How Social Media May Be Changing the Role of Journalists and Journalism - Essay Example

How social media may be changing the role of journalists and journalism Introduction Over the years, journalists and journalism had been charged with the responsibility to provide insight to the public through mass media which included the television and the radio. The Media acted as the public sphere which was defined as “a domain of our social life in which such things as public opinion could be formed “, (Habermas, p. 41). The journalists educate the public on events and issues and how they affect their lives. The journalists were also required to interview expert sources in order to gather more information on the issues to report about. From the views of the expert sources, the public could be able to make informed decisions on the issues raised by the experts before they compile a report to the public. This is usually called the agenda setting. The journalists in the discharge of their duty to enlighten the public are guided by certain codes of conduct. They have to avoid issues that can wreck havoc or raise them in a rational manner. The journalists also have to censor provocative content to the public before their news story could be broadcasted in the mass media. They also have to ensure that their sources are credible and free from speculations and rumors. They moderate the news contents as they receive them before letting them out to the public domain. However, following the current trend of the social media, there has been an increasing tendency of the social media to act as the journalists. One would expect to receive news through the mass media reported by journalists, but instead, most of the world news is now spreading through the social media that how the mass media would do its work. The news spread by mass media covers longer distances within very short time spans and reach more people than if it could have been dispersed by the mass media. This research therefore, is aimed at discussing and finding out the extent to which the social media is changing journalism and the work of the journalists at large. Journalism could be losing relevance and may become obsolete with time. This could be so as the social media are taking a faster step in assuming all the duties and responsibilities of journalism of receiving and dispersing news to the whole world. They are able to share the news globally making the social media the new mass media reaching billions of people all over the world. For many years, before the advent of the social media, there used to be a lot of trust in the reputable sources of news and journalism as a career was highly regarded in all societies. It came to pass that human beings, born with lots of ability to invent and innovate, came up with easier ways to allow people to socialize and communicate with the whole world just through an interface. Thus, social media, has been rebranded to give it different purposes where people find it very easy to get there and disperse or receive news about the latest happenings all over the globe. Something, for instance, could take place this instance in America, but before the journalists could get access to the news in order to report it officially, someone in Africa who is connected to a friend in America through the social media shall have received the news through the media. Other instances include advertisements through the social media. Several companies have found a large audience base through the social media platform. This is where many young stars and some of the old people take much of their time to socialize with their friends all over the world. Therefore, this opportunity has been taken up by companies to at least promote their companies to their audiences through making advertisements on the social media page. Social media and public opinion The journalists through the mass media such as the radio and television have always had to control and moderate public discussions. The social media has enabled everyone with an account to act as their own moderators. Habermas notes that “public opinion, in terms of its very idea, can only be formed only if a public that engages in rational discussions exists, (P. 93). The social media is changing journalism in that, for a long time, the journalists raise a topic and welcomed the public to make their own opinions. This is done through the means of either making a call directly after the journalists have set an agenda, or leaving your comment about the broadcast news. The topics that they choose are always very appropriate and touch on the majority of the issues that affect the general public. They moderate the discussions in a way that they welcome virtues like politeness and etiquette. They discourage obscene language and direct attack on the participants. This is a factor that has been diluted by the social media journalism. Cases have been seen where an individual may raise a topic for discussion, but some individuals who do not like the topic start to use offensive language. Public opinion is very important only when done in a rational manner. “Public opinion deserves to be as most respected as despised,’’ (Keane, 1982, p. 11). This statement tries to convene a message about the public that they make the media, therefore their opinion matters. However, these opinions need to be evaluated keenly, since not all public opinions are good. Some can be misleading hence the need for moderation. The social media journalism has changed and removed the moderating role of journalism. This can affect the society in a number of ways by making non-moderated information reaches them directly, some of which can create a negative impact on the public. The Habermas school of thought that the public opinion can only exist when the society engages in rational discussions is very applicable in the modern world of the social media. Research has shown that majority of topics that are raised on social media are misleading and inappropriate. The topics cannot add positively on an individual’s life. The topics majorly border on racism, discrimination and incitement. Such topics have led to conflicts and hate speeches on social media. This then can create tension between individuals and even countries, hence the social media journalism has been regarded as being unreliable. The opinions raised in such platforms should not be counted on as suggested by Habermas. This is because they are not done in a rational manner. Journalists have always censored the content they present to the public to ensure that materials of unwanted contend do not reach the public. The censorship is always applied to nudity, obscene