Misinformation, omission, bias. Are we relying on trustworthy news sources? As accessibility to news and competition in the industry increases due to a growth in coverage, the credibility factor is also called into question. The shift away from traditional methods of reporting and dependence on local print newspapers has been driven by social media.
A survey conducted by Pew Research Center in September 2020 compiled responses from U.S. adults of varying ages to see where they were getting their news from. For adults between ages 18 and 29, a mix of older Generation Z members and younger Millennials, social media accounts for roughly 42% of news consumption. Yet for all of that consumption, social media has an overwhelming number of characteristics that render it an incredibly unreliable news source. Instagram is a prime example of the danger in news spreading on social media.
For starters, as is the case with all social media, Instagram provides a space for a variety of voices to share out with the world, which is one of the qualities of social media we prize so much. However, this very quality results in a variety of input from uneducated citizens on controversial or significant topics, often enough to drown out credible news covered by professionals. Additionally, platforms such as Instagram are geared towards convenience and quick reads, not detailed newspaper articles. Thus, posts are typically created with excerpts, at best, which themselves are often missing context. There is only so much information that can fit into a singular post, and the majority of the audience scrolling through will only read the information provided there as opposed to visiting a referenced article or an in-depth piece. In our desire for saving time and condensing information, we have begun depriving ourselves of the “rest of the story.”
This issue is exacerbated by “Stories” on Instagram, appealing in their perceived impermanence, where anything can be reposted for a short duration. Calling it a “repost,” however, is inaccurate; in fact, all that generally makes it onto the story from the post is the headline. Headlines themselves are a mixed bag in terms of reliability; the journalist world faces the tough balancing act of an intriguing, exciting headline with an accurate, straightforward one. But as social media roots itself deeper in society, the public looks to absorb important information in as few words as possible, information that can essentially be condensed into a headline. The headline is often misleading in its lack of context, albeit having the power to immediately convey an assertive message. Why read up on a painfully lengthy article if you can just track what others are saying, whether others are reposting this headline, if this headline is the trend across stories? Reposts, retweets, and casual spread of information are also what contribute to many users “following the crowd” as opposed to formulating their own opinion about a given topic.
Aside from circulating articles and informative news, social media is used as a communication platform, helping to facilitate discussion about the aforementioned news and working to bring out individual voices. The downside? Inflammatory, charged language. Posts themselves are not restricted to the same level of political correctness as newspapers, magazines, and other professional sources of news are, and by the same logic, neither are comment sections. TikTok would be the epitome of an app in which comment sections are “toxic,” or unpleasant, particularly around politics, race, and other common, newsworthy topics. While the intentions behind creating a less-regulated space for conversation are likely pure, when dealing with controversial topics, comment sections on TikTok have left “debate” in the dust and instead arrived at “argumentative,” to put it politely. TikTok also serves as evidence of the complexity of social media, everything behind the screen that we do not understand, in terms of targeted audiences and strategic content. Once the slightest bit of data collected suggests something about a user’s preferences, whether it is something simple such as food they like, or something bigger such as their political alignment, the app feeds them content along those lines. The more appealing the content is to the user, the better, and the majority of teenagers, young adults, and millennials are not using social media to educate themselves or broaden their perspectives—rather, they are looking for content that reflects their already-established values, such as their political beliefs or racial biases. TikTok has been frighteningly successful in regulating the “For You” page, a constant stream of videos, to an individual’s specific interests. In terms of news and the spread of information, however, this becomes detrimental very quickly. By only being fed certain types of content, the user scrolling has a much narrower perspective on any given topic, which is precisely how misinformation, conspiracy theories, and overall close-mindedness begins.
