Why hello again,
Hasn’t it
been a very busy week for all of us—Or maybe just to some! Last time I posted
the discussion topic was on social media being a fad or a shift. This time the
discussion topic is whether or not social media is increasing or decreasing the
quality of news.
Really when I think about it, I think the question is a grey area. Much like social media (and this blog), everyone has their own opinions on the topic. To some, yes it definitely increased the quality and to others social media decreased the quality. I believe people’s opinions can be linked to their habits; whether or not social media enhances their own lives. For example, someone who reads the printed Globe and Mail everyday definitely might believe a blog on the same topic is less valid, due to the source of information. I mean what does that blogger really know anyways? In contrast, a reader who may choose to not read printed materials might only have the social media world as a source of information, and to that reader, what they read is valid.
Exposer; I stand on the increase quality side of the argument.
If you read my last blog post—I referenced that a higher percentage of people believe in what their friends and family have to say, over companies. People believe that the Globe and Mail may fluff the information, where as, a personal writer would give it (the information) to the reader straight.
What makes a printed news piece any more valid than a non-printed news piece? It is the credentials of the writer of course. However, who is to say the writer behind a social media post, is not qualified? Maybe it is not the validity that increases the quality of news; maybe it is the different point of views.
Social media is a tool for writers to have a voice, and be heard. The many different point of views, give insight on a topic that in a newspaper might not. Newspapers tend to follow a political standpoint, or undertone. Therefore the reader would get bias information based on tone of the news writer. Ex. Some newspapers only write from the point of view of a democratic, liberal, conservative, republic and so on. In social media, these political views are still present. With the wealth of information available, the readers can choose which piece of news responds to their own thoughts and views. Or simply, read a different view on a subject, which might open their eyes.
Social media news publishes restricted content! Yes! Our newspapers and news broadcasts are monitored (by someone) who decides what is “good” for you to hear and know. Well, not us! Increased availability of the restricted news has certainly increased the quality of what our society hears and learns.
Social media news updates, cover those itty-bitty issues that are not big enough to get printed or reviewed in news space. It does not mean the issues are not important! The ability to gain access to a multitude of mainstream and none mainstream news has changed what societies know. It definitely helps unify and create passion in nations that can understand the little struggles, and updates of one another.
The reader can certainly argue whether or not news is valid. But without actually hearing or seeing the news for themselves, who says the readers are hearing it all. Social media allows someone like you and I, which have valid and recent news they want to share with the world, to share it. For example, the news coverage on the Carnival Cruise that sunk; Media covered the story, and society heard the facts. Social media tools however, allowed the voices of the people who lived through the experience to expose it to the news.
All being said, I believe that social media helps increase the quality of the news our society is exposed too.
Of course, embellishment happens. If the reader is struggling over the validity of a social media source, the option to cross reference with another source is a good way to help validate information. Eventually enough sources will have supplied to readers the correct information.
Really when I think about it, I think the question is a grey area. Much like social media (and this blog), everyone has their own opinions on the topic. To some, yes it definitely increased the quality and to others social media decreased the quality. I believe people’s opinions can be linked to their habits; whether or not social media enhances their own lives. For example, someone who reads the printed Globe and Mail everyday definitely might believe a blog on the same topic is less valid, due to the source of information. I mean what does that blogger really know anyways? In contrast, a reader who may choose to not read printed materials might only have the social media world as a source of information, and to that reader, what they read is valid.
Exposer; I stand on the increase quality side of the argument.
If you read my last blog post—I referenced that a higher percentage of people believe in what their friends and family have to say, over companies. People believe that the Globe and Mail may fluff the information, where as, a personal writer would give it (the information) to the reader straight.
What makes a printed news piece any more valid than a non-printed news piece? It is the credentials of the writer of course. However, who is to say the writer behind a social media post, is not qualified? Maybe it is not the validity that increases the quality of news; maybe it is the different point of views.
Social media is a tool for writers to have a voice, and be heard. The many different point of views, give insight on a topic that in a newspaper might not. Newspapers tend to follow a political standpoint, or undertone. Therefore the reader would get bias information based on tone of the news writer. Ex. Some newspapers only write from the point of view of a democratic, liberal, conservative, republic and so on. In social media, these political views are still present. With the wealth of information available, the readers can choose which piece of news responds to their own thoughts and views. Or simply, read a different view on a subject, which might open their eyes.
Social media news publishes restricted content! Yes! Our newspapers and news broadcasts are monitored (by someone) who decides what is “good” for you to hear and know. Well, not us! Increased availability of the restricted news has certainly increased the quality of what our society hears and learns.
Social media news updates, cover those itty-bitty issues that are not big enough to get printed or reviewed in news space. It does not mean the issues are not important! The ability to gain access to a multitude of mainstream and none mainstream news has changed what societies know. It definitely helps unify and create passion in nations that can understand the little struggles, and updates of one another.
The reader can certainly argue whether or not news is valid. But without actually hearing or seeing the news for themselves, who says the readers are hearing it all. Social media allows someone like you and I, which have valid and recent news they want to share with the world, to share it. For example, the news coverage on the Carnival Cruise that sunk; Media covered the story, and society heard the facts. Social media tools however, allowed the voices of the people who lived through the experience to expose it to the news.
All being said, I believe that social media helps increase the quality of the news our society is exposed too.
Of course, embellishment happens. If the reader is struggling over the validity of a social media source, the option to cross reference with another source is a good way to help validate information. Eventually enough sources will have supplied to readers the correct information.