language and very graphic images. This is because the public is composed of different people, who share different opinions and are of different age groups. Some of these people can easily be offended by the explicit content. Again, to some extent, some people would like to see everything without some content being offensive to them. To accommodate everyone in the society where such conflicting interests exist, the journalists have always acted in their required codes of conduct to be as neutral as possible in the presentation of their news stories. The contrary is the social media journalists; these people have not read the codes of conduct of journalist, therefore do not bother what news content reaches their audience. In most cases, the media are abused by making it look like a source of immorality and social crimes. These people post nude images and very graphical content to the public via the social media in the name of informing the public. They do not put into consideration the impact of their action. Such actions can lead to lifetime imprisonment and other penalties when discovered and the source apprehended. The majority of the public has lobbied against such journalists as they give bad teachings and trends to the younger generation. These people make the public opinion and hence their rights should be respected. This is because Habermas notes that” citizens act as a public when they deal with matters of general public interests without being subjected to coercion, thus with a guarantee that they may assemble and unite freely, express and publicize their opinions freely,” (p. 51). In this way, we find how bad the social media is changing the role of journalism of responsible censorship. Censorship is very important in preserving the values of the society. For the social media journalism to be of value to the society, several laws and regulations should be enacted to govern the social media journalism so that the morals and values of the society are preserved. Social media and public unity Journalists have always had the role of making the public decide on things collectively. They are charged with the role of uniting the public. This may be on new policies that the government is about to implement or are still undergoing discussions. The journalists have always strived to educate the public on how the policies when implemented will affect their lives. In the process of educating the public, they are able to realize the impact such policies will have on their lives. For the journalists to unite the public, Merritt suggests, ‘’requires shared information of relevance ; a method or place for discussing the application of information to public affairs ; and shared values on which to base decisions about the information,”(Merritt, 1994, p. 22). The social media journalism has failed to unite the public. Reason being, they raise very good issues but the audience for such news lack expert opinions to give guidance. This is because the issues that are raised may be too complex that requires an expert to break it down. They also lack moderators to bring control so that chance to give an opinion is given. The social media lacks organization and control. This makes it impossible for the public to make informed and uniform judgments on issues at hand. The public is always good at making decisions on what should be censored and what should not be censored. Censorship is always subjective on human experiences as different people find different things offensive. Yankelovich suggests that the tests of good public judgments are purpose, truth and proof. The purpose is always “mutual understanding to realize common goals and values,” (Yankelovich, 1991, p. 229) Social media and public journalism The social media like Facebook has improved public journalism in a number of ways. Public journalism is all about increasing the participation of the public in affairs that affect them. The idea is always to make life of the public better by creating awareness about the critical concern points of life. The role of a journalist should be more than just distribution of technical and strategic information. Public journalism requires the journalists to help the public in solving the problems that affect them. Journalism has always used the standard news elements such as who, what, when, where and why when they do stories such as on crimes. Public journalism demands that the journalists educate the public on the effects and consequences of such crimes and why it is necessary to avoid crimes. Through social media, public journalism has been improved to some extent. The journalists have created pages, which are very informative and educative to the general public through the media platform. This has created public awareness on issues that were never openly discussed in other mass media such as radio and television. This is due to the fact that public journalism demands that the public should be engaged in discussions of such matters. The journalists should create new ways of engaging the public discussions. This could be as simple as a letter to the editor, public forums or publishing lists of organizations so citizens can get involved if they wish to,’’ (Merritt, 1994, p26-27). This has been achieved by the social media as they are able to reach a larger group of individuals. These individuals are also given the chance to share their experiences among themselves. This is a way of learning new ideas and implementing them so as not to repeat the mistake that was made by another person. Social media and the political public sphere “Public sphere is open to access by all,’’ (Habermas, p41). This applies when the political public sphere is concerned but requires some legal proceedings. The journalists have always acted in a sensitive way when matters of the state are concerned. This is because the state may have very sensitive issues that are not supposed to be leaked to other country citizens. For example, a state official, may be the president, may make unfriendly remarks about a neighboring country. This can ruin the good relationship between the nations. Journalists have always had a way of concealing some of the things politicians say. The social media journalism has given individual power to post political remarks on political rallies directly without prior editing. This has also been made possible by the smart phones which have the capabilities to capture quality voice and video recordings. This has created clashes and civil wars among nations. There is a measure of how public state-related activities should be, ’’Regulations concerning the publicity of state-related activities for instance, the public accessibility