The ethics of social media sourcing in an age of misinformation

The dissemination of inaccurate information online is hardly a new problem, but the extent of its damage has reached unparalleled levels. Now, with Mark Zuckerberg’s recent decision to eliminate fact-checkers on Facebook, the proliferation of generative artificial intelligence and bots on every platform programmed to mimic a widespread consensus, and X’s pay-to-play verifications (not to mention the implantation of community notes which are no more reliable than the anonymous source who wrote them), there’s little to no controlling the potential virality of everything from petty gossip to conspiracy theories to blatantly false accusations.

Whether the poster is intentionally disseminating inaccurate information (disinformation) or believes that what they are sharing is fact (misinformation) doesn’t matter. As long as it’s circulated, it can manipulate readers into believing that something false should be treated as undeniable truth. Which makes the common practice of journalists embedding tweets into their articles or using posts as the basis for a story all the more precarious. And during disasters like the recent fires in Los Angeles, spreading inaccurate information can be the distinction between life or death. 

But what is a social media post if not a primary document for the digital age? Platforms can provide quicker access to a politician’s formal response to quick-moving crises, offer unfettered opinions by high-profile figures worthy of public scrutiny, or elevate perspectives from undercovered communities. Yet using posts also invites questions about informed consent, not to mention factual verification. 

To better understand what place social media posts have in modern journalism, The Objective spoke with Alex Mahadevan, the director of MediaWise at Poynter Institute, and Wudan Yan, journalist and founder of fact-checking agency Factual.

Despite the risk of promoting mis/disinformation, social media platforms have proven to be necessary additions to boots-on-the-ground reportage: Mahadevan cites the use of Twitter during the Arab Spring as a prime example of when lay users provided access and insight in real time, enabling publications from around the world to highlight local voices. However, he notes that even with the urgent nature of the uprising, any tweets cited should have been verified by the journalist through reaching out to the poster directly prior to print.

“The way I see it is, they are good for tips,” he says. “They are good for auxiliary material.” 

News outlets are grappling with changes on X as the platform’s algorithm has changed under new owner Elon Musk, from verification no longer affirming someone’s identity to posts with links being deprioritized. 

When The Guardian revised their policies regarding the use of posts in articles, the outlet acknowledged that even as X’s benefits diminish, it “has a value as a place for gathering insight and information.” 

Still, according to the statement (ironically shared on X by Max Tani, the media editor of Semafor) from Kath Viner, the editor-in-chief, journalists should “avoid embedding X posts unless necessary to the story. This could include posts containing video or images to which we don’t otherwise have access…” The outlet has also stopped posting its stories on X, a luxury afforded to the few publications, including NPR, whose income stream isn’t contingent upon the number of site visits and clicks.  

However, for every one tweet that augments rigorous reporting, there’s at least a dozen embedded to replace interviews. 

While Yan says she sees collating posts more as list-making, not journalism, she acknowledges that this is less a reflection of a journalist and more a sign of the industry’s mediocre, but all-too-common working conditions. When a journalist is faced with a daily article quota or a low pay rate (or in many cases, both), there’s little time or motivation to dig deeper — or even to check with a post’s writer that they’re comfortable having their words blasted to a newsroom’s audience. 

As Mahadevan explains, in the heyday of content mills between 2012 to 2017 or 2018, reporters fishing for stories to meet the output demands of the job often relied on Twitter to find quick takes that could be written off as indicators of a larger discourse. One or two tweets from random users would form the basis of an entire article purely because quantity took precedent over quality. 

But even as content mills died out, tweet-based trend pieces prevailed. Except rather than reporting on an obvious monoculture, they merely validate the functionality of social media algorithms to regurgitate similar material over and over until one person’s individualized feed feels like a litmus test for the next big thing. 

Yan also notes that posts often reflect a gut reaction or stray musing rather than a carefully articulated thought, so it’s a disservice to both the original poster, the journalist and the readers to grant them more than a second glance. (The caveat, she added, is public figures like government officials, who should be held accountable for anything they write and are harder to reach for direct statements.) 

“I do believe in portraying most people in a good way,” says Yan. “I think it’s fair to give people an opportunity to explain themselves.” 

Mahadevan’s personal policy stems from the guidance of a mentor he had early in his career at a business publication in Tampa. He was told that nothing printed should come as a surprise to the subject — in terms of social media, that means verifying with a poster that their words can be shared rather than citing their thoughts and letting them find out from a friend or Google Alert for their name. 

For journalists hoping for that big “gotcha” moment, these considerations may come as a disappointment: Who hasn’t spotted a well-articulated thought or a juicy anecdote on a private account or a closed group and wished they could turn it into a source? 

But with many populations already hurting from poor and inaccurate media representation — and their relationships with the press now compounded with increasing vulnerability under the new presidential administration — the “ask for forgiveness not permission” gumption often associated with journalists of yore is no longer brave, but rather dangerous and selfish. 

---

Sonia Weiser is a writer and fact-checker in New York who founded the Opportunities of the Week newsletter (acquired by Study Hall).

This story was edited by James Salanga. Copy edits by Jen Ramos Eisen.