[sb057]

That's part of the issue; there is no need for commercial first-hand accounts anymore. If someone on social media is talking about a news event and provides a video documenting their presence, that is about as verified and accurate as you can hope for.

[jandrese]

Which is incredibly susceptible to someone with an agenda who wants to spin an narrative and knows how to leverage social media.

It's tailor made for propaganda. Joe Schmoe who is actually there doesn't know how to inflate his likes and SEO his account. His voice gets drowned out by the people who are getting paid to push a particular viewpoint. There is no editor providing oversight. No ethics board. No neutral point of view. It's just whomever shouts the loudest and gets there first.

[brokenkebab]

No neutral point of view. It's just whomever shouts the loudest and gets there first.

And that's exactly how news industry worked always, since invention of press (actually even before, though it wasn't industry back then).

[CM30]

You're being downvoted, but to a large extent, you're probably right here. For many topics journalists used to cover, you genuinely don't need them any more, since enthusiasts posting Patreon/donation funded content is at least as good in terms of quality. Tech, games, TV, music, sports, celebrity gossip, all of them can be covered just as well or better by some random guy on YouTube or some online blog site.

And that in fact be another reason why the media as a whole is doing so poorly. In the old days, a fair few people read the papers for this stuff. Nowadays they can get the same information elsewhere, without the stories they're less interested in taking up space.

[lotsofpulp]

There absolutely is a need for multiple, verified, consistency and fact checked first hand accounts. One person on social media does not provide an objective and difficult to falsify viewpoint.

[emiliobumachar]

Deepfakes are getting more and more accessible...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepfake