Social media has allowed everyday citizens to become authors, editors, and publishers of news and information. Do you believe that social media has increased the quality of news and information or decreased it?
I think that this question has valid answers from both sides - the results of citizen journalism really depend on the journalist, I think.
On one hand, citizen journalism leaves a lot of room for error. It would be impossible to regulate, and I would imagine that the spread of hoaxes and misinformation has exploded in recent years. Many blogs do not cite their sources, and can post whatever they want to without any apparent consequences. Alternatively, some of the sources that are used may not be credible themselves, therefore perpetuating the distribution of flawed or incorrect information.
On the other hand, however, citizen journalism can also be used as a fact-checking endeavour. Having the ability to share photos and videos in real-time helps to keep traditional journalists accountable for the information that they provide to their viewers/readers.
Additionally, social media platforms enable citizens to share important information with the world, which could otherwise be censored in certain countries. I actually remember when, a few years ago, Twitter users were asked to change their location to Tehran, regardless of their actual location, in an effort to thwart the censorship of updates from Iranian users.
The quality of information that we consume is not the responsibility of one person or one set of people; it has to be a collective effort of readers/viewers, traditional journalists, and citizen journalists to develop and maintain any sort of integrity in the media. We all need to be held accountable.
