Posted by Written by Clio Miller; graphic made by Ida Stoever
It is vital that in a democracy citizens are informed about the world. In an age where a democratic nation finds itself under threats against free speech, social media is a volatile force. Acting as a catalyst for misinformation, it encourages general mayhem amongst journalists. At this time, it is most important to maintain the integrity of larger news sources through fact-checking so that citizens have verified places to which they can go for information.
But why, if time is a linear series of facts and events, is there any discussion of verified sources? Why do we even need the term “verified” in journalism? The universal truths: gravity, morality, the inevitability of death, and the fact that some humans are conniving opportunists. For the purposes of this article, the last truth will be addressed in terms of journalism. Allow me to paint a picture through my shamelessly Euro-centric view of history…
In Ancient Athens, around 400 BCE, the first journalist, Thucydides, began documenting the history of the Peloponnesian War, year-by-year. His goal was to uncover the war in a series of facts without commentary, achieved by the analysis of documents, interviewing witnesses, and reading first-hand accounts. But Thucydides went too far. He could not resist sprinkling his own biases into the accounts, blending fact and opinion–not merely reporting the misfortunes which occurred as the demagogues of Athens took power after Pericles, but criticizing them in his own words, shaping their images in the text. The publications of his work showed how powerful one person’s opinion can be in influencing that of others. Readers realized another reason for Thucydides’ commentary: his attempt to change history by selective and critical reporting.
2025 is a hyper-exaggerated version of Thucydides’ reporting. Through social media, reporting is becoming exponentially more selective, only allowing people to see sensationalized versions of what they believe. Some journalists take advantage of this by reporting specific stories, or changing the content of those stories entirely. They don’t need to worry about being bipartisan because they can directly choose to whom they report. Kathryn Stewart, a teacher at New Paltz High School (who does not use social media), mused that the most alarming thing about using social media as a news source is that there are no longer any agreed upon facts. This is alarming. Social media has deepened divisions so drastically that the public no longer agrees on the facts of a story, let alone the interpretation of those facts. And when (according to the Pew Research Center), 53% of American adults rely on social media as their primary news source, misinformation becomes a regular part of politics.
So how can we be sure that the news we consume is verified? When asked the question, “what are the effects of social media as news?” Livi Lathrop, a student at New Paltz High School, replied that while it does spread misinformation, at least more people are showing interest in the news and becoming informed on their own (paraphrased). This shows the positive side of social media, that good journalists (those only hoping to inform the public, not to make large sums of money based on viewership) could use it to make people more interested in the news in general. But how do they ensure that this power is used for good?
The solution seems to be to rely on news corporations that are widely held to be trustworthy. They have built up this rapport with the public over generations, by demonstrating that they have teams dedicated to triangulating facts, as well as maintaining a civil society and sense of protection against the governmental powers in charge. Michael Vance (a gym teacher in New Paltz High School) is an example of how aspects of social media could even be helpful for people who want to ensure their news is coming from large companies: he reads a Google News feed every morning. The algorithm (like social media) feeds him stories–but only from the news websites he wants. This seems like a good balance. While not a complete fix (many large news corporations have admitted to failures of fact-checking or biases), it is harder for these companies to spread misinformation while maintaining consciousness of their need to be honest to viewers because they are held to a higher degree of accountability.
While Thucydides may have been one of the founders of journalism, the practice evolved and changed based on area. In America, our expectation of journalism is demonstrated in Upton Sinclair’s 1906 book The Jungle, which exposes the then unsanitary conditions of the meat-packing industry. On the positive side, this encourages us to be detectives; on the negative side, it makes Americans vulnerable to conspiracy ideas–a sensitivity that social media is happy to exploit. To protect ourselves from the spread of misinformation, journalists must be extra careful. With more people listening, there is a greater expectation of their investigative integrity.
The Maroon 