming from?], it is ALL filtered or put thru a 'reality grinder'.

You can't beat eye-to-eye contact for 'peace of mind'.

  Woolwell 20:14 09 Feb 14

Is it more to do with the layout of the Guardian/Observer's website? Guardian Politics. The first article that you would naturally click on is the one commenting about the article. Having read that fewer are going to go on and read the other article and share it.

  fourm member 10:54 10 Feb 14

Woolwell

You are right that the layout prioritises the 'about' article rather than the article.

But, that just makes me sadder. If people are reading the 'about' and not deciding to see what was actually said then we're never going to break out of the mess caused by people believing what is reported rather than researching for themselves.

And I'm making a broader point than the need to get beyond the complete nonsense the media reports on drugs. As I mentioned in another thread, only 7% of people seem to have read any of the white paper on Scotland.

It seems people won't think for themselves. They prefer to be told what to think.

  Woolwell 11:10 10 Feb 14

Generally people only tend to look in depth into items which greatly interest them. It is easier to be told about it than do your own research. The media (press, TV and radio and now the internet) have been telling people about things for years. Before that it was by word of mouth. Gossip if you like. It's human nature I'm afraid and it takes a lot of incentive, usually the prospect of personal pain (monetary or physical) before people carry out their own research. In my own area it is amazing what I have been told about what is happening (frequently untrue) purely because they haven't checked. Apathy rules.

  fourm member 11:13 10 Feb 14

'Apathy rules.'

Very true. And very sad.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Surface Pro (2017) vs Surface Pro 4

Where HTML5 is headed next

MacBook Pro v Surface Pro 5