Journalism and Social Media in Conflict
“What unites a ‘people,’ an ‘us,’ is a project, something we’re after together.”
James K. A. Smith, Awaiting the King
Humans are beings who gather. Over time their gatherings become societies, large ecosystems characterized by a myriad of relationships and institutions ranging from families to places of worship to national governments. In Awaiting the King, James K. A. Smith defines the polis (Greek for “city”) as “a formative community of solidarity” (9). Fundamentally, humans come together around what they hold in common, but Smith argues that the societies they form are not neutral. Each institution is oriented toward a telos, an ultimate goal. Families, churches, schools, laws, and governments are entities which seek to form individual citizens according to a specific vision of the common good. This vision is the reason for an institution’s existence and the motivator for its actions and communication. As Smith summarizes, “Institutions are not just abstract placeholders for various functions; they are incubators of habituation that make us a certain kind of people—indeed, they forge the very notion of an ‘us’” (10).
Journalism is a primary example of a formative institution. In a democratic society such as that of the United States, journalists believe that an informed public is essential for a properly functioning society. It is generally assumed that informed citizens are more engaged in society and better equipped to govern themselves and address the challenges facing their communities. By reporting current events and relevant issues, journalists intend to form citizens who see themselves not as isolated individuals but as active participants in the pursuit of the common good.
If its primary goal is to inform the public, then ideally journalists would present citizens with a complete, accurate, and neutral report of the important events and issues of their society. However, to use Smith’s language, this description sees journalism as an “abstract placeholder,” an institution that presents the news without any active or passive effect on a message or audience. As Smith makes clear, no institution is completely neutral.
The American Press Institute defines journalism as “the activity of gathering, assessing, creating, and presenting news and information.” This definition communicates an important fact of journalism: news is made, not found. There is no single, arbitrary rule that decides what counts as “news.” Journalists and editors must sift through enormous amounts of information, deciding which stories to include and which to exclude. They determine the order in which content is presented and the amount of space each topic is given. They choose who is interviewed and which quotes make it into the final product. These difficult choices are influenced by a variety of factors, including judgments of a story’s “newsworthiness,” the decisions of other journalists, perceptions of audience interest, local context, and personal bias. In other words, informing an audience involves a process of careful decisions.
The public recognizes the potential of these choices to corrupt journalism, but to a certain degree, audience expectations prevent corruption. Audiences expect journalists to cite and verify sources and report truthfully, impartially, and promptly. These principles are necessary for journalism that seeks to genuinely inform citizens, and they are upheld in the mission statements of news companies. The Associated Press describes journalism as “bringing truth to the world” and commits to reporting “quickly, accurately, and honestly” (“News Values and Principles”). A portion of the Washington Post’s mission statement reads, “The first mission of a newspaper is to tell the truth as nearly as the truth may be ascertained” (Washington Post Staff). National Public Radio (NPR) describes journalism as “a daily process of painting an ever truer picture of the world,” and its website describes journalism with terms such as “accurate,” “fair,” “complete,” and “impartial” (NPR Ethics Handbook). Truthfulness, timeliness, and impartiality are expectations that provide a measure of accountability for journalists. Journalism can only reach its telos of an informed public if the public trusts that journalists are abiding by these principles to the best of their ability.
Journalism and Media
By definition, journalism is inextricably connected to media. Journalists cannot organize and communicate news to the public without using media, whether it is a printed newspaper, television network, or website. Communication theory suggests that like journalism, media itself is a social institution. Just as the editorial decisions of journalists reflect specific goals and values, each medium carries its own goals, values, and biases. For example, television and newspaper communicate in unique ways and therefore affect messages and audiences differently.
Throughout its history, journalism has adapted to advancements in communication technology with little hesitation. Printed newspapers and periodicals were eventually joined by radio and television, and most recently journalism has flooded the internet and social media. In “Internet and Social Media: Bridge or Barrier to a Culture of Communion?”, Leo-Martin Angelo Ocampo summarizes three stages of internet evolution. The first, referred to as Web 1.0, could be compared to a large encyclopedia, enabling users to view information but not interact with it (35). Web 2.0, which Ocampo terms the “interactive web,” introduced a social dimension to the internet by allowing users to create and upload their own content (37). The third stage is referred to as the “intuitive web” because of its ability to structure and organize vast amounts of information to make it more user-friendly (40). This third iteration is exemplified in social media sites like Facebook and Twitter, which use algorithms and artificial intelligence to tailor users’ experiences according to factors such as age, gender, location, and online activity.
