Journalism without a license?

Journalism without a license?

Social media continues to change our communication landscape.  And while this new-age media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, YouTube) offers a host of benefits – opportunities to connect, share, enthuse and support – it also carries with it unintended consequences.  Such as figuring out who, and what, to trust. 

Now that individuals – not just news organizations – can go “one-to-many,” it significantly changes our ability to discern.

Witness the upcoming election. 

I don’t know about you, but it’s been a bit unsettling to listen to the charges and accusations leveled via social media this fall. On one level, I suppose, it’s simply (political) business as usual – that is, criticize the opposition, regardless of the facts, and that will enhance your candidate’s chances of winning.  It’s a familiar song.   

But another significant factor is now in play – social media now allows individuals, and not just news organizations, to communicate with the masses.  It’s a fundamental shift in how we receive information. 

Back in the day (think: 20^th century) we received the bulk of our “information” from news organizations – TV, radio, newspapers and magazines (e.g., Time and Newsweek).  And in those days, when journalism was truly journalism, the goal was to deliver valuable, timely and unbiased information. Thomas Jefferson and the Founding Fathers knew this, they knew that an informed citizenry was the key to a strong democracy and that journalists played a key role. And the reason is simple. Journalists are fact checkers – they don’t take statements or accusations at face value. They run it down, ferret out the truth, and write it up – in an unbiased and direct way – for you to digest and assess. 

Granted, journalism in the late 20^th century and early 21^st century is not at its finest. Entertainment and bias have taken center stage, which is why I found it nearly impossible to listen to both CNBC and Fox News in the last presidential election – both were shaping the news to favor their candidate. Not particularly helpful, not when your job is to deliver information in an even handed way.

Enter social media, where individuals now have the ability to communicate with the masses – without an editor to hold them accountable (years ago, when I was a reporter in the nation’s capital, covering the White House, my editor made certain I had verification for every detail of my story).    

Now what?  How do you decide who to trust? We now have individuals sharing information that is totally unvetted – no filter, no editor over the shoulder, no screen whatsoever. 

It’s a bit unnerving.  And there’s nothing on the horizon to indicate that things will improve in the near future. 

So, as you consider who to vote for in next week’s election, consider the source of your information, and weigh it carefully.  It’s probably best to spend more time listening to the candidates, and reading their answers to pointed questions, than relying on Facebook or Twitter accounts to help you make an informed decision. 

It’s a no-holes-barred world out there, and we have to recognize that much of the information we’re reading, or hearing, has not been reviewed, edited, analyzed or fairly considered. 

So be careful, and prudent. And when you can, qualify your sources.

##