Amid the withering of newspaper revenues and the ascent of Facebook, it can be easy to lose sight of the fact that social media refers to tools for connecting with others and sharing information. These media aren’t inherently transformative. They’re tools with no fixed outcomes. All media are embedded in cultural contexts that end up determining how and why they’re used. Each technology brings certain constraints and affordances, but ultimately it’s about us.
Social media can be used to get us closer to the truth and they can be used to distort. They can be used to enlighten. They can be used to stupefy. And, as we continue to witness, social media can be used to help topple oppressive regimes around the world just as they can suppress dissent.
So I could whip up some anecdotes providing evidence of verified news on social media sites just as easily as I could deliver doom-and-gloom anecdotes. Illustrative? Yes. Conclusive? Not so much.
The meteoric rise in social media use since the early 2000s has left journalistic debris in its wake. Distortions! Immediacy trumping accuracy! Cute cats everywhere! Shrunken newsrooms! Some of this change has been costly for communities and the newsrooms that cover them. In the long run, however, we’re better off. Here’s why: Social media facilitate more swapping and mingling of knowledge and ideas. The recent social media revolution is already fueling advances in journalism and better ideas about how reporters can engage and accurately inform citizens. Look at the Guardian’s interactive, data-driven stories or any of The New York Times’ socially oriented Beta620 projects.
Journalism’s practitioners and scholars are being pushed to define what they do and evolve the craft alongside other burgeoning forms of information consumption and production. This constitutes a sharpening of journalism, not a dumbing down.
Hans Peter Ibold is an assistant professor of journalism at Indiana University.
