Study: Internet No. 2 Science News Source

Web Ranks Behind Only TV But Users Fact-Check Elsewhere

(AP)  The Internet ranks behind only TV as the leading source for science news and information, but most users won't trust what they read online blindly, a new study finds.

The Pew Internet and American Life Project said in a report Monday that 20 percent of Americans obtain most of their science information from the Internet, compared with 41 percent who cited television. Newspapers and magazines were each credited by 14 percent, and radio by 4 percent.

The gap disappears among users of high-speed Internet connections at home, with 34 percent saying they turn to the Internet most of the time, and 33 percent citing television.

About 80 percent of those who get science information online try to check its accuracy elsewhere — another online source, offline resources or the original study — and many of them use more than one alternative.

Only 13 percent say they turn to the Internet primarily for its accuracy. Most do so because they consider it convenient.

Americans, however, rely more on the Internet for science news than general news, Pew found.

While the Internet ranked second behind television for science news, it was behind local and national television, radio and the local paper as the typical source for general news. It beat only national newspapers. (The questions in the science survey did not split TV and newspapers into local and national.)

"There's a lot of good scientific content out there," said John Horrigan, Pew's associate director. The Internet was "initially about science and engineers talking to each other. That community has a historical head start in terms of getting information online that's useful to science consumers."

Some 87 percent of Internet users have looked up science information online at one point or another, and two-thirds say they have stumbled upon science news when they logged on for another reason.

The study was based on telephone surveys of 1,447 Internet users conducted Jan. 9-Feb. 6. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

[aa36042]

duh

[reasnmclucus]

The Internet has an advantage over television. It contains a wide variety of sources that provide different points of view and more extensive information. Television provides a superficial view of issues with much of it affected by the political views of ignorant reporters who want simple politically correct explanations for complex situations. For example, on the subject of stem cell research television, and print reporters, tend to ignore the many advances with adult stem cells in favor of over rated embryonic research that is years behind adult stem cell research.

Televison also ignores the complexity of climate in favor of simplistic suggestions that very minor gases like CO2 have a magical ability to control air temperature based on a 19th century belief that has never been empirically tested.

I agree with you reasnmclucus, however you forgot to mention that alot of people believe everything they see and hear on TV is true, Like the SMC commercials people making money from home, or what about commercials about "The Government is selling is Forclosed Homes...Call now" There are a lot of scams on TV, those without an internet connection can not verify the legitimacy, or are too ignorant to know the difference

[bushrocks1]

Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to WW II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your son to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my son to go to war. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Would I volunteer to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? I don%u2019t know. I'm not equivocating, only addressing that it is a hypothetical. As a hypothetical, I can say, sure I'd fight. But I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Jacobite). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed and maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. But I do strongly believe that a country who can't find those men is doomed. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is no failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front, being a big one. But now those traitors have apparently occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq. Why?... I'm waiting.

[getcentered]

THE MEDIA HATES THE INTERNET!!

The internet can help create a world where the people get to ask for the information they want, and not just get it spoon fed, like on TV and radio. The Internet requires and creates interaction. The Internet asks the user what he or she wants, unlike TV where the user just accepts and instills information given whether it be useful or not.

Kill your TV.
Turn on the Internet and start asking yourself what it can do for you.

PROTECT NET NUTRALITY!!! FOREVER!!
Don't let the corporation corrupt the Internet.

[getcentered]

Ok, most of main stream media hates the Internet.