Professional development for journalists via social media

Today’s journalists are expected to be tech savvy multimedia producers and social media curators who are simultaneously up-to-date on breaking news and industry developments — all while creating well-craft news stories. We’re told that we can either get with the times or risk sinking into the depths of the obsolete old school. 

I have a problem with this. 

First of all, there is still a need for people who are simply good reporters, who can go out and talk to people, who can do research and write a good article — in my view we need these skills more than any other. 

With that said, there is no reason why we can’t at least familiarize ourselves with new ways of doing things. After all,  you never know what skills your next job will require or when you are going to come across a story that would be best reported and told through a variety of media. 

Professional development for journalists nowadays is akin to doctors keeping up to date on the latest medical research — you can still practice but you may be missing out on valuable knowledge that can put you at the top of your field. But who has the time for professional development when we are so busy reporting the news? There are actually many great social media tools that allow for both flexibility and optimal learning.

Today, we will look at three.

Mashups

Mashups are a great way to bring many elements together in one place, whether that be job openings, the latest industry events or the breaking news of the day. Journalists typically love consuming news, sometimes to compare coverage, other times for enjoyment and often to stay in touch with what’s going on in the world as a means of general maintenance. It’s one thing to read an occasional article, check your favorite newspaper or read a tantalizing article posted through your Facebook feed — but trying to get a real grasp of what stories are breaking all over the world at any given time can be a tedious task without the right tools. 

A great tool for this is scoopmap.net, which is an interactive map updating the breaking stories throughout the world at any given time.

Screenshot of Scoopmap 

You can zoom in, see what’s going on in your area, or see the entire world map to see what’s breaking and where. It doesn’t give a complete view, as the news is primarily from The Guardian, The New York Times, The Associated Press and Reuters — but it helps give a world view of the news on a journalist’s busy schedule. 

Consuming news is actually a great form of professional development for journalists, as it causes us to think about how a story was crafted and put together while also providing us with valuable information that builds our knowledge base.

Twitter

Another way to keep up with news coming from multiple sources is Twitter. Follow news makers and news organizations and you will get a mix of what sources are saying and how news organizations are reporting the stories — but that can be time consuming so it’s helpful to create a list where you can organize those you’re following, categorizing them based on your interest. 

Twitter is also helpful for staying in touch with industry developments, which news organizations are closing or thriving, behind the scenes observations from journalists themselves, opinions on the state of journalism, what’s being said at industry events — there are many options really. 

Again, the tools help to keep it organized. I subscribe to a Twitter list by The New York Times — NYT Journalists — to see what their reporters, photographers, editors and photographers are tweeting. I also subscribe to Elected Officials by Joshua Nehmeh, World News by Chris Spangle and worldwide politics by MacGuffin to see what’s going on in the world. 

Screen shot of Elected Officials Twitter list

But I actually use Twitter far more as a tool to keep in touch with the field. I curate my own lists, like From the field, where I follow news organizations, news executives and journalists like Associated Press, Al Jazeera, ProPublica, Christiane Amanpour and CNN iReport. 

Screen shot of From the field Twitter list

On a list I call Education, I follow organizations and people who tweet about industry developments, the latest tools for journalists and other content that journalism students would benefit from, such as the Knight Foundation, Mediaite, Nieman Lab, the Sunlight Foundation, the Pew Research Center, Jay Rosen from NYU’s School of Journalism and others. 

Screen shot from Educaiton Twitter list

Journalists everywhere face different local laws and circumstances, but we also have many common issues and concerns — so Twitter is a place where journalists can connect to share and discuss the news, or debate on the current and future state of the industry. Without a tool like Twitter, which helps you curate multiple feeds, it would be impossible to stay connected and in touch with the field so dynamically, therefore developing yourself professionally.

Webcasts/ webinars

It isn’t enough, however, to simply keep up with current events and developments in the field. The demands on today’s journalist require more serious professional development, but thankfully social media offer a range of options through professional webinars and Massive Open Online Courses. Some are free and others are minimally priced. For instance, I just recently finished a MOOC Doing Journalism with Data: First Steps, Skills and Tools hosted by the European Journalism Centre. This was a free five-module course that takes participants through the concepts behind data journalism and works up to newsroom math skills and tutorials in the latest tools to clean and analyze data for journalistic purposes. I was able to enhance my journalism skills and gain an in-demand skill working with data. 

