drainbamage

So how I see it:

MSM - Main Stream Media = Television

SM - Social Media = Online

In my humble opinion, SM is gaining more interest and dialogue, and MSM is fading into the dark ages.

Steven Seward Loc: Cleveland, Ohio

Seems like Mainstream Media is just getting worse by the minute. They seem to be aware of their diminishing relevance and are flailing away with f**e news and sensational stories in a pathetic attempt to win back viewers. The only viewers they will entice are people who read tabloids. Look soon to see TV screens in your grocery store check-out lines tuned to MSNBC.

Sjfh

Unfortunate as it is, we can't rely on social media to discern t***h...but it IS a wonderful resource to combat the lies and spin of the main stream media. It also gives voice to the t***h that main stream media does its best to squelch. It helps to bring our attention to the fact that there are lies....another very valuable tool we have at our disposal to use in rooting out the t***h. I don't think SM will necessarily be the downfall of MSM (although you may be right).....but I do think that SM will force MSM outlets to change their tune lest they fade into the dark ages.

Bazbo Loc: Lisboa, Portugal

They both have their place. However, some differences that the right wingers do not fully appreciate:

MSM news is gathered by an army of professional journalists (many reporting from the actual scene of the news) and curated by professional editors and fact-checkers. SM not at all.

Also, SM can be (and is) polluted by sock puppets and automated trolls that can flood the internet with hundreds pf thousands of messages and responses, all cleverly designed to look legit. In fact, we are learning that the Russians did just that all with anti-Clinton /pro-Trump messaging making rational discourse nearly impossible on SM. If one mentions a key word on twitter, one can be inundated with thousands of vile and insulting responses--not from thousands of people but from a single program.

The other thing one must never forget that on SM, even if a message comes from a real human being, it is just that. One message that can no better informed than my dogs. SM, even if one is dealing with actual human beings, is good for swapping brain farts and gratuitous insults, such like the UHH Attic.

Healthy skepticism is in order when deciding which news source is reliable. Healthy skepticism for SM should be multiplied by about a thousand.

Steven Seward Loc: Cleveland, Ohio

Almost all the stuff you attribute to Social Media - I also attribute to Mainstream Media. Curated by professional editors and fact checkers? Maybe a long time ago this was true, but nowadays hardly any journalists take the time to fact check or corroborate any of their stories because they are in a lightning race to get out their stories ahead of all the other 24-hour news outlets. These stories also come from "people" just like on Social Media. And most of the "people" employed in journalism have pretty much given up the pretense of being non-partisan and balanced. I'd like to go back to the days of Jack Webb "Just the facts, Ma'am."

drainbamage

Today's journalists are bound by the political slant of the corporation that employs them. They probably can't get job if they don''t "report" the news the way the CEO want's them to "report" it.

Twardlow Loc: Arkansas

As I sit here, after the shooting in UK, I am watching on TV, that is your Main Stream Media, NOT your Social Media.

I will soon go to The New York Times of deeper coverage, but will not go to Social Media at all (as I am not a practioner).

Nuff Said, I think.

Twardlow Loc: Arkansas

Folks could do much worse than watch MSNBC; I watch it exclusively and find they inform me accurately, completely, quickly, and without bias.

Good enough for me....

Twardlow Loc: Arkansas

I'm sorry, but you are simply incorrect on that. It's possible to find an occaisional error, perhaps, but the standard for news gathering is quite high, and the viewing public is pretty well informed as long as they avoid Faux news.

Internet--so-called news sites--are another matter. Viewers need to carefully validate their sources, though the informal insight of some websites is quite informative.

Imagine you are sitting in a bar, and the guy next to you is pumping some hot stock tip; the first question is whether or not he knows anything. Validating the news source is the first duty of the individual--finding what happened, not what strokes your confusion.

As soon as I get a whiff of someone leading me, I'm gone.

drainbamage

You say you only watch MSNBC because you deem them to be accurate, etc. I watch all news channels both MSM and SM. I am not able to form an opinion about which one is best for my political views until I see how each of them report on the same story. The variance is amazing on how a story plays out within each news venue.

letmedance Loc: Walnut, Ca.

That is because news is tainted by personal opinion much to often.