Indeed, the internet offers several significant advantages to journalists. Once a journalist publishes an article online, it is immediately available to anyone with internet access, increasing both the immediacy of news and the degree to which it can spread. Furthermore, while newspapers and television programs are constrained by space and time, the internet is capable of storing infinite amounts of information. Social media particularly enables journalists to reach much larger audiences more quickly than ever before, and as smartphones replace computers and laptops as the primary means by which individuals get online, the use of social platforms has exploded.
According to the 2020 Reuters Institute Digital News Report, 58% of Americans reported having used a smartphone to access news in the last week (Newman 30). The study notes that the use of social media to access news has especially risen in younger generations: “Those aged 18–24 (so-called Generation Z) have an even weaker connection with websites and apps and are more than twice as likely to prefer to access news via social media” (11). Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Reddit, and even Instagram and Snapchat have become primary places where individuals become informed about the world.
Journalists and audiences both agree that truthful, objective, and relevant journalism is vital for a healthy society. With this in mind, and in view of the power of media to influence communicators and messages, journalists must seek to understand the unique influences, biases, and values that characterize a specific medium and adjust their approach accordingly. Unfortunately, in their eagerness to take advantage of the capabilities offered by social media, news companies have largely failed to consider the potential pitfalls it creates for journalism.
A Critical Examination of Social Media as a Platform for Journalism
Social media, the quintessential feature of the intuitive web, is best understood not as a neutral tool or container but as a community of individual users with unique profiles and influence. Vivian Roese describes the social media space in relation to journalism: “Today, social media rather function as the meeting place where the audience is to be found by news media. They are platforms where the audience exchange news and show each other the latest pieces of information they are willing to share and recommend” (314).
While readers and viewers have little direct influence on editorial decisions, journalists and editors have always had to pay attention to their audience in order to maintain its trust and loyalty. Social media strengthens the voice of the audience—clicks, likes, comments, and shares indicate user preferences and influence which topics and issues receive the most attention (or any attention at all). Since social media increases the influence of the user, an examination of its merit as a platform for journalism must compare the values and preferences of users with the principles of good journalism. Does social media and its users favor objective and unbiased truth-telling? Are users most concerned with events and issues that actually have an effect on their lives and communities?
In his book Why We’re Polarized, Ezra Klein points out that “the digital revolution offered access to unimaginably vast vistas of information, but, just as important, it offered access to unimaginably more choice” (143). In contrast to the average newspaper audience of the early twentieth century, social media users face a never-ending stream of words, images, news, entertainment, and advertising. In his 1922 book Public Opinion, Walter Lippmann described this constant media bombardment, and today his words are a stinging description of a society preoccupied with the internet: “Can anything be heard in the hubbub that does not shriek, or be seen in the general glare that does not flash like an electric sign?” (40-1). Amidst this unceasing torrent of online content, journalists are forced to fight for attention or risk drowning in irrelevancy. Self-professed “media manipulator” Ryan Holiday summarizes the central questions of the internet: “Will this get attention? Will it spread?” (231). Unfortunately, truthful, objective, and impartial journalism rarely coincides with what draws attention.
Identity
Klein notes a central characteristic of social media that profoundly influences how content spreads—user identity. “Social platforms are about curating and expressing a public-facing identity. They’re about saying, ‘I’m a person who cares about this, likes that, and loathes this other thing.’ They are about signaling the groups you belong to and, just as important, the groups you don’t belong to” (152). Lippman understood that people are attracted to information that confirms their biases, presuppositions, and stereotypes: “Our attention is called to those facts which support it, and diverted from those which contradict” (65). Since social media is built around individual profiles, content that confirms or threatens a user’s self-perceived identity is most likely to elicit attention and interaction.
While it is far more likely to garner attention, news that appeals to user identity is antithetical to the principle of impartiality that journalism ought to strive for. Content that solidifies or threatens political allegiances suffocates dialogue and creates polarized online spaces that preclude meaningful interaction with other views. Shockingly, many social media users acknowledge this phenomenon yet do not seem to care: Reuters found that 30% of U.S. respondents “prefer news that shares their point of view” (17).