Screenshot of Journalism With Data course

I also often participate in webinars and self-directed courses through the Poynter Institute. Some are free and others range in prince from $10 to $100. I’ve taken webinars on everything from copyright law to investigative reporting. Whenever I feel in need of enhanced knowledge on a particular aspect of the news business, I look to Poynter’s News University to see what’s available. Most recently, I’ve participated in a self-directed course in multimedia storytelling and a webinar on the future of journalism education. Upcoming News U courses I would like to take are There’s Math in My Journalism!, The Life Cycle of an Investigative Story, and Social Media: Strategies and Tools for News.

Screenshot of Poynter's News University page

By participating in webinars and MOOCs, I’m able to connect with other professionals across the world and interact while learning from some of the top professionals in the field, get valuable feedback on my work and the latest skills to make my work better and gain a competitive edge.

Of course these tools are all about digital networking and professional development, which are an important part of general upkeep of skills, as it is so much more possible when it can be done from the comfort of your couch. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t still a need for in-person networking and live, physical industry events — kind of like how on-the-scene reporting will always be better than Internet searches and phone calls. 

So to make up for my lack of physical interaction with other professionals, I’m going to Journalism and the Web@25: Lessons in Disruption, Evolution and Endurance In Manhattan Tuesday night and I’m very excited to listen (in real life) to panelists like Brian Stelter of CNN’s Reliable Sources and Kathleen Carroll, executive editor of the Associated Press. I’m hoping to network with other media professionals, listen to some valuable discussion and hopefully learn a few things — all while sharing the same physical space as the people I’m interacting with, what a thing. 

I should mention, however, that I did learn about this event on social media.

The public policy and public perception consequences of unrestricted web publishing

This week I’m going to evaluate the sources used in a New York Times article, “Faces of an immigration system overwhelmed by women and children,” (Fausset, R., Belson, K., June, 2014). It’s a decent story, follows basic news guidelines, gives us current information, context so we can understand the situation and eye witness reports by the journalists on the scene, but it lacks comment from one of the most important sources — the immigrants.

The reason I selected this article to critique was actually because of another article one of my relatives in Texas posted on Facebook yesterday. It was the picture on the post that first caught my attention, it was of a desperate looking Latina woman holding her baby. It looked sad and as if they were in a terrible situation, and I was hoping to learn more about this woman’s plight. The headline was the second thing to catch my attention: “Medical staff warned: Keep your mouths shut about illegal immigrants or face arrest,” (Starnes, T., July 2014). The photo didn’t seem to go with the headline, I was confused, so I clicked. What I found was a very strange article, not well sourced and no context given — it seemed as if it was an opinion piece disguised as a news story. It doesn't even attempt to explore the root of the issue.

After reading it I immediately went to other news sources to see how they had covered the situation.

That’s when I came across the NYT’s story, which like the Fox News story, is about the immigrant children from Central America who are being housed at the Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas. 

I use Virginia Montecino’s “Criteria to Evaluate Credibility of WWW Resources” (1998) as a foundation for looking at the credibility of news sources and the implications of unrestricted web publishing, where anyone and everyone can share their version of events with millions of people and subsequently shape the country's response. 

The Fox article focuses on the issue of the children having contagious ailments like lice and scabies, and medical staff being asked to keep it quiet — but there are only three sources in the entire article, two are unnamed workers at the camp. Overall, it doesn't provide much as far as credible information, but it contains inflammatory information that could potentially cause people to act out against people who are already suffering. Without the context as to why these people are suffering, all the reader can see is how they pose a risk to Americans. 

The New York Times article focuses on how the reporters observed the camp as well as the implications and causes. It has on-the-scene observations, quotes from local and federal officials, as well as information from an official document the NYTs acquired, which gives broader context. The reporters got access to the facility and are able to describe what they saw, how the children looked and what they were doing.

It explains how the children are being transferred to other facilities and that officials are overwhelmed with the situation. It describes border patrol officials and local groups who are upset by the transfers, the political implications and that the White House claims the migration is due to increasing violence and economic issues in Central America.

One source is Raul Ortiz, a border patrol chief in Texas, who explains the latest apprehension of illegal immigrants. His comments are pretty basic, no partisan views expressed and no clear bias. Although the comments are so dry they may just be talking points he was authorized to give.

The next source in the article is “an internal draft Homeland Security document.” According to this document, the reporters explain, the federal government expects more than 90,000 immigrants this fiscal year, and that basically those who come spread the word back home that others should come as well. The reporters don’t explain how they got their hands on the document. But Peter Boogaard, a Homeland Security Department spokesperson, the next source, says “the draft was not official policy and had not been finalized or circulated.” We learn two things from Boogaard: one, that this document is legit, and two, that this may not have been the final word on the issue.

