AfterDawn: News

Most journalists use Wikipedia,Twitter, Facebook, blogs as sources

According to a new survey by Cision and The George Washington University, most journalists and editors now use social media sources when doing research for stories, although most that do agree that information may be less reliable than information gathered from traditional media sources.

All of those surveyed use Google for research, 96 percent use corporate websites, 64 percent use blogs, while 61 percent use Wikipedia, 60 percent use sites such as Facebook and 57 percent use Twitter.

"Mainstream media have clearly hit a tipping point in their reliance on social media for their research and reporting," says Heidi Sullivan, Vice President of Research for Cision. "However, it's also clear that while social media is supplementing the research done by journalists, it is not replacing editors' and reporters' reliance on primary sources, fact-checking and other traditional best practices in journalism."



The results are based on 371 responses from journalists, conducted in September of last year. About 50 percent of those questioned had over 20 years of experience in the field.




Written by: Andre Yoskowitz @ 15 Feb 2010 14:13

• Previous article

• Motorola launches Cliq XT Android phone

• Next article

• Final Fantasy XIII Xbox 360 bundles confirmed for UK

• 4 comments

• llongtheD

  96% of journalists use corporate websites for research information? Isn't that like letting the cat guard the canary?

  15.2.2010 21:20 #1

• KillerBug

  A good journalist will use many sources. Wikipedia can be very handy for getting a starting point in a subject. It isn't the last word, it is the first.

  15.2.2010 22:36 #2

• canuckerz

  Originally posted by KillerBug: A good journalist will use many sources. Wikipedia can be very handy for getting a starting point in a subject. It isn't the last word, it is the first.Also besides that most wikipedia articles site their information to professional sources. Which makes most schools arguments invalid for not being able to use wikipedia and in fact by using their view of it it would mean any research papers students do would be pointless and invalid regardless of its sources. But try explaining that to some of the brain dead teachers and stuffed suits behind them these days.

  16.2.2010 20:26 #3

• Mez

  I believe Wikipedia is as trustworthy as published info. I think they could even get a little loser, maybe. That would be great in most areas but then there are those that would take advantage. I don't mind that Scientologists want to state their leader (Elron Hubbard I believe) can communicate with dogs mentally. I would want them to state where they got their info from.
  
  Because there is less red tape Wikipedia has more info faster.

  19.2.2010 16:15 #4