Social media continues to creep into more parts of our life, and news is not an exception to the social media take-over. However, navigating the news side of social media is a new challenge. In 2020, a Reuters survey revealed that 36% of 24,000 participants from 12 different countries rely on Facebook for news, while 21% relied on YouTube (Niemeic, 2020, p. 1). Many young people find that traditional news is “boring, difficult to understand, and irrelevant” (Marchi, 2012, as cited in Ku et al., p. 3). Yet, 60% of participants in a 2018 Ofcom survey said that “they did not think about the credibility of news stories on social media” (p. 4). A form of regulation and education is needed. While the dominant solutions are censorship and media literacy, they must be examined closer before being deemed which has the most potential.
As defined by Niemiec (2020), censorship is the “remov[al of] content that [social media platforms] consider as objectionable based on continually updated categories outlined in their policies” (p. 1). Research done by Tai and Fu in 2020 focused on the Chinese messaging platform WeChat. Their findings found that it was not just problematic or sensitive issues that were censored. Many journalists founds that their articles were “remov[ed …] for content violation without clearly indicating any source of law” (p. 861). The removal of these articles is speculated to be due to being a “focal point” – a concept brought up by Thomas Schelling that says that people use prominent ideas to coordinate with others without any prior communication. By censoring the focal points, the ability to “facilitate public discussions and form opinions regarding social issues, or even mobilize social actions” (p. 859) is limited. This not only hands over the power of “facilitating the online public sphere” to social media platform companies (Tai & Fu 2020, p. 843), but it also continues to arm “tech [sic] companies [with the] power over what information Internet users can see and how their views are shaped” (Niemiec 2020, p. 1). Niemiec (2020) asks the question of “who exactly defines and how which information is deemed to be false of harmful?” (p. 2). In most, if not all cases, it is classified by the government or the social media company themselves, and their “processes of … preparing guidelines may be complex, prone to mistakes and not immune to political or commercial interests” (p. 2). Regardless of their status, social media platforms are still corporations that need to make profit, and thus their values and morals can be skewed. Being limited in what one can say online, especially if what is right and wrong can vary from platform to platform, can “contradict the very ideas of these communication networks [being] spaces where everyone can express their opinion” (p. 1). Perhaps most importantly, censorship limits, if not removes, the opportunity for healthy discourse and deeper understandings between individuals (p. 2). It is through exposure to new perspectives and discussion with others that one can build informed opinions and better understand the world at large. Censorship may work in the short-term, however with many places for error, a long-term solution must be implemented as well.
The long-term solution is media literacy. Media literacy is “knowledge about the news media, and the ability to think about the credentials and quality of news that results from such knowledge (Rosenbaum et. al, 2008 as cited by Ku et al. 2019, p. 2). It was found that “high media literacy predicted better critical thinking” (p. 10), and an increased understanding of the news production also provided a more critical lens when analyzing news information. Both media literacy and critical thinking are vital to understanding information on social media. Without these skills, individuals may find themselves overwhelmed by the information surplus in the online space. It is also important for users to understand the power of emotions when selling a news article (p. 3), which can make it seem more relevant and important. The consequences of “news snacking,” the consumption of news in a casual and inconsistent manner, was also mentioned because it can lead to a superficial understanding of the current events. The understanding of personalised algorithms is also vital. These algorithms can create “echo chambers,” where the user’s ideologies and opinions are reinforced with little to no opposition. Potter (2010, as cited on p. 1) finds that adolescents are “particularly susceptible to unreliable news sources.” It was found that the adolescents involved in the research were able to understand the news content and facts, however they “had the most difficulty in evaluating the quality and adequacy of evidence presented” (p. 10). By equipping people with the skills to think critically and understand the news on their own terms, people are given autonomy over what they believe to be right and wrong, and leaves the door open for healthy and productive discourse about the world. The effects of this will not be seen immediately, however it offers a sustainable, long-term solution.
In conclusion, media literacy and critical thinking is the most foolproof method in regulating misinformation and disinformation in the online news space. It is a powerful and useful skill that enables people to gain a better understanding of news on social media, while also allowing discussion and application to other areas in life, such as careers and other media use.
References
Ku, K. Y. L., Kong, Q., Song, Y., Deng, L., Kang, Y., & Hu, A. (2019). What predicts adolescents’ critical thinking about real-life news? The roles of social media news consumption and news media literacy. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 33, 100570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2019.05.004
Niemiec, E. (2020). COVID-19 and misinformation: Is censorship of social media a remedy to the spread of medical misinformation? EMBO Reports, 21(11), e51420–e51420. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.202051420
Tai, Y., & Fu, K. (2020). Specificity, Conflict, and Focal Point: A Systematic Investigation into Social Media Censorship in China. Journal of Communication, 70(6), 842–867. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqaa032