The World Online How UK citizens use the internet to find out about ...

Figure 2: BBC ‘have your say’ and Yahoo! questions and answers“How do I know who and what to believe when I don’t knowanything about this area?”Once respondents had clicked on a website, the decisionabout whether to use it or move on was made in a matter ofseconds. Choices were often made on superficial aspectssuch as site aesthetics, for example colours, use of pictures,the amount of white space, ease of navigation around thesite and the appropriateness and quality of advertising.Although the delivery of content was assessed, the quality of the actualinformation was rarely questioned. The cynicism applied to traditionalmedia (the political or organisational agendas accredited to papers orprogrammes) was less apparent in the online context. The source itselfwas rarely queried, particularly if unknown. For example, respondentswere more likely to question Oxfam’s agenda than the agenda ofAntidictatorshipcom. As one respondent recalled “It was hard knowingwhat was reputable and what might be more biased and why peoplewere posting stuff, if there was some reason behind it, rather thanjust them wanting to give you information” (Young Person, 19-21).“I’ve found out a lot, but I can’t remember where I got it from.”Relatively little attention was paid to the source of information.This was indicative of the low interest in this area, but also of thecomplex nature of trails. In a matter of a few minutes four of fivesites may have been visited and respondents were often clickingfrom one site to another as well as going back to the initial Googlepage. Respondents were not always sure where they were andoften reported reading information without paying any attentionto which site they were accessing or where they had been.However, a few sites were named by individuals without referencingtheir notebooks. These tended to be sites that had answered questionsquickly and effectively (for instance DFID was mentioned for clearlyspecifying how their money is spent) or had provided a useful service(Intelligent Giving was mentioned for enabling savvy charity donations).If an organisation can get key areas of interest right on its website itstands a better chance of becoming part of the repertoire in this area.Successful online communication and content deliveryThere were clear examples of effective communication andcontent delivery that engaged and interested respondentsonce they had been encouraged to explore this area online.The people’s perspective: forums, Q & As(and blogs to a lesser extent)Respondents were interested in the voices ‘on the ground’ asthey felt free of agenda and spin (Figure 2). Forums and Q & Asprovided a sense of immediacy and honesty rather than a calculatedargument. Blogs tended to be less warmly received as they wereto some extent regarded as being driven by self-interest.Because all the information currently received around developmentissues is top down (from charities or government or the media)and respondents rarely had conversations about these issuesamongst their peer groups, there was a sense that they wantedto know what the dominant perspective was ‘on the ground’.They were interested in knowing more about what ‘peoplelike me’ thought so they could have a ‘savvier’ opinion.Another example of this desire for an alternative perspective emergedfrom the respondents more interested in development who citedthe independent expert opinion on sites such as Intelligent Givingand TED.Main Findings9