Your new post is loading...
Whenever a major news story breaks, the talk quickly follows from the news itself to how social is killing mainstream media. While there is merit behind this argument, they tend to neglect one major factor....
Every time a major event happens, the same thing happens. Story breaks on Twitter, people retweet it and then the many media organisations are lambasted for taking 20-30 mins to report on it and then the debate of how mainstream media is dying because of how slow it is.This debate happens every single time and the Boeing 777 plane crash on Saturday was the latest example of this.
But why is there an "us versus them" debate every time traditional and new media is compared? Especially since neither is perfect by any means. True, daily newspapers are suffering because of falling advertising, but for other mediums like weekly newspapers, magazines, radio and TV, why are we still talking about them as if they're in direct conflict with social?
The Wrong QuestionThe question that should be asked isn't which is better, but which one best suits the way you consume media? Both mediums have their own strengths and weaknesses and instead of pitting both against each other, why can't we appreciate both for what they are?...
Good points made - it's not either or re social media v mainstream media - they have different roles.