When the Feed Becomes the Newsroom: Social Media and the Changing Role of Journalism

It is easy to blame social media for the problems facing journalism. A misleading post spreads, a rumour becomes a headline and the familiar argument follows social media is destroying the news. I think this explanation misses how closely the two now depend on each other. Social media gives journalism new ways to find stories and reach audiences, while allowing unverified claims to circulate alongside carefully researched reporting. The difficulty is that both can look equally convincing in a feed.

My view is that social media has created a parallel information environment that overlaps with professional journalism. Reporters, eyewitnesses and content creators can all contribute to public knowledge, but they do not necessarily follow the same standards. This raises an ethical question: how can journalists benefit from the speed and accessibility of social media without allowing the pressure for attention to weaken verification?

How Social Media Has Changed News Consumption

The scale of this change is clear in the United States. Pew Research Center (2025) reported that 38% of U.S. adults regularly obtained news from Facebook and 35% from YouTube. Among Twitters/X users, 57% regularly used the platform for news. TikTok also demonstrated a substantial shift: the proportion of its users who regularly obtained news there rose from 22% in 2020 to 55% in 2025. These figures show how established social platforms have become as news sources.

The Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2025, based on a survey of almost 100,000 online news consumers across 48 markets, also described a growing shift towards social and video platforms and news delivered by online personalities (Newman et al., 2025).

When News Finds the Audience

Social media also changes how people encounter information. An individual might open an app to watch an entertaining video and stumble across a political claim without intentionally looking for news at all. Forman-Katz et al. (2025) found that 70% of U.S. adults aged 18-29 mostly encountered political news incidentally, compared with 30% who actively sought it out. This finding concerns political news generally, it does not mean that all of these encounters occurred on social media.

For me, incidental exposure is not automatically a problem. It can introduce people. It has the potential to expose people to issues they might otherwise overlook. the concern is how they assess what appears in front of them. A dramatic video or widely shared claim can attract attention before its source or context is clear. Popularity may encourage someone to take a post seriously, but popularity alone offers no assurance that it is accurate.

The Ethical Pressure Behind the Feed

Social media can be a precious starting point for reporting. An eyewitness account may alert a newsroom to an unfolding event, while a public discussion may reveal an issue that deserves investigation. However, treating a post as a lead is different from treating it as established fact. Journalists still need to establish where the material came from and whether it accurately represents what happened.

The pressure to attract attention can also encourage sensationalism. A headline may exaggerate an allegation, or a short clip may leave out details that change its meaning. In my view, journalists have a responsibility to consider these choices even when the underlying event is real. Accuracy involves giving readers enough context to understand a story, as well as checking individual facts.

Concerns about misinformation are evident in the Reuters Institute findings. Across the markets surveyed, online influencers and personalities, alongside national politicians, were the most frequently identified major threats in relation to false or misleading information (Newman et al., 2025). This measures audience perceptions, not necessarily the volume of misinformation produced by each group. It would therefore be unfair to assume that every creator is unreliable or that professional news outlets are beyond criticism.

On the Ground View: Tiffany Pryce (Gleaner/Star)

The perspective of Tiffany Pryce, a journalist with The Gleaner and The Star, brings this discussion closer to newsroom practice. Pryce explained that journalists monitor blogs and social media to identify possible stories and remain aware of developing stories. Her account reinforces the value of these platforms as sources of leads, while leaving journalists with the responsibility to investigate what they find.

Pryce also highlighted the competitive pressure created by people who can record an event and reach a large audience before a reporter arrives. Her observations helped me look beyond audience behaviour to the decisions journalists face. Readers may encounter information casually, but a journalist must decide whether there is enough evidence to publish it. The need to respond quickly can make that decision more difficult.

Another concern Pryce raised was the ability of artificial intelligence to generate or manipulate images, video, audio and stories. This complicates the assumption that seeing or hearing something is sufficient proof. For journalists, apparently convincing material still requires scrutiny. For audiences, it is another reason to ask how a claim was verified before sharing it.

Where That Leaves Journalism

I do not believe journalism can respond to these changes by withdrawing from social media. It needs to remain present where people encounter news and make its reporting accessible there. At the same time, journalists should explain what they have confirmed, acknowledge what remains uncertain and correct mistakes clearly. These practices give audiences a basis for judging credibility beyond the popularity of a post.

Social media has widened participation in the public domain, but the ability to publish does not remove the responsibility to verify. Professional journalism must earn trust through the quality of its work, rather than assume that its status guarantees it. To me, its continuing value lies in helping people understand what happened and how we know. In a feed where reliable reporting and misleading content compete for attention, that work remains essential.

The Social Perspective Ep.1

References

Forman-Katz, N., Lipka, M., Matsa, K. E., Radde, K., Baronavski, C., & Coleman, J. (2025)  

Young adults and the future of news. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2025/12/03/young-adults-and-the-future-of-news/

Newman, N., Ross Arguedas, A., Robertson, C.T., Nielsen, R. K., & Fletcher, R. (2025)

Reuters Institute digital news report 2025. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.

https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/digital-news-report/2025

Pew Research Center. (2025). Social media and news fact sheet.

https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/social-media-and-news-fact-sheet

---