Do i believe that social media has increased the quality of the news or decreased it? If i am being quite honest i would have to say i'm on the fence. Social media has brought some advantages to the playing field but there is just some things you can't make up for.
Journalists are trained individuals who have made a life out of digging in deep and exposing the nerve of the issues. They will get in the face of the people they are accusing, look them in the eyes and tell them they disagree, tell them to be accountable. While the journalist are out there getting the facts and directly holding persons accountable, the bloggers/vloggers are sitting in front of a computer talking into a camera, making loaded statements about issues that they have heard bits and pieces of, not necessarily having all the fact or in some cases any of them.
Now this being said i do believe there is some good to be had. Nowadays everybody has a phone, and all phones have cameras and internet access. These Bloggers, and just plain old average people now become the first responders. People now have the news faster than every before. While it's happening! there is no more waiting until eleven to catch the news. All you have to do is check one of your many social media networks and chances are you will have a dozen different people posting on the shooting that happened downtown with photos! These people will each have a different perspective on what happened, will have seen it from a different view one of them might even have a video. People can feel like they are in the action while it is unfolding or if not minutes after. This is where i believe it is getting better.
We have so many people giving us the news from so many different unfiltered angles, it is really easy to keep up. Where is falters is in integrity. The bloggers want the shocking stories that aren't necessarily true, the reporters want the good stories with the strong facts to support their claim. The real reporters aren't in it for the views, they are in it for the quality of the information. The stuff they know they can stand behind.
Google pays people based on their popularity so they have to get their views. These people influence others on a grand scale. If they get their views by telling people what they want to hear, that's what they will do, whether it's true or false.
It would seem towards the end i started to lean towards social media decreasing the quality of news. Though i do believe this is true, there IS merit in social media as a source of news, i just believe the other stuff is important too.
Good points!
ReplyDeleteAn advantage trained journalists have, due to professional status, is more credibility and acess to sources a normal person wouldnt have.
(Such as a news station showing footage from a sucurity camera of a bank robbery)
As well as people being in the shock and awe news business for the money, we can also look at the bias that layers their words. If two people are doing a report on a pride parade, and one of them is from the westboro baptist church, the same parade would be viewed and reported on very differently.
ReplyDeleteim totally with you! i feel like citizen journalism can be both a positive or a negative thing. i suppose it depends on which way you look at it. i myself look at it that citizen journalist can tint the information with facts that aren't exactly true that perhaps make the pros wave in their favour!
ReplyDeleteI'm definitely on the fence as well. With good things and bad things about both a citizen and a professional journalist, it does really come own to the situation and the people involved. Like Matthew said even if it is the same situation, it can and will be reported on and viewed very differently. :)
ReplyDelete