With the rise of the social web the credibility of the news we consume has never been more pressing. New research by Penn State looks at the interesting area of news aggregation, and whether the credibility of the aggregator rubs off on the news provider and vice versa.
With news aggregators sending an ever larger portion of traffic to news websites, it's an issue that will be of interest to publishers and aggregators alike. The research suggests that credibility can flow from the news source to the portal, but seldom flows the other way.
So this means that a great article from a credible news source can make the aggregator look great, but a rubbish article included in the aggregator seldom reflects badly on the aggregator.
“A news portal that uses stories from a credible source gets a boost in credibility and might even make money through advertising,” says the research team. “However, if there is a lawsuit for spreading false information, for example, it’s unlikely that the portal will be named in the suit.”
So a low credibility story featured on Google News (high credibility) is unlikely to make your story appear any better.
on 
on 
on 
on 
Adi,
IMHO credibility is earned through a lot of hard work. With this in mind, I am slow to devalue it. If I were read the odd article on your blog that might erode your credibility I tend to be tolerant. If it becomes a trend and I see a stream of such articles then you have lost all credibility with me. So why wouldn't I apply this to a news aggregation service?
Peter
Hi Peter,
Welcome to the blog. Hopefully a bit easier to comment here
I've heard it said that in a relationship, you should aim to have sex 4 times as often as you argument. The reasoning being that we remember and give greater impact to negative events than to positive ones.
I wonder if the same applies in terms of credibility?