The dangers of social media

A rumor was recently reported via Twitter that the Philadelphia Eagles' head coach was going to be stepping down to be replaced by former Tampa Bay Buccaneers head coach and current ESPN analyst Jon Gruden. This column from the Boston Herald describes how one single tweet set into motion days of chaos in the sports reporting world as journalists rushed to confirm or dismiss it and the Eagles organization was placed in a very uncomfortable position.

The author raises an issue that we haven't spoken much about so far this semester: of course, social media allows breaking news to be disseminated in real time, a wonderful advancement. But it is equally adept at spreading falsehoods, of which the rumor about Jon Gruden turned out to be one. As producers of online content, the columnist writes, we are not held to the same standards as traditional journalists are. But the information we put out through social media is no less influential. He views it as unfortunate that social media have allowed for a whole class of non-professional reporters to emerge that is in no way held accountable for the information (true, false or in between) it makes public.

A libel or slander suit is a powerful incentive for news organization to do their due diligence to confirm and reconfirm their facts. But a loss of credibility with the people who trust us to deliver factual information is the greatest check and balance. What are the rules for blogs or social networking? What are the consequences for blatantly getting something wrong? What is the social network’s incentive to get things correct before putting it out there? Freedom of speech does not mean you are necessarily free from the consequences of what you say, write, post or tweet.

What do you think about this argument? Is it valid or is the author overreacting to a natural consequence of new technologies?