Social media reporting

Oct 31, 2016 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

This past week the GINA website carried a photograph of the President of Guyana shaking hands with a telecommunication official from Chile. The accompanying story was apparently sourced from the Ministry of the Presidency, according to the sub-text.
The accompanying text to the photograph, however, featured comments on the meeting by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Yet the image created an interest that the reader would be learning more about what the President had discussed and said at the meeting.
It would have been more appropriate if the photograph used in the feature was one in which the Minister of Foreign Affairs was shaking the hands of the telecommunication officials since in the text accompanying the story, there was more said about the encounter from the Minister than the President.
The above example shows some of the limitations of using social media to communicate information. One of the dangers is that the use of certain images on social media creates certain expectations about media content and not all times the images reflect that content.
Given the wide reach of social media, such misapplication of images can be disastrous because the public can lose interest when they expect one thing, only to find the story to be about another thing.
Social media requires a certain craft to it. It requires consistency between images and text and if that agreement is absent then an entire report can disappoint. When mainstream media houses, therefore reproduce images and text from social media sources, they have to be wary that they are not shortchanging their own readers.
When information is transmitted through internet sources, these sources are referred to as a ‘social media’. It is quite a misplaced name because all information transmitted to the public is a form of social intercourse.
We, however, refer to the transmission of information via the internet as ‘social media’ and that transmitted via television, radio and print as part of the ‘mainstream media’.
Social media therefore is the instantaneous transmission of information. Television, however, can also be instantaneous but this does not make its social media. What differentiates the two is the medium and that medium is the internet.
In such circumstances, one should not expect that the quality of information or even the quantity of information would be different. But social media has a distinct feature about it. It is based on the presumption that people’s attention span is limited and therefore want abbreviated stories.
It also is predominantly image–based. It makes excessive use of images to illustrate or to transmit the story. Social media sites such as Facebook, for example, limit the amount of text which can accompany advertisements.
Text is used to complement the image rather than the other way around. The information to be told when using social media makes greater use of images rather than text.
Social media is now actively used by the government and the opposition to get their message across to the public. The government runs a number of webpages in which it communicates information via social media. The mainstream media, including the print media, often use their sources for their information.
Social media is here to stay, but social media has its limitations. Social media cannot provide the depth of analysis and details which can be provided by the mainstream media. Social media relies mainly on images, as do television, but the print media is more text based. People buy the newspapers, despite knowing about a story, because they wish certain gaps to be filled.
They are not sure, for example, why in a liberalized economy the government would be speaking to the Chileans about involvement in Guyana’s telecommunication sector. If the government needs regulatory help, there are organizations which can provide such help. No need to ask foreign governments. If the government of Guyana is looking for investment into its telecommunication the sector, then why not go to an open process rather than speak to government officials of a country whose telecommunication sector is predominantly private sector owned and operated.
Guyana’s telecommunication sector is so small that it is doubtful whether any major company would want to enter it without monopoly status. There are already two major telecommunication companies in Guyana and a number of smaller entities providing telecommunication-related services.
It is doubtful therefore that the government was interested in having Chilean telecommunication companies invest in Guyana. They were probably seeking regulatory support. But why now seek such support after legislation has been passed further liberalizing the sector?
These questions cannot be answered by social media sources. This is why there will continue to be a main role for mainstream media in answering the questions which cannot be answered through social media content.
Newspapers are here to stay. Social media is also here to stay but there are grave dangers to government in assuming that the most dominant means of communication with the public is through social media reporting.

---

---