Virality
Another characteristic of information that easily attracts attention on social media is virality. Viral content includes anything novel, shocking, controversial, and sensational—in short, anything that triggers strong emotion. According to Holiday, the most powerful emotions in an online context are extremes on the emotional spectrum such as anger (63). On the crowded feeds of Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter, news that sparks emotions like anger or excitement will ultimately stand out. “Yet information is rarely clearly good or bad,” Holiday cautions. “It tends to have elements of both, or none of either. It just is. Navigating this quandary forces marketers and publishers to conspire to distort this information into something that will register on the emotional spectrum of the audience” (64). As a result, social media leaves little room for journalists seeking to provide nuanced reports of complex events and issues.
An increasingly common consequence of social media’s viral tendencies is the spread of conspiracy, a prominent example of which is QAnon. Kevin Roose summarizes the QAnon belief system: “QAnon is the umbrella term for a sprawling set of internet conspiracy theories that allege, falsely, that the world is run by a cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles who are plotting against Mr. Trump while operating a global child sex-trafficking ring.” QAnon grew rapidly after cryptic posts on the fringe message board 4chan spread to larger sites like Facebook and YouTube (Roose). QAnon illustrates how virality completely contradicts journalistic principles—conspiracies spread rapidly not because they are true or relevant but simply because they are absurd. The combination of a shocking narrative with no system of verification leads to unsuspecting and gullible users quickly adopting a ridiculous theory.
Users bear some responsibility for perpetuating identity-focused and viral content, but social media algorithms are also major contributors. The defining feature of what Ocampo calls the “intuitive web” (40), these algorithms learn users’ habits and preferences in order to customize the content they see on their feeds. On the positive side, algorithms enable journalists to analyze and know their audiences to a much greater degree than what is possible with newspapers or television. However, algorithms exercise significant control over what content is consumed and which online interactions occur (Roese 322-3). Some praise the ability of social media to enable interaction with diverse views and perspectives, but few social media users actively seek out such interaction. As a result, algorithms continue feeding them content that matches their own beliefs and preferences, compounding polarization and confirmation bias. As Klein summarizes, “The internet has become much better at learning what we want and giving us more of it” (144).
Under Pressure
If the characteristics and influences of social media are so counterproductive to truly informative journalism, why have news companies and journalists embraced it as a medium? Ultimately, journalism is captive to the media preferences of audiences. As their audience continues to spend more time on social media, journalists have little choice but to follow. Furthermore, independent journalism is a business, and the primary way that most news companies make money is through advertising. Marketers want to reach the largest audience possible, so they advertise on platforms and websites that draw the most views and clicks. Journalists are thus forced to play by the rules of advertising in order to survive on social media. Holiday summarizes the resulting danger: “The economics of the Internet created a twisted set of incentives that make traffic more important—and more profitable—than the truth” (15).
Clicks, views, comments, and shares are the currency of the internet and the metrics which are most attractive to advertisers. Certain established news companies have built reputations and subscriber bases that guarantee advertiser attention. Many others, however, are forced to acquiesce to the corrupt values of social media in order to make money, creating a quantity over quality scenario. The more content they can publish, the more advertising revenue they will receive. “Every person (with the exception of a few at the top layer) in this ecosystem is under immense pressure to produce content under the tightest of deadlines” (Holiday 26).
A dangerous by-product of this pressure is what Holiday calls “iterative journalism” (167). Much of what is considered viral content—rumors, buzz, conspiracy, snark, and controversy—also fits within the category of iterative journalism. Because advertisers value traffic, many journalists and news companies are willing to publish incomplete, unverified, and meaningless stories as news in order to boost audience engagement. Holiday points out that this kind of reporting poses a danger to audiences who do not understand that such content is often fabricated, exaggerated, or hastily gathered using questionable sources.
While the internet enables content to be updated after it is initially published, the damage of iterative journalism is in most cases irreversible. “Suppressing one’s instinct to interpret and speculate, until the totality of evidence arrives, is a skill that detectives and doctors train for years to develop. This is not something us regular humans are good at; in fact, we’re wired to do the opposite. The human mind ‘first believes, then evaluates’” (Holiday 183). Hasty conclusions lead to “cognitive rigidity,” where the mind accepts an explanation that becomes a rigid framework through which all future information is perceived (Holiday 184).
