COLUMN: Social Media – A blessing and a curse
As a journalist, I love social media. But I also hate it.
The benefits of Facebook and Twitter are expansive. At Central Michigan Life, when I need a story shared with our readers, I can publish it with immediacy and to a very targeted audience.
Only people who specifically follow the publication on Twitter or like CM Life on Facebook directly receive the post, and that’s a good thing. Those who have a vested interest in topics facing CMU are the primary viewers, and that’s exactly who the content was designed for.
The option of sharing posts or retweeting links takes social media to a whole new level. For those who find a topic interesting, sharing the content only takes a quick click and expands viewership well beyond the typical audience.
More than reaching people in an increasingly timely manner, social media introduces immediate feedback into the news-gathering process.
With Facebook comments and tweets, I understand what the readers are saying sooner – and more and more people are talking.
Previously, some of the only feedback journalists received was through letters to the editor and guest submissions. While those are still welcomed and play a very important role in the newspaper today, social media feedback is changing the landscape.
Reporters can now connect readers like never before, receiving nearly instant feedback on their work, tips on gathering new information and most importantly – respond back to the reader.
Previously, CM Life reporters and editors have upheld the policy of refraining from responding on social media. Now, if a reader has an additional question, they can get an answer.
Building a sincere relationship with the readership can help to expand coverage to include the views and opinions of others, and bring a conversational aspect into the reporting process.
Perhaps best of all, reporters can gather information at an unprecedented level. Now, when news breaks, I can instantly reach out to the campus community for background and context.
Through social media, each and every person can contribute to the news-gathering process, and with nearly 10,000 Twitter followers, that input can really stack up.
However, it’s not all good news for journalists.
The avenue for immediacy that social media and the internet paves can often lead to misinformation. Although reporters typically do their due diligence in reporting a story, posting online to reach an audience as quickly as possible can sometimes sacrifice accuracy.
The immediacy leaves less time for the reporter to verify sources and check facts. Breaking news, although passing through the same editing process, loses it’s validity when placed under the pressure of competition for readership.
For example, in an effort to break the news of the Sandy Hook school shooting, multiple news organizations identified the suspect as Ryan Lanza, when the real shooter was his brother, Adam.
The immediacy of the Internet and the sometimes misguided focus on sensationalism to gain readership is a hindrance to the news-gathering process, which is a trend all journalists should be aware of.
Sometimes, giving that story some additional thought can save a newspaper some embarrassment and possibly the need to post a correction at a later date.
Social media also affords readers the opportunity to provide immediate feedback to news posts. These replies are uncensored, unverified and have the ability to be as inaccurate or sensational as the commenter wishes.
Citizen journalism, including posts on blogs, Facebook or Twitter, can spread just as quickly as posts from verified news sources, and can often lead to further misinformation.
Social media can be both a blessing and a curse. On one hand, it offers a whole new tool for journalists to share information and receive feedback. On the other, it affords everyone – including those with inaccurate information – that same opportunity.
