INTERVIEW
"Ask readers what they want, they'll tell you vegetables. Watch them, they'll actually eat candy." This metaphor, taken from the American magazine The Atlantic in 2014, could very well apply today to describe the consumption of the press. In the March issue, the journalist for the monthly "For the eco" Clément Rouget devotes an article to our paradoxes of consumers of information.
First paradox: we lie to ourselves on our readings
"This is the Arte / TF1 paradox", details the journalist at the microphone of Europe 1. "In the polls we declare watching Arte, but the audience figures show it: we prefer to watch TF1." In 2013, the Reuters Institute interviewed 11,000 readers around the world about their news preferences, which highlight economic, political and international news. In reality, explains Clément Rouget, "readers consume lighter content. The first reflex of an American in the morning is to look at the weather".
>> Find all of Philippe Vandel's programs in replay and podcast here
The American researcher Pablo Boczkowski and his team made a theory of it: they analyzed 40,000 articles from twenty press groups, and noted the difference between what the media put on their front pages and the demand of readers (the articles most read, often news, sport, entertainment and weather). They called it the "news gap", "the information gap," said the journalist.
Second paradox: BFM TV
According to Clément Rouget, "at the time of the yellow vests crisis, BFM TV was by far the most watched news channel. And at the same time it dropped by one point in 10, which is considerable, on the criterion of French confidence in the chain. " But it is difficult to explain why, believes the journalist, especially since the channel is still one of the most watched news channels continuously with more than 50% market share.
A phenomenon that is also seen, according to the journalist, on social networks, on which we read more and more information (from 18% to 42% of the population since 2013 according to the Reuters Insitute), even if we do not found unreliable (in France, a confidence rate of only 14%).
Third paradox: fake news
We want to fight fake news ... while sharing it. "Fake news has a 70% more chance of being shared" than verified information, points out Clément Rouget. And 59% of links shared on social networks are shared without users having read the content, according to a study conducted by Columbia University in 2018. "Because they are more spectacular, they are given an inordinate audience. "
If the phenomenon had, he explains, exploded during the 2016 American presidential campaign, it would seem that it fades over time. "There is a growing awareness among consumers of their power in sharing," he says. According to the latest studies on the subject, "a quarter of Internet users have decided to stop reading content from questionable sources and 30% not to share it, so we are moving slowly".
At the same time, social networks like Facebook are actively fighting against disinformation, especially at the moment about covid-19. "We can hope to win this battle in the long term, but it will certainly be long as the fake news seduces our brains," said Clément Rouget.
The cost of this information to society is also estimated to be "$ 74 billion in 2019," according to a report from the University of Baltimore.
Fourth paradox: quality or free?
The reader wants quality, but he also seems to want free. How can you do when you know that good information has a cost? "This is the whole problem of the press. With the coronavirus, we have media that have never been heard as much, and at the same time, the advertisers are no longer there," said the journalist. "French people and media readers should know that we cannot have information that is both quality, free, without advertising or public subsidies, without anyone paying at any given time."
The March issue of "For the Eco" devotes a complete file on this subject: "The information who wants it? Who manufactures it? How much does it cost?"