With the emergence of social media, the entire notion of news and its accessibility has dramatically changed.
Technological advancements have enabled us to receive news anywhere or any time, and similarly, we as journalists can create news in the exact same manner.
Social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook have become instrumental for news outlets and journalists to spread their news, reaching a much larger audience far quicker than ever comprehended.
Yet, with this come potential risks and disadvantages that jeopardise core journalistic ethics.
Social media in the eyes of the journalist is a double-edged sword – it can cause favourable or unfavourable outcomes, and like any potential weapon, must be handled with care.
With 317 million users as of January 2017, Twitter has grown exponentially since its inception in 2006.
In today’s day and age, journalists value social media platforms such as Twitter for its effectiveness in conveying news.
As a news medium, Twitter has several benefits that make it extremely effective in the hands of news publications and journalists.
Almost most importantly is Twitter’s immediacy which has allowed for the spread of information to become instant and widespread.
Through the process of retweeting, news can reach almost every corner of the earth in a short amount of time, extending journalists’ reaches to inconceivable lengths.
In a Reuters Institute study by Jennifer Alejandro on the effects of Twitter, it was discovered that when Twitter first started, regular citizens had the ability to break major news stories at least fifteen minutes before major news outlets had even heard of the story.
Since its rise in popularity following an 1105 per cent growth rate in 2010, news outlets and journalists realised the need to move into the area of social media to spread news, thus beginning the digital age of journalism.
Furthermore, the fact that social media platforms like Twitter can be used on mobile devices anywhere at any time makes it hugely accessible, catering a much larger audience.
A study conducted by the Pew Research Center in November 2016 found that out of all Americans who use social media (68 per cent of the population), 88 per cent are aged in the 18-29 age bracket.
For Twitter alone, which comprises of 21% of all American adults, 36 percent were found to be in the 18-29 age group, while a further 23 per cent used the platform in the 30-49 age category.
Through these statistics alone, it is important to realise just how many people depend on social media to obtain news.
With these large numbers, particularly in the 18-29 age bracket, journalists can spread their news not only to a large amount of people, but also to a whole new demographic that was previously close to inaccessible.
This appeal to the newer generation, coupled with its accessibility and immediacy, has opened the floodgates to a colossal audience, spreading news faster and more effectively than ever imagined.
The intimacy between sources and the public has allowed closer connections to flourish, thus making Twitter and social media in general an effective news medium.
Despite their benefits, Twitter and other social media outlets can have detrimental impacts and can jeopardise core journalistic ethics.
Since Twitter relies on immediacy and getting news out to the populace fast, facts have the potential to be inaccurate and cause the spread of what is now known as “fake news”.
Once a tweet has been posted online, even when it is deleted, it can still be accessed later, and therefore it is crucial to get the facts and information right.
These mistakes can be on Twitter forever, as seen with BBC journalist Ahmen Khawaja, who tweeted that Queen Elizabeth II had passed away in hospital.
In the rush of breaking the major news story first, Khawaja not only failed to check whether this was true from a credible source, but also spelt the name of the Queen incorrectly.
Although Khawaja issued a statement shortly afterward confirming this was not the case and promptly deleted her previous tweet, the news had spread so fast that Buckingham Palace issued a statement (which broke their own protocol) reassuring the public that the Queen was in good health and was in hospital for only a routine check-up.
Additionally with Twitter, each tweet is limited to only 140 characters.
This not only has the potential to leave out crucial information, but makes achieving balance extremely difficult, if not totally impossible.
As unbalanced news spreads, this hinders on the key journalistic beliefs of giving all a voice, providing accurate and balanced information and even doing no harm.
By being selective with what goes into such a small tweet, this has the ability to create biased news – something that is to be avoided in the eyes of journalists.
Furthermore, one of social media’s functions is the right to express opinions.
Everyone is entitled to free speech, and platforms such as Twitter can serve as an outlet to convey this.
The problem occurs when this opinion is interpreted as news, and on social media platforms where anyone can comment, the idea of objectivity and fairness and be totally lost.
My experience on Twitter this semester has been insightful and I have been able to witness the benefits and consequences of Twitter firsthand.
Initially, my Tweets were opinionated, and did not constitute as news (below is in reference to a story about Karl Stefanovic entering a café which the article said served cakes and sweets).
As soon as this tweet was made public, it attracted some attention and spread.
Although not harmful to anyone, this does not classify as hard news and is merely an opinion.
As the weeks passed, I was able to improve my tweeting and relay hard news quickly and to the public.
Pictured below are a selection of my tweets that show the evolution of my tweets from opinion to accurate hard news.
I witnessed both the positive and negative impacts on Twitter one night, seeing how I could singlehandedly spread news fast yet also spread potential misinformation.
While watching a 4 Corners episode on how climate change is affecting warfare, I conducted some research and found evidence on how conflict is exacerbated by climate change.
Within the space of half an hour, the tweet had over 100 retweets and 50 likes, emphasising just how quickly the information had spread.
However, it was met with some criticism, as I did not mention that other factors contribute to the drying up of Lake Chad due to the constrained character limit.
In some regards, this could be viewed as misleading and impedes on journalistic values of conveying the truth, and showed me just how fast news, whether it be factual or not, can spread.
Overall, the experience on Twitter was extremely beneficial, and enabled me to see just how effective social media can be as a news medium.
Yet, there are downsides that come along with it which are important to note, and journalists must tread carefully in order to maintain their core values and beliefs.
In the age of social media, now more than ever is the time for journalists to convey their information correctly and effectively through social media, for the consequences of doing it wrong can be nothing short of disastrous.
Comments