Today, I’m going to return to the Reuter’s Digital News Report and look at the
relationship between us, news and social media. But what I’m going to talk about is probably not what you think I’m going to talk about.
Forget all the many, many problems
that come with relying on social media to be informed. Forget about filter bubbles and echo chambers. Forget about misleading or outright false stories. Forget about algorithmic targeting. Forget
about the gaping vulnerabilities that leave social media open to nefarious manipulation. Forget all that (but just for the moment, because those are all horrible and very real problems that we need to
Today, I want to talk about one specific problem that comes when we get our news through social media. When we do that, our brains don’t work they way they should if we want
to be well informed.
First, let’s talk about the scope of the issue here. According to the Reuter’s study, in the U.S. more people — 72% — turn online for news than any
other source. Television comes in second at 59%. If we single out social media, it comes in third at 48%. Trailing the pack is print media at just 20%.
If we plot this on a chart over the last
seven years, print and social media basically swapped spots, with their respective lines crossing each other in 2014; one trending up and one trending down. In 2013, 47% of us turned to print as a
primary news source and just 27% of us went to social media.
If we further look at those under 35, accessing news through social media jumps to the number-one spot by a fairly wide margin. And
because they’re young, we’re not talking Facebook here. Those aged 18 to 24 are getting their news through Instagram, Snapchat and TikTok.
The point, if it’s not clear by
now, is that many of us get our news through a social media channel — and the younger we are, the more that’s true. The paradox is that the vast majority of us — over 70% —
don’t trust the news we see on our social media feeds. If we were to pick an information source we trusted, we would never go to social media.
This brings up an interesting juxtaposition
in how we’re being informed about the world: almost of us are getting our news through social media, but almost none of us are looking for it when we do.
According to the Reuter’s
Report, 72% of us (all ages, all markets) get our news through the “side door.” This means we are delivered news — primarily through social media and search — without us
intentionally going directly to the source of the information. For those aged 18 to 24, “side door” access jumps to 84% and, of that, access through social media jumps to 38%.
loyalty to the brand and quality of an information provider is slipping between our fingers and we don’t seem to care. We say we want objective, non-biased, quality news sources, but in practice
we lap up whatever dubious crap is spoon-fed to us by Facebook or Instagram. It’s the difference between telling our doctor what we intend to eat and what we actually eat when we get home to the
leftover pizza and the pint of Häagen-Dazs in our fridge.
The difference between looking for and passively receiving information is key to understanding how our brain works. Let’s
talk a little bit about “top-down” and “bottom-up” activation and the “priming” of our brain.
When our brain has a goal — like looking for COVID-19
information — it behaves significantly differently than when it is just bored and wanting to be entertained.
The goal sets a “top down” intent. It’s like an executive
order to the various bits and pieces of our brain to get their shit together and start working as a team. Suddenly the entire brain focuses on the task at hand and things like reliability of
information become much more important to us. If we’re going to go directly to a information source we trust, this is going to be when we do it.
If the brain isn’t actively engaged
in a goal, then information has to initiate a “bottom-up” activation. And that is an entirely different animal.
We never go to social media looking for a specific piece of news.
That’s not how social media works. We go to our preferred social channels either out of sheer boredom or a need for social affirmation. We hope there’s something in the highly addictive
endlessly scrolling format that will catch our attention.
For a news piece to do that, it has to somehow find a “hook” in our brain. Often, that “hook” is an
existing belief. The parts of our brain that act as a gatekeeper against unreliable information are bypassed because no one bothered to wake them up.
There is a further brain-related problem
with relying on social media, and that’s the “priming” issue. This is where one stimulus sets a subconscious “lens” that will impact subsequent stimuli. Priming sets the
brain on a track we’re not aware of, which makes it difficult to control.
Social media is the perfect priming platform. One post sets the stage for the next, even if they’re
These are just two factors that make social media an inherently dangerous platform to rely on for being informed.
The third is that social media makes information
digestion much too easy. Our brain barely needs to work at all. And if it does need to work, we quickly click back and scroll down to the next post. Because we’re looking to be entertained, not
informed, the brain is reluctant to do any unnecessary heavy lifting.
This is a big reason why we may know the news we get through social media channels is probably not good for
us, but we gulp it down anyway, destroying our appetite for more trustworthy information sources.
These three things create a perfect cognitive storm for huge portions of the population to be
continually and willingly misinformed. That’s not even factoring in all the other problems with social media that I mentioned at the outset of this column. We need to rethink this —
Get your CompTIA A+, Network+ White Hat-Hacker, Certified Web Intelligence Analyst and more starting at $35 a month. Click here for more details.