Another government source the reporter uses, although unspecifucally, is “Health and Human Services officials said that most children remained in the department’s custody for about 35 days.” But they don’t say who the HHS officials are or in what manner they said this.

The reporters also quote Chris Cabrera of the Rio Grande Valley border patrol union, who says dealing with the children has diverted them away from the border, opening the door for others to come in.

They quote Kimi Jackson, director of the South Texas Pro Bono Asylum Representation Project, who is trying to help the children get asylum in the United States.

Both of these sources have agendas, Cabrera is looking out for the border patrol officers and the challenges they face, while Jackson is advocating for the children. Together they offer balance and we see there are multiple interests involved and a variety of advocates.

In their first-hand description of the Lackland Air Force Base, the reporters say roughly 1,200 children are there. They say it’s clean, with simple dorms, typically where troops stay. The children are checked for scabies and lice, then “served hearty American cafeteria food and given fresh white tube socks.”

They admit, however, that the tour of Lackland was restricted and reporters were not allowed to speak with the children or take photographs. This could mean that the tour was set up to appear a certain way.

Later they describe it having a “summer-camp atmosphere,” with staff preaching to children, teaching them English and caring for the sick. They describe hearing laughter and socializing among the children. There are  “hints of the trauma they had survived,” with inspirational posters hanging along the dorm rooms.

The story on Fox News tells a much different story. According to two anonymous sources, “taxpayers deserve to know about the contagious diseases and the risks the children pose to Americans.” They say they must keep their identities secret because authorities have said they would be arrested if they spoke out. There seems to be connections being made to Nazi concentration camps, and throughout the story, the writer refers to them as government camps, run by “brown shirts,” that have strict policies for the workers. 

One of the anonymous sources is quoted as saying, “The children had more rights than the workers.” That quote is actually the transition in the story from discussing how poorly the workers are treated to how dangerous the children are. This anonymous source says the children have measles, scabies, chicken pox, strep throat, and mental and emotional issues. She says sometimes as she is talking to children lice are crawling down their hair.

Another anonymous source, a former nurse there, says she was horrified by the health of the children. She is quoted as saying, “We have so many kids coming in that there was no way to control all of the sickness — all this stuff coming into the country.”

She said the lice situation was epidemic and became alarmed when the children were being sent to other areas. She said she quit when she apparently pleaded with supervisors to admit a suicidal child to a hospital and they didn’t listen.

At the end of the article, the reporter gives several paragraphs to Krista Piferrer, the spokeswoman for the Baptist Family and Children’s Services, the organization running the facility. She explains that they take complaints seriously and that they are supervised by the DHHS. Basically, she just defends the integrity of the organization and doesn't provide any additional insight into the situation at the camp.

Just after this bit, the writer states, “My sources say Americans should be very concerned about the secrecy of the government camps.”

The writer, Todd Starnes is the host of the radio program Fox News and Commentary, and his conservative beliefs are no secret. 

This Fox article could be dead on, I wasn’t there, I don’t know what it looks like. But I do know that it doesn’t give me any real understanding of the larger issue and it doesn’t attempt to talk to all those impacted. The NYT’s reporter was on scene, had many more credible sources, but they were missing stories of the children, accounts by those most impacted. 

Both stories have flaws that leave them open to some interpretation. But after reading both, evaluating each source and their sources, it’s clear who did the better reporting and who is more objective.

The problem with unrestricted web publishing is that these two articles have the same potential reach and the same potential influence, as do the numerous blogs and viral posts on the situation. While one reporter seems to be playing on people’s fears and reporting to conclusions based only on unnamed sources, the article is packaged as credible news. The NYT’s article, on the other hand, may not be sensational, it may not garner as many hits and shares, but it provides a more objective view of the situation, with both original reporting and a variety of sources. 

The benefit of unrestricted web publishing is that people can do their own research, such as I have, to determine which sources are credible and which journalists are properly sourcing their stories. The real question is, will they? Do they know how and what to look out for?

Columbia Journalism Review took notice of the coverage of the thousands of migrants coming into the United States illegally, and they note that many journalists are focusing on the political implications (Garcia, M. July, 2014). Missing in the coverage is a focus on the actual legal rights of the minors coming over and the context explaining why they’re coming. They note good reporting by The Dallas Morning News, The Valley Morning Star and the El Paso Times. But they say most of the coverage is seriously lacking and playing on our political beliefs about immigration, rather than the humanitarian aspect.