In addition to social media’s partiality toward viral content, iterative journalism and cognitive rigidity partially explain its propensity to spread misinformation and disinformation, a phenomenon that has risen in prevalence during the COVID-19 pandemic. In a recent study, the online activist group Avaaz reported that “Content from the top 10 websites spreading health misinformation had almost four times as many estimated views on Facebook as equivalent content from the websites of 10 leading health institutions, such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).” On Facebook alone, the study estimates that health misinformation networks generated 3.8 billion views in the past year (“Facebook’s Algorithm: A Major Threat to Public Health”). The World Health Organization, which calls the problem an “infodemic,” has worked with social media sites and national governments in an attempt to curb misinformation (”Let’s Flatten the Infodemic Curve”).
Especially in the early months of 2020, when scientific understanding of COVID-19 was constantly evolving, it was vital that accurate information about the nature and spread of the virus be communicated clearly to the public. Unfortunately, social media allowed false information and misconstrued data to share space with accurate guidance from legitimate sources, with dangerous consequences: In a survey of almost 9,000 American adults in March 2020, the Pew Research Center found that 29% believed COVID-19 was created in a lab (Schaeffer). Conflicting narratives on social media hinder efforts to accurately inform the public, and in the case of a pandemic, widespread misinformation could have fatal consequences.
As more people become aware of the propensity of social media to spread false information, public trust in online journalism has slowly degraded. Reuters reports that “More than half [56%] of our sample across 40 countries remains concerned about what is real and fake on the internet when it comes to news” (Newman 18). Moreover, 40% of respondents were most concerned about misinformation on social media (20). In addition to fighting internet algorithms, greedy advertisers, and public hunger for viral and sensational content, journalists are forced to swim against a strong current of distrust.
Abandon or Accept?
Social media clearly has a detrimental effect on journalism. The priorities and biases of the medium—identity, virality, sensationalism, and traffic—are antithetical to truthful, impartial, and relevant journalism that seeks to genuinely inform the public. Strong criticism of social media could inspire a Luddite-esque abandonment of the medium, but this kind of reaction does not address the root of the problem.
Studies such as the Reuters Digital News Report show that the presence of journalism on social media has grown significantly. However, most people create social media accounts primarily for social purposes—to connect with family, share content with friends, and form groups around shared interests. Accessing news is not the first priority of most users, so it is unrealistic to expect them to abandon social media on arguments that it undermines journalism. Moreover, since the fundamental goal of journalism is to inform the public (and because most news companies rely on advertising revenue), journalists are captive to the media preferences of their audience. As long as the public continues to favor social media and the internet, journalists will continue to report and publish content online. And despite the weaknesses identified above, the advantages offered by social media still bear consideration. Social media allows journalists to rapidly communicate to vast audiences, an extremely valuable ability during emergencies like terrorist attacks or natural disasters.
An abandonment of social media also suggests, falsely, that other mediums are incapable of undermining journalism. Social media’s problems are especially prevalent in the internet age, but newspaper, radio, and television are not immune to sensationalism and misinformation. All journalism is produced by finite humans and communicated through imperfect media. As Lippmann illustrates, what is presented to audiences as “news” cannot communicate the fullness and complexity of an event: “The news does not tell you how the seed is germinating in the ground, but it may tell you when the first sprout breaks through the surface” (185). It is because of these limitations that journalists must be held to principles like truthfulness and impartiality. Good journalism can and should be trusted, but audiences must be careful that their trust does not become passive acceptance.
Social Media, Journalism, and the Church
Like journalism and social media, the Christian church can also be defined in institutional terms. Christian worship is theocentric, but it is false to claim that the church is an enclave into which believers run to flee culture and the outside world. As Smith asserts, “the church is less a contrast society we retreat into than a re-centering community of practice that we are sent from” (96). Christian community is oriented outward—as believers participate in worship and fellowship in the body of Christ, they are formed in order to spread the love of Christ and the good news of the gospel in their neighborhoods, communities, and beyond.
This outward orientation is reflected in the teaching of Jesus. He commissioned his disciples saying, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matt. 28:19-20 NASB). Mark 12:31 records the second-greatest commandment: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Jesus embodied love in his life and ministry, and this commandment is illustrated in the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) and in Jesus’ description of the judgment of the righteous (Matthew 25:34-40).
