I logged onto Facebook and the first item in my newsfeed was
one word: “Furloughed”. Someone I had
dinner with just last night posted it. While
there was discussion about a possible furlough occurring, discussions on budget
cuts are commonplace in the DC area due to the high number of Federal
Government employees and government contractors. I really only use Facebook on a regular basis,
and am very discerning about things I see posted.
However, the “furloughed” posting was by someone I know and trust. Living in the DC area, and as a former
Federal Government employee myself, I know that furloughs and
reductions-in-force (RIFs) do occur. I
absolutely think that social media sites can be reliable for obtaining credible
information, especially when the “source” posting is someone (or an
organization) you know to be reliable. I
don’t credit Facebook for being the credible source overall. I consider the individuals or organizations
that are putting information out there.
Facebook is just a tool to share that information, and it is my
responsibility to decide which information is fact. I have the choice of who I include in my “friends”
list and I am selective in what information I’m willing to accept vs.
information I’m more suspicious of.
Of course, one of the next feeds down promise I can have
perfect skin and lose a ton of weight with no effort. Those, of course, are no-brainers to just skim past
and ignore as fiction.
Linda,
ReplyDeleteGreat post! I agree that social media sites can be credible for receiving truthful, reliable information. I also agree that I would never credit Facebook as a source, but instead view it as a conduit for other type of valid sources.
It sounds like we treat Facebook the same way in that we trust more the individual or organization posting the information and rely on our own instincts to either accept or reject that information.
Great post! Thanks!
Carissa
Hi Linda,
ReplyDeleteOne of the things I am really enjoying in our course is the ability to see everyone's insightful posts in the blogosphere, and your post this week is no exception!
You make a very valid point that new media artifacts, like Facebook, allow us to cherry pick which sources we follow. I think this relates to Kovach and Rosensteil's point in this week's reading that we are our own editors of information in the evolving media environment. As they explain, this means we have to determine which facts we find interesting might not be sound, as well (Kovach and Rosensteil, 2010).
I think you've done a great job of explaining how we can process which sources are legitimate as quickly as we can decide which stories interest us. Great post!
Thanks,
Katie
Good post Linda! I particularly like how you differentiate between the medium and the source. This is a very important distinction that not everybody makes. As you say, Facebook is the way we receive the information, but it's not producing the information itself. I would have liked to see, though, how you assessed the source itself. How do you "know" this man who posted this information to be a "reputable" source? What criteria did you use to conclude he is trustworthy? (I'm not actually questioning his credibility. I just want to know about your vetting and thought processes).
ReplyDeleteThe specific post was by a personal friend and colleague. Ironically, I believed her individual post, but would have been more suspect if it was a newsfeed. Furloughs don't affect everyone the same way. There are different components in DC to the furlough itself: --Civilians who are not reporting to work not getting paid (my friend) --Civilians who are reporting to work and will get paid for two weeks because they have a budget to do so --Contractors who are reporting to work and getting paid because they have a budget to do so, so far --Essential personnel who must report to work, but may not get paid. Being familiar with the Federal Government and furlough possibilities, in addition to knowing the source, caused me to believe the FB post.
Delete