“It’s not an academic discussion,” Garcia (July, 2014) writes. “How the issue is framed and explained plays a critical function in shaping the public policy response.”

I would assume that most people publishing on the web realize that their content has the potential to influence both public perception and the public policy response. But some are clearly trying to manipulate that influence in the direction they want, rather than trying to provide informative news that can act as a guide in perceiving and responding to major events.

References:

Fausset, R., Belson, K. (June, 2014). Faces of an immigration system overwhelmed by women and children. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/06/us/faces-of-an-immigration-system-overwhelmed-by-women-and-children.html 

Garcia, M. (July, 2014). Looking beyond the line: When reporters rise above politics, they deliver a broader look from the border. Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved from http://www.cjr.org/united_states_project/looking_beyond_the_line.php

Starnes, T. (July 2014). Medical staff warned: Keep your mouths shut about illegal immigrants or face arrest. Fox News. Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/07/02/medical-staff-warned-keep-quiet-about-illegal-immigrants-or-face-arrest/

Virginia Montecino (1998). Criteria to evaluate the credibility of www resources. Education and Technology Resources. Retrieved from http://mason.gmu.edu/~montecin/web-eval-sites.htm

How do you know what you know? A look at the Facebook news frenzy

Screen shot of Huffington Post

Questions posed to me for an assignment exploring social media and the truth:

      • How do you know what you know?
      • Name one new thing you learned using a social media site today and explain why you believe it is true. 
      • What source did you use to acquire this information? 
      • At times, are social media sites reliable for obtaining credible information? 

Hmmm, how do I know what I know? That’s difficult to answer. I feel sort of like a detective. I observe, that’s huge. I research, a lot. I listen, sometimes just because I know I should. And I make connections. Based on prior knowledge, and tricks I’ve picked up over the years, I make connections that form patterns and help guide me pretty close to complete understanding. 

Ok, so I don’t do that every time I come across something new, because before I do any of that I judge a new thing’s significance, whether it is worthy of further thought and exploration. I mean who has time to research everything? But the more you do it the easier it becomes and the more prior knowledge you build on. 

For instance, I follow certain news sites on Facebook, some because I like to share their content with my friends, some that report industry news and others that I find curious. I’m growing pretty tired of the flashy, make-me-have-to-click headlines, and finding a far fetched connection or an opinionated article lacking sources or depth. 

One such article that appeared in my Facebook feed tonight was from Huffington Post’s Media page, which read “The Evening News Will Be All White Guys Again,” (Mirkinson, 2014) with photos of Scott Pelley at CBS, Brian Williams at NBC and now David Muir at ABC — all caught in goofy expressions. What follows this tempting headline are three paragraphs. Three paragraphs pointing out the obvious — that the major networks would now all have white men in the coveted anchor spot. They add a couple of sentences for context, that between 2009 and 2011 Sawyer and Katie Couric both having anchor spots, put them in the majority, and that before 2006 the position was also dominated by white men. They add that PBS is now the only broadcast network to rely on women as anchors. No sources needed, all indisputable facts.

In reality, I wasn’t surprised, maybe a bit disappointed that they didn’t include more about the situation women face in the news business, but not surprised. I’ve come to expect a certain product from these “sharable news stories” put up on Facebook, and I take them in stride. 

And I’m biased, I’m a woman in the field — it’s an important issue for me, one which I’m acutely aware, having held many positions in the newsroom, most recently in management. We’re treated differently, we’re paid less and people expect us to be softer, and are taken aback when we’re assertive — ask any woman managing anything in journalism — it’s the most annoying thing ever.

But bias aside, the reality of the situation is alarming. And there is more context to add to the current situation. Jill Abramson, who served as the first women executive editor of the New York Times, was fired last month and there is much talk about how women fare in the newsroom. Barbara Walters, the first woman to be a network anchor, retired. 

The situation overall isn’t good either. In 1991, women in journalism made about 81 percent of what men made; in more than 20 years that has only increased to 83 percent. A percentage that also hasn’t changed significantly in the last 20 years is the number of women working in journalism. At newspapers, women represent about 36 percent of the staff and in television news, about 40 percent. That number goes down the higher you get in the food chain (Pew, 2014).

                                                           Screen shot from Pew Research Center

It's even worse when you look at racial diversity. The number of people who aren't white has actually decreased in journalism, from 13 to 12 percent, according to the American Society of News Editors. And minorities felt the newsroom cuts the hardest.