required of legal proceedings,” (Habermas, p. 93). “Habermas’s account of the bourgeois conception of the public sphere stresses its claim to be open and accessible to all,” (Fraser, p. 54). This is one of the dreams that the social media has made the public realize. For a long time journalistic discussion has always been open to the experts who could give credible arguments it is their opinion that is counted in journalism. Social media journalism allows everyone to give their opinions regardless of age, race and academic qualifications. This has enhanced democracy in journalism that everyone in the public sphere has a say about opinions that affect them. The Habermas concept of public sphere had many flaws in relation to open access. It assumes that the public sphere is or can be a space of zero degree culture,” (Fraser, p. 53). It's assumed that everyone in the public sphere is equal. He overlooked the social classes that emerged which limited open access and democracy in journalism. This is because those who fell in the higher social ranks were given more priority. Their opinions counted. The social media have changed the role of journalism which was initially meant for those higher in the social class to cater to everyone. The Habermas concept of public sphere being free to all is being realized by the social media and has changed the way journalism operates in the modern world Social media and broadcasting Since time immemorial “historians and political theorists have labeled the press since the eighteenth century as central to the public sphere.” The broadcast media was meant to keep alive the public affairs. This kind of media included the radio, the newspapers and the television. They served to purpose of informing, entertaining and educating. The newspaper is the most ancient among them. Without these news media, people would have remained “uninformed and would not act,” (Butsch. pg. 67). Even with the availability of the papers, readership had not expanded. The society divided into classes and those that fell in the higher social ranking could afford them. The Habermas idea of public sphere being open to all was not applicable. He simply idealized the concept which the public did not put into practice because at that period in time, the newspaper being a public sphere was not accessible to all. The public for a long time has resorted to journalism to get news and stories of events that affect them. The news and the information got depended on a number of factors such as distance from the place to the journalist. Sometimes, very news worthy stories failed to reach the public sphere for the public to raise opinions due to distance. The news covered could only be aired at designated times. Today, the broadcast media has expanded yet not everyone can access it as not everyone in the world has access to television. The social media has done a major role in increasing the accessibility of use and access to the public sphere. This is because most of the portable devices like the mobile phones have access to the social media. The world has become a global village and people inhabiting different countries are able to communicate and share ideas. There is no restriction at all. Hence the social media has increased the coverage in journalism. The journalists have the opportunity to generate new stories and identify newsworthy stories through the discussions that are made over the social media. This is because every opinion counts. Conclusion The social media like Facebook are just like any other media that broadcast news. This is because it has a wide reach and its content is similar to any mass media. The social media informs, entertains and educates. The public opinions on such platforms deserve to be at most respected as despised, (Keane, 1982, p. 11). The question on whether the opinions on mass media should be considered relevant should be subjected to discussion. The individuals using such opinions should have ethics on what is right and what is wrong. Therefore should use their moral judgment to decide on the reliability of the materials to use. The social media just like journalism has attempted to promote unity among citizens. In my own opinion, it has created rift more than it has created cohesion. Social media being a public sphere is free to access by all according to Habermas. Limits of democracy have to be put in place. Even in democratic states, there are rules to be followed to reduce cases of hate speech, racism and discrimination that arises due to lack of proper laws to govern the use of the social media. This is probably because the social media is a new discovery of the century. For the social media to fully realize its potential, the state officials should quickly come up with policies to ensure safety in the use of the social media. Anything that has advantages must have disadvantages. So far, the social media journalism has presented a lot of disadvantages from crimes, lack of censorship and incitement. It is undeniable that social media has changed the way news stories reach the public domain. The public has also been given authority to comment on news stories and the feedback in social media is very immediate as opposed to broadcast journalism. When laws to tackle crimes committed in the social media are implemented, then the social media will become the mass media of the future and journalists and journalism will lose meaning and relevance. This is because social media present around the clock news and events globally. The journalists even resort to social media to get their source news when they happen. Works cited Butsch, Robert, (2007) “Media and Public Sphere”. New York, Palgrave McMillan. Fraser, Nancy (199 3) “Rethinking the Public Sphere: a contribution to the critique of actually Existing democracy”, in: Bruce Robbins (Ed.), Phantom Public Sphere, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press Habermas , Jurgen (1 989) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: an inquiry into a category of bourgeois society, trans. Thomas Burger, Cambridge, Massachusetts, M IT Press. Keane, John (1982) “Elements of a Radical Theory of Public Life: from Tonnies to Habernas and beyond”, Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory Merritt, Davis (19 95) Public Journalism and Public Life: why telling the news is not enough, Hillsdale, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Yankelovich, Daniel (1 99 1) coming to Public Judgment: making democracy work in a complex world, Syracuse, New York, Syracuse University Press. Zoe, Fox (2013). The Dos and Don’ts of pitching Journalists on social media. A journal of the Mashable.com. Read More