When we reflect on the historical impact that social media has had on the field of journalism, big names like Twitter, Facebook and Instagram likely come to mind. These platforms changed the way people experience and deliver news in such a drastic way that their value can not be understated. The most prominent shift in my opinion was the move from traditional news sources typically delivered at a set time of day such as the 5 o’clock news on your preferred television channel to real-time, bite-sized reports delivered as the story unfolds on various social media platforms. In the past prior to social media you could spend a whole day, maybe even weeks without knowing about an incident that happened in your own city, with the advent of social media you could stumble across a tweet alerting you about an incident occurring in real time. This is also done in part to another child of the social media revolution, citizen journalism. The rapid ability for anyone with an internet connection and an electronic device to be able to report news and share that content to a global audience has drastically altered the speed and scope of news reporting forever.
That's not to say that the impact of social media on the field of journalism is all good, with it we've seen the rise of misinformation and fake news reports that spiral out of control and are taken at face value by a portion of their readers. While the issue can be tackled with a lesson in digital literacy and fact checking, a lot of the people who consume this misinformation lack these critical skills or simply believe what they want to believe. Another issue is the way that posts are prioritized on timelines using algorithms implemented by their respective platforms, that prioritize posts that received the most engagement over posts that have the most accurate information, further adding fuel to the misinformation fire as the sensational is often the most entertaining to users on these platforms. Users would likely interact more with these entertaining posts than they would with one giving straight facts thus pushing the sensational fake news story to more feeds while the real story withers and dies in the algorithm.
However, it has led to an increase in reach for news since stories now get pushed out through multiple channels and are accessible at any given time even if you're not home for the 5 o’clock news show. It has also made news more interactive, with the ability of everyday people to comment and talk to journalists and anchors in a way that was previously completely inaccessible. I believe the future of journalism is a digital first market and even now a lot of agencies put a strong focus on the digital first movement, where stories are written and made to be consumed on a digital device and then later reported on in a TV segment or newspaper. I don’t think we will see the death of TV programs in our lifetime but as we have seen with the rapid rise of short form video content on platforms such as TikTok, Youtube shorts, and Instagram reels the rising generation prefers their information delivered in fast, short bursts that a standard news program can not deliver. I think journalism will continue to adapt just like it did for platforms of the past. The problem that the journalists of the future and even the present will face is balancing the standards of journalistic integrity with the fast-paced, digital-first world.
I’ve even experienced it myself working as the social media manager at The University Star, when we posted an update on the arrest for the hate crime on campus earlier in October. Many users were upset we did not release the suspects name but the University police department had not officially named him, however users had cross referenced the county arrest records with the charges mentioned in the story and found out the identity of the suspect within minutes of the story going up, I was being constantly tagged and mentioned in stories with the alleged suspects name and photos in it, and even received direct messages with his mugshot and arrest record asking me to expose him. However, because he had not been officially named and because of the risk of libel and defamation we could not in good faith post his identity on our platforms, while others were quickly spreading the information online.
