Symbiosis Between Newspapers and Social Media

Newspapers and Social Media Create

a Big Symbiosis Instead Rivalry

Enrique Castejon-Lara*

Abstract:

Social media have been increasing their relevance in contemporary society, including as an emerging abundant news source. For that reason, newspapers cannot ignore them. However, they have to carefully watch de information flows from them to evade risk of using fake facts in their reports.

In the last decade, the habitual news stream has been changing in the world because of the appearance of social media. For that circumstance, many mass communication specialists have declared that the existence of newspapers is in risk.

However, today that change in the mass communication world is evidencing a very different situation. Social media are not replacing newspapers nor these ones are affecting social media. On the contrary, both communication systems have been complementing each other. Right now, it is occurring a symbiotic process between both current information systems —journalism and people on-line media.

Certainly, journalism has found in social media a new and explosive news source; but in a very raw manner. For that reason, it has realized that the information richness of those media includes also huge jeopardies, because in the social media news’ torrent comes indiscriminately some true facts and a lot of fake data.

In short, increasing relevance in contemporary society of those new information resources cannot be ignore by newspapers —but they have the ethical obligation of checking the facts that social media ‘reveal’ (Castejon-Lara, 2015); because, on the flow content of those means, there are many messages with different intentions and journalists have to revise them in order to inform honestly to audiences.

Popularity of social media, finally, is a real temptation for news manipulators, propagandists, and unscrupulous public relation specialists. So that, reporters have the obligation of checking those aspects taken from social media before processing news. Actually, audiences are expecting just that —that journalists, after processing news, offer a trust version of that they previously read on social media.

Reference:

CASTEJON-LARA, Enrique. Interpretative Reporting, CreativeSpace (Amazon), 2015

*Tenure professor for Central University of Venezuela, UCV (Spanish acronym).

HOW CAN JOURNALISM FIGHT PROPAGANDA?

Mass Media Against Totalitarianism

How Can Journalism Fight Propaganda?

Enrique Castejon-Lara

@ECastejonL

Abstract

Usually, certain government representatives and political leaders use their public relevance to impose through press their ideas in people, although some or all of them do not fit to real facts. Systematically, they use the journalism credibility on audiences and its news techniques for their own ideological benefits.

Historically, journalism has privileged government and other relevant public news sources because of their assumed reliability. Reason? Their prominence. However, this standard practice has become through time a double-edged sword for truth —an Achilles’ heel, indeed.

Totalitarian governments and some political leaders, largely, have been using that journalistic practice for their own benefits. They know that independent reporters always repeat “objectively” what they say, and audiences tend to believe them. In other words, propaganda promoters frequently include fake or altered facts press declarations in their ideological strategy’s campaigns. In addition, propagandists are experts offering “attractive” declarations and “scoop traps” to increase reporters’ interest in covering them.

For that reasons, journalists have to increase their fact checking task to avoid divulgation of fake news. At the same time, they have also to place propagandist declarations on the real news context and continuously clarify to audiences that the ideas exposed are responsibility of that news sources. In other words, reporters have to rethink some traditional journalistic criteria.

Constructing liar source barriers is the only way to stop —and, maybe, defeat— propaganda, which is trying constantly to use press credibility for your own ideological benefits.

IMPACT OF SILENCE IN JOURNALISM

Abstract

Sometimes, the omission of certain sources’ information can be the best way to combat fake news and propaganda. However, some reporters involuntary are helping liars to spread false information and ideological commentaries with their news. Is it really an obligation of journalists to report everything provide for a clearly deceiver spokesperson?

Enrique Castejon-Lara

Major studies in Mass Communication recognize noise as a perturbation of message transmission. Noise, in this case, is any external content element that affects message comprehension. So that, noise is not the same thing than silence. An omission in a news chain may be part of the meaning of the own messages.

In that sense, in certain occasions, quietness can have stronger connotation than any word that journalists can write or pronounce. For that reason, reporters have to decide when omit sources’ quotes that can contribute to create an interested confusing information environment. He or she, ethically, cannot become a diffusion agent for fake facts promoters.

However, constantly we can read stories on newspapers, hear on radio or watch on TV broadcast reports about false facts only because they were announced by “important” sources. Today journalistic principles reject that old fashion rule. Prominence of a spokesperson is not a guaranty of truth.

Therefore, the major strike that journalist can do against information manipulators and propaganda agents, is introducing a deep gap in their deceiving communication strategies no reporting their false news. Only in that way, fake-fact promoters will understand the huge strong meaning of silence in journalism. A blocked liar source has, definitely, a big impact on honest journalism.