Social Media Changed How Audience Consume News 

Journalism as an influential outlet has played a significant role in society since the original foundation of journalists formed in the early 19th century. Since this foundation, journalists have been able to use their societal influence to share different viewpoints regarding political matters. From this stems the phrase the fourth estate, meaning how journalists play a key role in political issues due to their ability to showcase or present different viewpoints to the audience. For example, news outlets such as The Guardian tend to focus primarily on left-wing politics due to the nature of the political views held by those who founded the paper before its first publishing in 1821. As presented in the text Digital Publishing, ‘journalism for the 21st century is being reinvented, and this reinvention will take place at the local level’. This lookout on the evolution of journalism without doubt holds worth when considering the role of journalists as the fourth estate. Through referencing the local level, Salter and Jones clearly implicate the increasing value of new forms of journalism such as the use of social media as an outlet. The introduction of a channel for views that can always always be accessed throughout the day with the use of apps such as Snapchat and Facebook allow journalists to release ever-increasing numbers of not only articles regarding political matters but also media presentations such as images and videos to inform the audience on the most up to date news.

Through the introduction of handheld devices such as mobile phones and tablets, the audience in todays society compared to that of two centuries ago receive much more information; causing a dramatic shift in the way journalists work. This is noted heavily in the text Computing Technology and Survivable Journalism, where Berghel argues that investigative journalism is ‘losing out to agenda based, stake-holder friendly journalism’. This refers directly to the political standpoints of larger outlets such as the arguably opposing companies The Guardian and The Daily Mail. Through his argument, Berghel correctly presents the idea that journalists now have to release agenda-based information throughout the day with the use of social media and other easily accessible forms of journalism in order to inform the increasingly information-hungry audience. As an example, particular outlets have recently chosen to focus primarily on apps such as Facebook and Twitter to keep the audience up to date on all political matters. With audiences now wanting bite-sized snippets of information to attract their attention to matters, the role of the journalist has detrimentally shifted within the past ten years with the added pressure of capturing the audiences’ interest with comparably miniscule levels of information against journalism from the 20th century. Despite the changing role of the journalist, individuals and companies alike have to be careful so as to not completely convince or ‘brain wash’ the audience into thinking one way or another regarding politics. ‘The media told people not what to think but rather what to think about’. With this in mind, the journalist’s role as the fourth estate has to be seen as a vastly important yet ever changing position due to constant changes within society; the media will always hold strong significance regarding political issues as most people will look to this first concerning what they should pay attention to and what they should ignore.

The increasing use of social media throughout the past 10 years has also undoubtedly played a somewhat negative role for the media, in particular when considering the scandal of Cambridge Analytica and their work with Facebook. As argued by Mosco in his text, Social Media Versus Journalism and Democracy, ‘journalism stands little chance against corporate assault’ Mosco, referring to the danger of large companies assaulting the privacy of the audience in order to provide the most relevant information for them to consume. The backlash of this scandal prompted heavy levels of mistrust from the audience towards many larger media companies, somewhat damaging the relationship formed over the years. The ‘dislocation of news’ away from individualistic journalism in favour of ‘surrendered control to large platform companies' could also be considered as another downside of this shift towards social-media based journalism. Preventing journalists who don’t work for larger media outlets from reaching audiences with views concerning political issues has indisputably led to a much more ‘black and white’ approach to politics, wherein which the audience view societal matters as either one way or another, influencing their political views in an insurmountable way. Despite this, journalists have managed to maintain their esteemed role as the fourth estate as reasoned by Sujin Choi, where she appropriately states that journalism across social media ‘closely resembles real-life talk’ Choi; through arguing this, Choi presents the valid argument that the role of the journalist involves holding an unfaltering relationship with the audience in order to inform them on all political matters of their choosing. Despite the assault on the media following the Cambridge Analytica scandal, most outlets of media have stayed true to their word on updating society on vastly important political happenings, such as the previous Watergate Scandal as well as more recent events such as Panama Papers. 

In conclusion, the influence of this form of journalism has without doubt taken many forms over the years, owing much to the technological advancements made within the past ten years alone. The impact of digital technology throughout all events such as these is of undoubtedly astronomical proportions, as the audience have expected increasingly accessible updates on political matters in order to form their own views; this refers yet again to the ‘additional relationship layer’ between journalists and the audience.