Research indicates that social media and video platforms have become the primary source of news for many people in the United States, surpassing traditional television and news websites. According to findings from the Reuters Institute, over half of Americans—54%—now obtain their news from platforms such as Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), and YouTube. This marks a significant shift as traditional TV channels are used by 50% and news sites/apps by 48%.

The report highlights that this trend is particularly pronounced in the U.S., where social media's rise is occurring at a faster pace compared to other countries. Notably, podcaster Joe Rogan emerged as a prominent figure in this landscape, with 22% of respondents reporting exposure to his content within a week.

The study's author pointed out that the increasing popularity of personality-driven news poses challenges for conventional publishers. It also noted a growing tendency among politicians to engage with sympathetic online hosts rather than mainstream journalists, allowing them to bypass traditional media channels. This shift has raised concerns about the spread of misinformation, with nearly half of global respondents identifying online influencers as significant sources of misleading information.

The report also observed stability or growth in the use of X for news across various markets since Elon Musk's acquisition in 2022, particularly among right-leaning individuals. In contrast, alternative platforms like Threads and Bluesky have had minimal impact on global news consumption.

Additionally, TikTok has been identified as the fastest-growing platform for news consumption worldwide, now utilized by 17% of people—a notable increase from previous years. The use of AI chatbots for accessing news is also on the rise but raises concerns about transparency and trustworthiness among users.

Overall, while many individuals are turning away from traditional sources due to dissatisfaction with depressing content or perceived biases, there remains a strong preference for trusted brands known for accuracy in journalism.

Original article

This text is replete with various forms of bias and language manipulation, which are expertly woven to create a narrative that appears neutral but is, in fact, heavily slanted. One of the most striking aspects of the text is its cultural and ideological bias, which leans decidedly left. The author's tone and language choices reveal a clear preference for traditional journalism over social media platforms, which they portray as sources of misinformation.

The text begins by highlighting the rise of social media as a primary source of news for many Americans, but this is quickly followed by a critique of the "personality-driven news" that has emerged on these platforms. The author notes that this trend poses challenges for "conventional publishers," implying that traditional journalism is superior to online content. This framing assumes that traditional journalism is more trustworthy and accurate, while social media platforms are inherently suspect.

Furthermore, the text highlights the role of podcaster Joe Rogan in spreading misinformation, without acknowledging his significant influence on mainstream discourse or his ability to challenge conventional narratives. This omission suggests that the author views Rogan as an outlier rather than a representative figure in contemporary media landscape.

The report's findings about Elon Musk's acquisition of X (formerly Twitter) also reveal an ideological bias against right-leaning individuals. The author notes that X has seen stability or growth in use since Musk's acquisition among right-leaning individuals, but frames this as a negative development rather than an interesting data point. This framing implies that right-leaning individuals are somehow less deserving of access to information or more prone to spreading misinformation.

The text also exhibits linguistic and semantic bias through its use of emotionally charged language. For example, when describing the spread of misinformation on social media platforms, the author uses words like "misleading" and "deceptive," creating a sense of alarm and concern among readers. In contrast, when discussing traditional journalism, the author uses more neutral language like "challenges" and "dissatisfaction," downplaying any potential criticisms.

Selection and omission bias are also evident throughout the text. For instance, while discussing TikTok's rise as a platform for news consumption worldwide (now utilized by 17% people), there is no mention of its popularity among younger generations or its potential benefits in terms of accessibility and diversity. Similarly, when discussing AI chatbots for accessing news (which raises concerns about transparency), there is no consideration given to their potential benefits in terms of convenience or efficiency.

Structural and institutional bias are also present in the text through its implicit defense of gatekeeping systems like mainstream journalism outlets. The report highlights concerns about politicians engaging with sympathetic online hosts rather than mainstream journalists but fails to consider how these same politicians might be able to bypass traditional media channels due to their own power dynamics within those institutions.

Confirmation bias is evident throughout the report where assumptions about social media being inherently bad sources for information are accepted without question or presented one-sided evidence supporting them while ignoring counterarguments from other perspectives such as those arguing against censorship on these platforms due privacy concerns etc..

Framing narrative biases can be seen through story structure metaphor usage ordering information nudging reader toward preferred interpretation e.g., presenting facts related only certain viewpoints suppressing others thereby reinforcing particular narrative direction whereas structural institutional biases remain implicit defended uninterrogated further reinforcing dominant ideologies