I understand what HuffPost was doing. They were trying to make a quick point, trigger a discussion, recruit a few thousand or so people to share their attention-grabbing headline. Hey, this is a business after all, and clicks do matter. 

But I was nevertheless, disappointed.

And it fit in quite nicely with the subject of a book I’m reading, “Blur: How to Know What’s True in the Age of Information Overload.” 

This example would be what the authors Kovach and Rosenstiel (2010) call Journalism of Assertion, which favors speed to depth.

While this form of news may leave a hole, a deep desire for more substance, I understand why it exists. You see, it’s two fold. We like that kind of stuff, we give them the clicks they so desire, they make money, rinse and repeat. And the news organizations stretch themselves so thin that reporters don’t have time for context, for deep research and time-consuming interviews. There is no time for the Journalism of Verification, which favors fully understanding an issue and providing all the necessary facts and context, as Kovach and Rosenstiel (2010) explain it. People claim they desire this type of journalism, yet the churned out stories are bringing in the profits. 

At least the Huffington Post is trying to make succinct what they do have. Even without any sources, some quick research shows that they got right what they did have, so kudos there. 

Some Facebook-favorite sites don’t even try to mask their slant and their lack of fact finding is glaring. Like The Daily Kos post today, get a load of this mouthful: “Sen. Thad Cochran narrowly survived a vicious Tea-Party-and-Koch-fuled primary last night, reminding me to never again give those joker teabaggers any credit.” The blog post goes on to make some really interesting connections, none of which are sourced or based on any stated fact. You could only trust it if you already agreed with it.

Screen shot of Dailykos.com

“We call this model the Journalism of Affirmation, for its appeal is in affirming the preconceptions of the audience, assuring them, gaining their loyalty and then converting that loyalty into advertising revenue,” says Kovach and Rosenstiel (2010), quite brilliantly.

But not all is bad on social media — it’s all getting a bit gamey, sure — but some substance can be scraped from the depths of social media. 

For instance, tonight I learned through an Associated Press report, shared on Facebook by CBS, that a federal appeals court in Denver ruled in favor of gay marriage, and putting the issue into context they pointed out that the issue is one step closer to the Supreme Court. The story has all kinds of sources, interview-based and from statements, they have background on other developments. It’s an actual news story and I learned something, was presented facts that I could dissect and distinguish each source’s credibility. 

The New York Times, NPR and the Christian Science Monitor taught me today that the Supreme Court ruled authorities must have a warrant before searching someone’s cell phone, all were pretty thorough thankfully, as this is such an important story, relevant to our individual lives, the state of our Democracy and even freedom of the press.

Some other notable takeaways from Facebook today: 

• I learned that researchers are on their way to making a new condom design (courtesy of Upworthy) 
• There is a place in Puerto Rico that makes bean flavored ice cream (thanks for letting me know Uncommon Caribbean)
• North Korea said they will retaliate if a new James DeFranco movie mocking their leader is released (I think they all had this one).
• And Emperor penguins are adapting to climate change (CBS gave us this one).

Sure, I could have learned about these developments elsewhere, but Facebook made it easy and as I scroll down sifting through the overload, the jacked up headlines that I know have nothing under the hood give me something to snark at, to compare and contrast. 

But I’m a journalist, I naturally gravitate toward news that I observe to be thorough, well reported. I fear some people don’t even notice when a “news” story doesn’t have one source, one interview, or any context — things to look for when trying to identify credibility — and when it is just bloated with jazzy headlines that don’t go on to fulfill that initial promise.

I’ve been pushing myself to use my clicks like my democratic right to a vote, but I’m studying media, I’m in the field — I need to see what the bad stuff looks like, so I guess that makes me part of the problem. And hey, perhaps we need the bad anyhow, to make us appreciate the good.

So I guess I know what I know because I pay attention, at least most of the time, and thanks to Facebook, the bearer of both good and bad news.

References: 
Anderson, M. (2014). As Jill Abramson exits the NY Times, a look at how 

women are facing in newsrooms. Pew Research. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/05/16/as-jill-abramson-exits-the-ny-times-a-look-at-how-women-are-faring-in-newsrooms/

Kos. (2014). Thad Cochran survives thanks to Democrats. The Daily Kos. 

Retrieved from http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/24/1309376/-Thad-Cochran-survives-thanks-to-Democrats#

Kovack, B., Rosenstiel, T. (2010). Blur: How to Know What’s True in the 
Age of Information Overload. Bloomsbury USA, New York.

