“Have you seen the news?”
It’s one of the most common questions. From the advent of the printing press to the breakthrough of television and the eventual birth of the internet, how information spreads has evolved — often at a breakneck pace — into what we know now.
The latest step in this evolution has undoubtedly been the emergence of social media, as 64 percent of the world’s population (approximately 5.3 billion people) currently use at least one social networking app. With a sizable majority of the planet plugged into the digital landscape, a new question arises: how does this affect the world of news?
As one might expect from such a sweeping query, the answer depends on the demographic. Pew Research Center claims that 54 percent of U.S. adults get at least some news from social media, but this number jumps to over 70 percent when solely considering Americans below the age of 50.
This statistic might appear lofty at first glance, but it almost feels like an underestimation — to me, social media is the nexus for news dissemination.
I’ve lost count of how many Instagram bombshells I’ve seen in the past week alone, and yet I can’t recall the last time I opened a newspaper.
It’s not just me. According to Pew, 91 percent of adults ages 18-29 find at least some news on their phones and other digital devices, compared to only 18 percent from print media, 27 percent from radio and 46 percent from print. On the whole, 86 percent of Americans say they get at least some news from digital devices, and more than half of the nation lists online sources as their preferred place to stay updated.
While not everyone browsing digital news is doing so on social media, Pew found that more than half of Americans get their news via social media at least sometimes, and that percentage is on the rise.
Older demographics are far more stringent regarding the intake of internet information. The nation’s elder population appears content with traditional news sources — in fact, they may be the very demographic keeping them alive.
According to Pew, the median age of CBS, ABC and NBC’s audiences is 58, 55 and 57, respectively.
However, the internet at large is in a unique position. It’s a medium that triumphs across the age spectrum, uniting teenagers and octogenarians alike through the promise of accurate on-demand info. But while the internet has evolved to become the gold standard for information, it feels as though a malaise envelops social media in that same context.
While general confidence in media is low, views regarding social media in particular are sodden with suspicion. Most Americans believe that a majority of news on social media is biased, and they often perceive the websites themselves as dangerous. This suspicion, coupled with bipartisan concern regarding social media regulation, concocts a cacophony of mistrust surrounding any information obtained over such sources.
Despite these issues, social media holds undeniable promise as a potential news source. In fact, it’s theoretically the most efficient way to acquire information, thanks to the sheer speed at which technology can disseminate information. On X (formerly Twitter), for example, news accounts like Spectator Index can aggregate and distribute headlines to millions of followers in seconds, and built-in comment sections can allow for further discussion of relevant topics. In a world where we sorely lack free time, these accounts could serve as a savior for an info-hungry populace on the go. The problem lies in convincing potential readers to trust social media in the first place.
Enforcing stricter content policies would be the logical first step to rebuilding this trust. As it stands now, moderation on many social websites is practically nonexistent, and the average comments section is more akin to a cesspit than anything resembling the “digital town square” that Elon Musk envisioned as the future of social media. Nobody likes to have their speech policed, but it’s a necessary evil that the princes of Silicon Valley must implement to legitimize social websites as news sources.
Unfortunately, administrations of many social media sites are currently embroiled in wars against fact-checking. The trust and safety team at X was dissolved after the company’s acquisition by Elon Musk, and Meta overturned its policy on fact-checking in its attempts to placate the Trump administration. Reversing these decisions would serve to combat the torrent of misinformation that currently plagues the digital landscape and provide a credible status to users who consistently post truthful content.
The last leg of this process would also be the most difficult component — eliminating bot accounts. More than half of all internet traffic is non-human, but social media in particular has become infested with bots. These bots are especially apparent during newsworthy periods of time — during this year’s Super Bowl, there were estimations that over 75% of all X traffic was automated. If social media companies expect to be taken seriously in the realm of news, they’ll have to ensure that the makeup of their user base isn’t reminiscent of a scene from Terminator.
Technologies do not have to replicate the flaws of their makers, or owners. In this vein, social media is not an inherently bad news source. In a world mired in misinformation, it has the potential to serve as a beacon of truth. Although it has not reached its potential yet, we have the power to demand the change we want to see. We can advocate for a digital landscape where truth is paramount.
Contact Mac Ribner at ribner@oxy.edu
