Fairfax Media to axe 125 newsroom staff, page-30

Overall I agree with your sentiment as per my previous posts of firstly calling social media journalists the true journalists and predicting the eventual extinction of newspapers then on my second post providing a reference of increasing social media news consumption that is probably now greater then traditional news consumption. My third post here was pointing out the vested interest of a newspaper saying they are bigger and better then social media as a critic used it as a reference.

I am a big social media news viewer. The few times I have gone to traditional sites or sources, I see much more limited information, normally only one side of the story, no new facts and it appears online a few hours later. Youtube is better any day of the week.

There are a few analyst opinions I respect in traditional media that have a way of looking at things from a different perspective, but they are commentators and not really journalists.

Anyone can be a journalist by being gutsy enough to ask a question or recording a situation before releasing it.

A recent story I saw has been the Berkley riots.

In one moment a girl was punched by a guy. Most traditional media called it an assault and suggested/stated the guy should be charged. It was only on social media that I could find claims and evidence of calls to "collect 100 nazi scalps", photos of the lady with glass bottles in her hand in some photos and see clips of her story to CNN compared with a video of the situation that seemed markedly different to the point of creating the existence of people as well as a very clear video of people armed with objects walking over the event boundary to a group of unarmed people with the police doing nothing.

All this info was missing from traditional media. Despite both calling each other fake news, this helps me decide which one is truly fake news and which I may spend my time viewing.