Social Media may, in fact, get more done
The idea of mass amateurization is a double-edged sword,
especially when it comes to journalism - in all of its formats. When anyone and
everyone can "publish" anything that they want without
"approval", it can lead to mass misinformation. You miss out on the
input of "professionals"/the powers that be/the experts, whatever you
want to call them that give the input to tell you whether or not what you are
writing is horsesh*t. You miss out on the input of things that you may not have
thought of. However, maybe that isn't entirely true. When you post things for
the world to see, you have the input of hundreds, thousands, even millions of
different opinions, views, "editors". You also don’t get hung up on delaying
technicalities and bureaucracy. When you don't have to filter your information
through the usual avenues of "fact checking", you get the raw,
unedited, uncensored, un-“someone else's agenda” focused information. You get
information in real time. You become a part of it. You get to watch things
unfold. "The people" get to decide what is important to them, not
what someone else thinks should be important. You don't have the spin and
dramatization of news outlets. When this information comes from social media outlets,
which by their very nature have more up-to-date information, these outlets can
also apply pressure to the traditional media outlets to cover what is truly
important to the people. It tells the traditional news channels that sports
scores, Martha Stewart and her dog, what celebrity couple is breaking
up/getting together or what celebrity couple had a baby and that baby’s name
are NOT news. What we see with the government’s and other “powers that be’s”
attempted shutting down of social media accounts, etc. is that they now have
less control over who hears what, and they don’t like it.
Comments
Post a Comment