These aspects of social media have been used to fuel anti-Asian sentiment, particularly towards East Asians, while America faces the Covid-19 pandemic. The most notable of anti-Asian language on social media would be the terms used around the virus itself, such as former President Donald J. Trump’s tweet using the phrase “Chinese Virus.” This escalated into trending hashtags such as #BatEatingChinese, #Yellow-ManFever, and #Kung-Flu, which perpetuate stereotypes. An alarming number of conspiracy theories surrounding Chinese association and tampering with the virus have cropped up as well. For example, a conspiracy theory claiming that the Coronavirus is a Biological Warfare Weapon took hold in the public, fueling distrust and passionate anger towards East Asians. Dr. Francis Boyle, one of the lead figures behind this claim, declared that the coronavirus had been genetically engineered in a lab in Wuhan, China, that governments across the world were locked in some sort of closed doors arms-race, and that thousands of scientists are now trying to cover it up. His evidence? His reasoning? That there was an allegedly “highly secure” lab with “advanced precautionary measures” in Wuhan in the first place, built for no reason other than to genetically engineer a virus. He remains adamant about his beliefs despite the fact that numerous experts, including the World Health Organization itself (WHO), have released statements refuting it as a legitimate possibility. But to the general public who may come across this “news” on social media, the first thing they see will be the dramatic headline, “Coronavirus is a Biological Warfare Weapon.” They may see an excerpt on how reputable and distinguished Dr. Francis Boyle is and may not research it for themselves before reposting or sharing or commenting. So the cycle of conspiracies and false information begins. Anti-Asian hate crimes have risen up tremendously during the pandemic, with an entire ethnicity being subjected to physical/sexual violence and verbal abuse due to a virus that is believed to have arrived from a bat.
On the flip side, social media may also be having a positive effect for the Asian-American community. Normalized racism and lack of awareness are concepts that Asian-Americans have been seeking to combat, and social media has been widely used as a method to do so. Not only do Asian-Americans use these platforms to support each other and build a sense of unity, but social media also provides a space for other races to voice their sympathy and demonstrate solidarity. Awareness surrounding the Atlanta shootings, where 8 people, of whom six were Asian women, lost their lives, increased in part due to platforms such as Instagram, due to reposts and shares and likes.
So, ultimately, can we trust social media? How can we use it and not be susceptible to its dangers? Perhaps we could ensure that we read up on news from varying sources. Social media is essentially propagating the idea of an “attention economy.” It has turned into a never-ending cycle; increased use of social media decreases the user’s attention span, journalists find that the competition for attention has grown fiercer, and flashier headlines and minimal information are displayed to a wide audience. As time goes on, our reliance on social media as a viable news source increases, and divisiveness threatens to harm the country. Social media is a large source of conspiracies, rumors, hateful language, and threats towards Asians during the pandemic.
Does the good of social media outweigh the bad?
Works Cited
Graham, Ruth. “Live Updates: 8 Dead in Atlanta Spa Shootings, With Fears of Anti-Asian Bias.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 17 Mar. 2021, www.nytimes.com/live/2021/03/17/us/shooting-atlanta-acworth?auth=login-google.
“Online, Most Turn to News Websites except for the Youngest, Who Are More Likely to Use Social Media.” Pew Research Center, Pew Research Center, 11 Jan. 2021, www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/01/12/more-than-eight-in-ten-americans-get-news-from-digital-devices/ft_2021-01-12_socialmedia_06/.
Stanway, David. “Explainer: What We Know about the Origins of the Coronavirus Pandemic.” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 10 June 2020, www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-china-origins-expl-idUSKBN23H1HQ.
Researcher-Analyst, Robert Skopec1* 1. Coronavirus Is a Biological Warfare Weapon, 2020, www.heraldopenaccess.us/openaccess/coronavirus-is-a-biological-warfare-weapon.
Hswen, Yulin, et al. Association of “#covid19” Versus “#Chinesevirus” With Anti-Asian Sentiments on Twitter: March 9–23, 2020. 2020, ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306154.
Yam, Kimmy. “There Were 3,800 Anti-Asian Racist Incidents, Mostly against Women, in Past Year.” NBCNews.com, NBCUniversal News Group, 19 Mar. 2021, www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/there-were-3-800-anti-asian-racist-incidents-mostly-against-n1261257.