Journalism must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise. However, this comes with rules. It must be truthful, factual, and verified. In addition, it must be for all parts of the community and include broad areas of agreement, where most of the public resides and solutions can be found.
So what falls under this category? Are blogs journalism? How about Wikipedia?
I've discussed blogs before, but I'll say it again. If blogs are truthful, factual, and ethical, then I don't see why they wouldn't count as journalism. However, the problem is figuring out what is true and what is not. Blogs cannot always be trusted. You just have to be careful. Anyone can post whatever they want on their blogs, so I wouldn't rely on them too much unless you know for a fact that they can be trusted.
So what about Wikipedia?
Personally, I don't want to admit that Wikipedia is unreliable because I use it so much and get a lot of my information from there. I think a lot of people feel the same way, especially college students who go straight to Wikipedia when they need information for writing a paper. However, the truth is that while the majority of the facts on Wikipedia are accurate, there are definitely some things that are not. And how are you supposed to know what is true and what isn't? The good thing though is that Wikipedia is definitely getting better at letting you know when sources are missing and when something is questionable.
I think blogs, Wikipedia, and other social media can be good sources of information. But I wouldn't use them as my main sources. I wouldn't trust everything I read and hear. Sure, they are good starting places, but follow them up with different sources that for sure can be trusted. The more you do this, the more you'll learn who you can and cannot trust in the public forum.
Personally, I don't want to admit that Wikipedia is unreliable because I use it so much and get a lot of my information from there. I think a lot of people feel the same way, especially college students who go straight to Wikipedia when they need information for writing a paper. However, the truth is that while the majority of the facts on Wikipedia are accurate, there are definitely some things that are not. And how are you supposed to know what is true and what isn't? The good thing though is that Wikipedia is definitely getting better at letting you know when sources are missing and when something is questionable.
I think blogs, Wikipedia, and other social media can be good sources of information. But I wouldn't use them as my main sources. I wouldn't trust everything I read and hear. Sure, they are good starting places, but follow them up with different sources that for sure can be trusted. The more you do this, the more you'll learn who you can and cannot trust in the public forum.
No comments:
Post a Comment