Blogs, Twitter, Facebook, and a host of other news and social media sites have allowed average citizens to become newsmakers. Is this a good or bad thing? Is the increase in citizen journalism leading to inaccuracies in reporting? Or can we trust that Americans will “consider the source” and verify any questionable information they read on a blog?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

The increase in citizen journalism is both a good and a bad thing. On the good side, Americans can get their news much faster than ever before. Someone at a political rally, for example, can post news about the event right to his or her Facebook or Twitter page, even while still at the event. Readers of this page can be informed about the rally without having to wait for the evening news. The use of these news sources allows citizens to get information faster and easier than ever before. Some observers argue that this has led to a more informed public. Although this may be true, there are also some negative consequences. A writer for the Boston Globe, for example, has to have his or her article fact-checked and authenticated. This is not true for someone posting information to a social media site in real time. Anyone can post anything. The result is that the reader of these new-media sources has to be extra vigilant about ensuring the authenticity of the posted information. The old saying was, “You can’t believe everything you read.” Perhaps now it should be, “You can’t believe everything that is posted.”