Twitter now X has become one of the most influential social media platforms in the world, with over 300 million active users and billions of tweets every month. It is also a source of news, information, opinions, and entertainment for many people, especially those who are interested in politics, culture, sports, and celebrities.
However, not everyone is happy with Twitter’/X’s role and impact on society. Some critics accuse Twitter of being biased, censoring, or amplifying certain voices and agendas, while others defend Twitter’s right to moderate its own platform and protect its users from harassment, misinformation, and hate speech. X has recently filed a suit with Attorney Ken Paxton of Texas district against Media Matters for an open investigation into allegation of fraud activity on ads content and algorithms.
One of the most contentious issues surrounding Twitter is its relationship with the mainstream media. The mainstream media, or MSM, refers to the traditional and established sources of news and information, such as newspapers, magazines, radio, television, and online outlets.
Tekedia Mini-MBA edition 14 (June 3 – Sept 2, 2024) begins registrations; get massive discounts with early registration here.
Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass opens registrations here.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and invest in Africa’s finest startups here.
The MSM is often seen as having more credibility, authority, and professionalism than social media platforms like Twitter. However, the MSM is also subject to criticism and scrutiny for its own biases, errors, omissions, and agendas. Some people accuse the MSM of being too liberal or too conservative, too elitist or too populist, too corporate or too ideological.
The question is: can the MSM be neutral towards Twitter? Can it report on Twitter’s activities and controversies without taking sides or influencing public opinion? Can it acknowledge Twitter’s strengths and weaknesses without being either too supportive or too hostile? Can it balance its own interests and values with those of Twitter and its users? The answer is: extremely unlikely.
There are several reasons why the MSM cannot be neutral towards Twitter. First of all, the MSM and Twitter have different goals and incentives. The MSM’s primary goal is to inform the public and provide accurate and reliable news and information. The MSM’s secondary goal is to attract and retain audiences and advertisers.
The MSM’s incentive is to produce high-quality journalism that meets ethical standards and public expectations. Twitter’s primary goal is to connect people and enable them to share their thoughts and feelings. Twitter’s secondary goal is to grow its user base and revenue. Twitter’s incentive is to create a platform that fosters engagement, expression, and diversity.
These goals and incentives are not necessarily incompatible, but they can also clash or conflict. For example, the MSM may criticize Twitter for allowing misinformation or hate speech to spread on its platform, while Twitter may defend its policies as respecting free speech and user autonomy.
The MSM may praise Twitter for breaking news or exposing scandals, while Twitter may claim credit for empowering its users and amplifying their voices. The MSM may use Twitter as a source of news or information, while Twitter may use the MSM as a source of validation or legitimacy.
Secondly, the MSM and Twitter have different audiences and communities. The MSM’s audience is generally more diverse, broad, and mainstream than Twitter’s audience. The MSM’s audience includes people of different ages, genders, races, classes, education levels, political affiliations, and interests.
The MSM’s audience expects the MSM to be objective, balanced, fair, and trustworthy. Twitter’s audience is generally more homogeneous, narrow, and niche than the MSM’s audience. Twitter’s audience includes people who are more active, engaged, opinionated, and vocal than the average person.
Neutrality in journalism is the principle of reporting facts and events without inserting personal opinions, biases, or agendas. It is based on the idea that journalists should serve the public interest by providing objective and reliable information that enables citizens to make informed decisions. Neutrality is also a way of maintaining credibility and trust among audiences, as well as avoiding legal or ethical issues that may arise from taking sides or endorsing certain views.
However, neutrality in journalism is not always easy to achieve or maintain. Journalists are human beings who have their own values, beliefs, and perspectives that may influence their choices of topics, sources, words, and angles. Moreover, journalists work within organizations that have their own interests, policies, and pressures that may affect their editorial decisions. Furthermore, journalists operate in a complex and dynamic media environment that is influenced by political, economic, social, and cultural factors that may shape their views and expectations.
Therefore, neutrality in journalism is not a fixed or absolute state, but rather a goal or an ideal that requires constant reflection and evaluation. Journalists should be aware of their own biases and limitations, as well as those of their colleagues and employers. They should also be transparent about their methods and sources, and open to feedback and criticism from their audiences and peers. They should also be willing to correct their mistakes and admit their errors when they occur.