Jump to content


'The Media' vs 'Social Media'

Recommended Posts

Having been involved with a few discussions recently where I explained that much of my view on modern life is shaped by what I see on YouTube, I have been told that my opinion is pointless because YouTube and other similar sites aren't 'proper' media and the content isn't as official as that in a newspaper or on TV news programs.

 

But, why?

 

Lately, people giving interviews and being featured on news programs have their own YouTube channels. They offer their views on the world, much like a newspaper columnist, and they offer their views on what is delivered in 'The Media'.

 

Is it the older generation who don't see the online community as being a credible source of news? Or do they have a point? Is it not a generational thing?

 

The reason I like YouTube is because it isn't as censored as the normal media and means that people can air their opinion without it being edited to fit the narrative of a particular news outlet. I'd like to think, at 36, I've enough experience to make my own mind up based on what's in front of me. Is this a misguided assumption just simply because I watch YouTube for what's going on in the world, as well as the normal media?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only 36 you sound like youre about 76 :hihi:

 

The trouble is with Youtube, and social media, same as wikipedia its not goverened as such, anybody can bang an article or video out there on any subject and call it truth.

How are we to know?

 

The "normal" media, even tho far from perfect, and lies have surfaced, have professional standards, rules and regulations to adhere to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people believe what they read on SM as if it's a trustworthy news source.

It's not though, opinions are presented as facts, facts are made up and then shared as if they have been verified.

 

If a newspaper reports something as factual, with a few exceptions (the sun, the dailymail, the mirror) it's generally pretty safe to assume it's real. "Russia invades Crimea" - if you see that on the BBC, it's probably happened. If you see it on facebook or youtube, well, you need to check a real source to see if it's really happened IMO.

The amount of fake news is high.

Opinions are less controversial, in that they aren't factual anyway, although some of the opinions on SM are based on earlier fake news... You can find plenty of youtube videos telling you about why the earth is flat. But that said a lot of opinions in the media are based on assumptions or interpretations you might not agree with as well. See Katy Hopkins for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's because all the utter lunatics coming up with their conspiracy theories about how the earth is hollow and has an internal sun, Elvis working in shops in Grimsby and so on all, without fail, publicise this utter rubbish on YouTube.

 

It's a little like the Daily Mail. I'm sure not everything they publish is bigoted garbage, but they've published enough bigoted garbage that that becomes the general view of the paper.

 

It's a form of prejudice if you like, but a reasonable one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair there's a large chunk of print media who present opinion as fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't look for news on YT. What's the chance of it being reported in a factual way before Reuters and proper news channels get hold of it. Pretty much zero with a few exceptions like early footage of some disaster happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To be fair there's a large chunk of print media who present opinion as fact.

 

And a fair amount of broadcast media too. The political commentators on Sky and the Beeb are always at it.

 

---------- Post added 14-03-2018 at 15:27 ----------

 

The reason I like YouTube is because it isn't as censored as the normal media

 

Which is precisely why social media is now under such pressure from politicians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some people believe what they read on SM as if it's a trustworthy news source.

It's not though, opinions are presented as facts, facts are made up and then shared as if they have been verified.

 

If a newspaper reports something as factual, with a few exceptions (the sun, the dailymail, the mirror) it's generally pretty safe to assume it's real. "Russia invades Crimea" - if you see that on the BBC, it's probably happened. If you see it on facebook or youtube, well, you need to check a real source to see if it's really happened IMO.

The amount of fake news is high.

Opinions are less controversial, in that they aren't factual anyway, although some of the opinions on SM are based on earlier fake news... You can find plenty of youtube videos telling you about why the earth is flat. But that said a lot of opinions in the media are based on assumptions or interpretations you might not agree with as well. See Katy Hopkins for example.

 

Ricky Gervais summed this up quite well in his current Netflix Special, I don't have a quote but he noted that not only are people's opinions presented as facts on social media (often accepted and unchallenged), people also have a tendency to accept the opinions/facts based on who they belong to. So if a celebrity they like says something categorically incorrect, the person will often side with the celebrity regardless of facts to the contrary.

I did notice similar phenomena myself during the brief period I was a FB user.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a common misconception that everything put out on the Internet is rubbish and everything put out by the BBC and other mainstream TV channels 'must be true.'

 

The truth, as usual, lies somewhere inbetween. Both have something to offer, but discretion / common sense is is required. I always try to check up by using a number of sources. There's no doubt however that the internet has woken up a lot of people to other points of view and new perspectives.

 

however another problem lies in the algorithms that social media newsfeeds employ, that 'read' which articles attract a certain user, then continuously feeds more of the same: supporting articles/news items that back up a users beliefs, reinforcing them and leading to more polarised views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I annoy my friends by looking things up on snopes and posting them whenever they share some rubbish.

 

SM absolutely provides an echo chamber. My friends are mostly similar to me, we have similar backgrounds, education levels, opinions, and so I don't see very much hate speech, but based on SM I'd think that 99% of people were against brexit, nearly everyone is healthy and exercises regularly, everyone knows how to evaluate evidence critically, etc...

As such I don't use it to work out what the common feeling is about anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it's a common misconception that everything put out on the Internet is rubbish and everything put out by the BBC and other mainstream TV channels 'must be true.'

 

The truth, as usual, lies somewhere inbetween. Both have something to offer, but discretion / common sense is is required. I always try to check up by using a number of sources. There's no doubt however that the internet has woken up a lot of people to other points of view and new perspectives.

 

however another problem lies in the algorithms that social media newsfeeds employ, that 'read' which articles attract a certain user, then continuously feeds more of the same: supporting articles/news items that back up a users beliefs, reinforcing them and leading to more polarised views.

As i said before, peoples oninions on social media dont have to be held up against official rules and regulations (as long as they are legal) whereas official media do, theres a massive difference

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't look for news on YT. What's the chance of it being reported in a factual way before Reuters and proper news channels get hold of it. Pretty much zero with a few exceptions like early footage of some disaster happening.

 

I tend to use social media and Youtube in addition to mainstream media.

 

My phone has apps for The Grauniad, BBC, Telegraph, Huff Post and BuzzFeed.

 

When stuff happens, that's where I go first. Then I go to Twitter, Facebook and YT for the stuff that the mainstream media filter out.

 

Having said that, I've been watching a lot of Russia Today recently:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.