Mirkinson, J. (2014). With Diane Sawyer Leaving, The Evening News Will Be 

All White Guys Once Again. Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/25/evening-news-all-male-diane-sawyer_n_5529560.html

Influence of the media

Is social media good?

I have a funny relationship with social media. I'm a journalist, using social media is like a prerequisite these days. And I recognize the power, the incredible uses, the onslaught of personal information and competing headlines, and the sociological insights.

But I feel overburdened with it at times, and perhaps I'm in the minority, but I haven't fallen in love with it, although I am quite proficient. I still have to make an effort, while it seems others crave it, thrive off of it. Don't get me wrong, I have my overkill moments. When I'm deep into an issue and can't wait to share details on social media, getting public opinion, while also devouring everything I can find being discussed on social media.  I guess I'm just not a full-time junkie, more of an occasional binge consumer who keeps up appearances. 

I can't seem to weave Twitter into my daily routine but oh have I tried. I use Twitter when I want to check out a trending topic and particularly when there is drama in the media field so I can see what the insiders are saying. But I find that time consuming and sometimes salacious. I try to tweet insightful tidbits, share articles that I think should be read and offer poetic personal touches without revealing too much — but I don't do this enough to garner a loyal or interested following. As exposure becomes more and more important in my field, I'm constantly exploring new ways of streamlining my social media presence, with a clear and relatable message, and where I can express myself and connect with people on a deeper level.

Facebook I use more often, although guiltily as it's more to check out the latest sensational headlines and odd articles being shared among the masses, and also to stay pseudo connected to friends and family. I try to keep my professional life separate from Facebook and as a rule I only connect with people who I would hang out with in a personal setting, but even that gets a bit blurred. So I am careful to maintain my online image and compose my posts carefully.

Since I'm very focused on my career right now, I'm really enjoying Linkedin. This is almost entirely because I'm going through a transition from full-time newspaper work to part-time teaching, and I'm motivated to take stock in all I've done. Tweaking my Linkedin page, updating my skills and accomplishments, and connecting with other professionals has really pushed me to think about my whole image, my professional image and how I can leverage that to open up opportunities. It also gives me a chance to connect with organizations and people who can help advance my career or provide me with critical information. It's a great professional tool.

Add to this, I now use Google+ to manage a data journalism project I'm working on, Wordpress to teach my students about portfolio building and now I've just joined Blogger! Social media overload or covering all your bases? Hmmm, let's see how it works out before I answer that.

All social media platforms influence our perspectives, some more than others, and particularly if we use them a lot. Out of them all Facebook is probably the most in-your-face influencer, although Twitter can branch out in even more broad ways and have farther reach.

On Facebook, your own personal onslaught of messages is usually from your friends and websites you follow. This can lead to your newsfeed being overrun with sensational articles meant to entice the lustful Facebook user, plus your friends reposting and commenting on the same messages, which together reinforce the messages.

On Twitter, however, all it takes is a hashtag to bring together millions of people virtually under a common cause. But in the case of Twitter, there is more individual seeking out and following certain hashtags and movements, rather than advertisement-type posts on Facebook that are designed to seek you out.

I try to manage what messages I connect with, or give my time to, and I also recognize slanted or overly subjective content, which seems all the craze right now on social media. I see that many news organizations are appealing to our preconceived opinions rather than feeding us objective information. I'm not sure social media has much of an influence on my behaviors, but I know that it makes me acutely aware of my digital footprint. I do observe others getting swept up in daily media storms feeding on our emotions and the mob mentality. 

Like the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. Initially all the outlets rushed to condemn the man, as they kept finding commentary and reports by other military personnel calling him a deserter. But when the dust settled, many headlines turned to condemning conservatives for condemning him — it was like they watched the tide of public opinion and gave us news to fit neatly into the box of our existing sentiments. They rushed to confirm our beliefs instead of trying to find the truth.

But then again, I can call on social media any time I need to connect with many people, whether it be for advice, localized input or to gain followers on a particular issue. I have some friends who spend all day sharing messages about animal rights, trying to save a particular dog or fund a program; and I have others who spread awareness on autoimmune diseases, educating people and connecting common interests.

The influence social media has on people can be good and bad. On the negative end of the spectrum you can have false, misleading and socially destructive messages spreading like wildfire and influencing everyone to stand behind a distorted issue. On the positive end, you can rally people around a good cause, garner donations, support and development, by extending your reach and therefore your influence.

So, is social media good?

That can't be answered with a simple yes or no. The answer is, it can be.