The formative role of the church reflects the fact that Christians are embodied beings inhabiting particular places. The body of Christ includes all believers in all places, but it is manifested in local churches. Smith describes the church’s role as “the ad hoc, contextualized work of discerning what faithful political presence looks like in this time, in our place, given these current challenges and these policy proposals and this political environment in parliament, and so on” (97). In addition to communicating the message of the gospel, the church images Christ and seeks his kingdom by pursuing justice, peace, and the common good in particular places.
In view of the church’s outward orientation and local manifestation, journalism can play an important role in the life of the Christian. By informing the public of current events and issues, journalism reminds the church of its existence in a particular time and place and draws Christians’ attention to the needs of their neighbors. While scripture remains the church’s primary authority, truthful and impartial journalism can also help the church envision what caring for others and for creation looks like in particular places and amidst unique circumstances.
However, social media has inundated the public and the church with poor examples of journalism. This year, social media feeds were flooded with COVID-19 panic, heated debates over racism and police reform, and stinging rhetoric from political parties vying for the U.S. presidency (among other things). Social media’s propensity for misinformation, bias, polarization, conflict, and sensationalism fuels the chaos, producing not attentiveness and action but anger, anxiety, frustration, and exhaustion.
Complete abandonment does not solve the problem nor does it recognize that good journalism, in addition to worship, can inform and equip the church to go out and act as the church. Nonetheless, because social media poses a significant threat to true journalism, it is important for Christians to reduce their reliance on social media as a medium for news. In addition to developing critical thinking skills and habits, believers must support journalism that seeks truth and is attentive to locality. As it distances itself from Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and other social platforms, the local church will be able to refocus its attention and energy toward its immediate neighbors and community.
Works Cited
“Facebook’s Algorithm: A Major Threat to Public Health.” Avaaz, 19 Aug. 2020, secure.avaaz.org/campaign/en/facebook_threat_health/.
“News Values and Principles.” Associated Press, www.ap.org/about/news-values-and-principles/.
“NPR Ethics Handbook.” NPR, www.npr.org/ethics/.
Holiday, Ryan. Trust Me, I’m Lying. Portfolio/Penguin, 2012.
Klein, Ezra. Why We’re Polarized. Avid Reader Press, 2020.
“Let’s Flatten the Infodemic Curve.” World Health Organization, https://www.who.int/news-room/spotlight/let-s-flatten-the-infodemic-curve.
Lippmann, Walter. Public Opinion. Harcourt, 1922.
Newman, Nic, et al. Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2020. Reuters Institute, 2020, https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2020-06/DNR_2020_FINAL.pdf.\
Ocampo, Leo-Martin Angelo R. “INTERNET AND SOCIAL MEDIA: Bridge or Barrier for a Culture of Communion?” Landas, vol. 32, no. 2, 2018, pp. 33–59. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rfh&AN=ATLAiREM200224001128&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
Roese, Vivian. “You Won’t Believe How Co-Dependent They Are: Or: Media Hype and the Interaction of News Media, Social Media, and the User.” From Media Hype to Twitter Storm, edited by Peter Vasterman, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, 2018, pp. 313–332. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt21215m0.19.
Roose, Kevin. “What is QAnon, the Viral Pro-Trump Conspiracy Theory?” The New York Times, 19 Oct. 2020, www.nytimes.com/article/what-is-qanon.html.
Schaeffer, Katherine. “Nearly Three-in-ten Americans Believe COVID-19 was Created in a Lab.” Pew Research Center, 8 Apr. 2020, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/08/nearly-three-in-ten-americans-believe-covid-19-was-made-in-a-lab/.
Smith, James K. A. Awaiting the King. Baker, 2017.
The Bible. New American Standard Bible. Zondervan, 2002.
Waldherr, Annie. “Modelling Issue-Attention Dynamics in a Hybrid Media System.” From Media Hype to Twitter Storm, edited by Peter Vasterman, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, 2018, pp. 291–312. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt21215m0.18.
Washington Post Staff. “Policies and Standards.” The Washington Post, 1 Jan. 2016, www.washingtonpost.com/news/ask-the-post/wp/2016/01/01/policies-and-standards/.