Social Media users are often accused of living in a bubble; hanging around in safe spaces where they won’t hear many, or perhaps any, contrary opinions.

Predictably enough these accusations are hurled between the bubbles; think Kiwiblog commentators vs The Standard commentators.

But if there’s one group that loves sticking to all of these social media sites the whole “a plague on both your houses”, it’s the old media, the MSM, the Legacy Media. They claim that they’re far more aware of the wider world and all the news that’s fit to print. They’re journalists, so of course this is how it must be, otherwise they would not be able to do their jobs, correct?

The consumers of what these “journalists” produce increasingly beg to differ, as shown by the huge drops in subscriptions, buys and readership by all branches of the MSM. But even in the face of such financial reality those criticisms are still dismissed by the MSM as just another byproduct of the social media bubbles that their readers are falling into.

Maybe, but that growing gap between how the public views “journalists” and how they view themselves should be a wake up call for the latter. Luckily it won’t be.

Note that MSM ideological or partisan bias was not the question there, but a straight-forward set of questions relating to the traditional roles of journalists and how well they’re performing them.

Meanwhile Twitter is the poster child for Social Media bubbles, reinforced by bannings and suspensions that have no standard beyond the one that says a Tweet offended whatever the Left hold to be true at any given moment. When you consider how many “journalists” monitor Twitter you begin to see why the graph below might be a factor feeding into the graph above. To date only one outfit, the NYT, has been willing to even try (and only try) to get its reporters to “Tweet less… Report more”.

There’s also this poll from Rasmussen: