By now, most of us have heard of the “Google Flu” epidemic that has devastated our news feeds.
But how do you know if the internet is becoming less friendly toward journalists and more hostile toward the information they produce?
A new study suggests that the two may be inextricably linked.
In the report published today in the journal Science, researchers at the University of Bristol (UK) have shown that “knowledge of the internet” is correlated with “a negative perception of the value of journalism and its impact on society.”
The researchers used a series of questions to measure how well journalists were performing in their roles as reporters, as editors, and as editors-in-chief of publications.
The researchers found that, while both journalists and editors were more likely to feel that journalists were less respected when reporting on subjects that they personally cared about, journalists who were more familiar with the news were more positive about their work.
And this negative perception has a strong negative effect on how well they are doing in their jobs.
So, how did this study get started?
The first question in the survey asked journalists about their professional backgrounds.
They were asked to answer: Which is the most prestigious university you have attended, or which major did you study?
And that was all it took.
That was all they had to say.
And in order to get an accurate answer, the researchers had to ask the participants a bunch of questions.
They then had the participants fill out questionnaires that included questions like: How well do you read and write about news?
What was your opinion about the news media?
How important is journalism to you?
And then asked the questions again.
The results show that the more familiar the journalists were with the subjects they were reporting on, the more positive they were about their job.
So if a journalist is familiar with a subject, then that news organization will be perceived more positively.
If they are not familiar with it, then it will be seen as less important.
The authors note that the survey methodology can be applied to many different areas, but it does make clear that the correlation is real.
What’s interesting is that the researchers didn’t test whether journalists were more or less likely to think their work was worth their time.
Instead, they tested whether people trusted them more or more than their colleagues who didn’t have any professional experience.
This was a little surprising, because there are plenty of reasons why journalists might not want to be trusted.
For instance, if they have to work from home, they might be less able to devote themselves to their work as a reporter.
And if they are just not good at writing good journalism, then they might not be able to be a good editor.
But it does seem that the journalists in this study were not making the same mistakes as their colleagues.
The only time that they made the mistake that led to a negative evaluation was when they gave a statement to the press about a political scandal.
The statement had nothing to do with the subject of the story and had nothing about what they were going to report.
The people who were most likely to make a mistake were those who had never worked in journalism before.
And these are the people who might be the most in danger of making a mistake in their reporting.
But what the study didn’t tell us was that the positive perceptions of their colleagues were actually associated with lower ratings of the quality of their work and higher ratings of their own performance.
So in the end, the relationship between familiarity with the topic of the survey and positive perceptions about their own work was not just about journalists but also about people in general.
They seem to think that they are valued more for the fact that they have experience and expertise and have the potential to create better content than their peers who are not as familiar with their subject matter.
That’s one reason why the report says that there’s a need for “a cultural shift” to reduce the “negative perception” of journalists.
That could mean changing how we communicate with one another and, hopefully, more importantly, to develop a better understanding of the work of those who write and publish the news.
The problem is, it is still unclear how the two might be connected.
If a news organization has a reputation for doing a good job in the field, it could be that it may be perceived as having more experience and competence than other news organizations in a given field.
But if the reputation is tied to the quality and integrity of the information it produces, it might be that the organization is seen as having a more negative reputation.
So what can you do to fix this problem?
For one thing, the authors suggest that there needs to be more transparency about the process that is used to assess a newsroom’s performance.
They also note that they believe that there are still opportunities for journalism that are not being recognized as being valuable.
One of the main sources of bias in journalism is the idea that there is some inherent value in information that is not produced by professional journalists, but is presented by others as fact.