16 Years of Change: How Social Media Reshaped Journalism

As the Daily Sun celebrates its 16th anniversary, the evolution of Bangladesh’s media landscape highlights significant changes in journalism since its journey in 2010. This transformation encompasses advancements in technology, shifts in news production, distribution methods and changing audience expectations. Think about how Bangladesh received breaking news in 2010. If a major political development happened in Dhaka, people waited for the evening news or the next morning’s newspapers. If a cyclone struck the coast, radio, television channels and newspapers were the principal sources of updates. If a major accident occurred on a highway, photographs and videos might not appear until a reporter or photographer reached the scene.

In the past, there was a notable gap between significant events and public awareness. However, this gap has drastically narrowed. Nowadays, when incidents such as fires occur in any area, witnesses can livestream the situation before traditional media outlets arrive. Political speeches can be quickly shared on platforms like Facebook, and during natural disasters like floods, images and urgent requests for assistance can rapidly disseminate throughout Bangladesh. Furthermore, misinformation can spread widely before journalists can verify its accuracy.

Sixteen years have transformed the relationship between journalism and its audience. Newspapers and television remain important, but they now operate in an environment where ordinary citizens can act as eyewitnesses, publishers, commentators and distributors of information. The newsroom no longer has a monopoly over the first draft of the day’s story. Sometimes, it is not even the first place where the story appears. This transformation has created extraordinary opportunities. It has also sharpened a fundamental question: what makes journalism valuable when almost anyone can publish information? The answer begins with a responsibility that has not changed, even as everything around it: verification.

From news consumers to news producersPerhaps the most significant change is that ordinary people are no longer merely consumers of news. They have become producers and  

distributors of information. In the past, documenting a public event required access to a camera, a publishing platform or a media organisation. Today, a smartphone can perform all three functions. A student can record an incident on campus, a commuter can document a damaged road, and a resident can draw attention to problems with local authorities.

Such participation can bring neglected issues into public view. Problems that might never attract national media attention can become matters of public discussion when residents share photographs, videos and personal accounts. For journalists, these contributions can provide valuable leads. A video may reveal an incident that deserves investigation, while community posts can help reporters identify recurring complaints or locate eyewitnesses. But documenting an event is not the same as establishing the truth about it. A person recording a road accident may not know what caused it. Someone filming a confrontation may capture only one side. A resident describing a hospital’s failure may provide a genuine account without knowing the full institutional context.

Citizen-generated content can strengthen journalism, but it cannot replace the reporting and corroboration needed to establish what happened. The challenge for professional journalists is to treat social media as a source of information without allowing it to become a substitute for reporting.

When algorithms decide what matters

Social media has transformed news production and distribution. Formerly, editors controlled the visibility of news stories through editorial judgement and various influences. Now, platform algorithms additionally dictate which posts users encounter and the reach of content. On Facebook, YouTube and other platforms, visibility can depend partly on audience engagement and recommendation systems. A story that generates strong reactions may travel further than a carefully researched investigation that attracts less immediate attention. This creates a problem for journalism: the story receiving the most attention is not necessarily the story that matters most.

A dramatic confrontation may generate thousands of comments, while an investigation into a public institution attracts relatively little engagement. An emotionally charged political statement can dominate news feeds even when a less sensational development has greater consequences for people’s lives. The result is a growing tension between public interest and audience attention.

News organisations have always competed for readers and viewers. Social media intensifies that pressure by making performance visible through views, shares, reactions and comments. When these metrics become the principal measure of success, newsrooms may prioritise sensational headlines and controversy over less dramatic but more consequential issues.

Popular stories should not automatically be ignored. Public interest often deserves attention precisely because people care about an issue. The problem arises when engagement becomes a substitute for editorial judgement. Journalism must respond to audience interests without surrendering its responsibility to determine what deserves attention.

The rise of social media expert

Social media has also changed who is regarded as an authority. In Bangladesh, a person with a smartphone, a confident speaking style and a substantial online following can quickly become a recognised commentator on politics, economics, health, religion or international affairs. Some creators make valuable contributions. They explain complex subjects in accessible language, challenge official claims and introduce perspectives that established media organisations may overlook. Specialists can also use digital platforms to share knowledge directly with the public.

But popularity does not necessarily demonstrate expertise. A person discussing a medical issue may lack relevant training. Someone offering economic analysis may have little understanding of economic data. A commentator on international politics may rely more on ideological assumptions than on reliable sources. The problem arises when audiences mistake confidence for competence and repeated exposure for credibility.

Traditional journalism is not immune to error or unqualified commentary. Established media organisations can also publish misleading information or give excessive prominence to poorly supported claims. The distinction should not be reduced to a contest between professional journalists and online creators.

The more important question is whether a person uses reliable evidence, acknowledges uncertainty and corrects mistakes. A credible expert should be willing to explain the basis of a claim. A responsible journalist should distinguish verified facts from analysis and speculation. Audiences, in turn, should recognise that a large following cannot establish whether an argument is correct. When almost anyone can claim authority, the ability to evaluate expertise becomes an essential part of media literacy.

The illusion of majority

Social media can also distort people’s perception of public opinion. A political position, religious argument or social controversy may appear overwhelmingly popular when a post receives thousands of reactions and supportive comments. Users repeatedly encounter similar opinions and begin to assume that the views dominating their feeds represent society as a whole.

But a social media feed is not a representative survey of a population. Those who comment on a post are not necessarily representative of those who read it. People who share political content may be more motivated than those who remain silent. Organised groups, coordinated or bot accounts and automated activity can also influence how visible a position becomes.

Consequently, a loud online debate can create a misleading impression of consensus. In Bangladesh, where political and social discussions can become intensely polarised, this distinction matters. A user who repeatedly encounters support for one political position may conclude that nearly everyone agrees. Another user, exposed to a different network, may reach the opposite conclusion. Both may be drawing conclusions from incomplete views of public opinion.

Journalists must therefore avoid treating viral posts, comment sections or trending topics as reliable measures of what the country thinks. Online reactions can identify issues that deserve investigation, but broader claims about public sentiment require stronger evidence, such as representative surveys or systematic research. Social media can reveal public opinion, but it can also magnify particular voices and obscure others. Journalism must distinguish visibility from representativeness.

When misinformation travels faster than truth

The emergence of social media has intensified the issue of misinformation in journalism. Videos can be repurposed with misleading captions, genuine statements may be contextually altered, and unverified claims can rapidly disseminate via platforms like Facebook before accuracy can be confirmed. These problems become particularly serious during elections, communal tensions, public emergencies and politically sensitive events. False or misleading information can intensify fear, damage reputations and influence how people understand unfolding developments. Not every inaccurate post is deliberately deceptive. Some users share information because they believe it is true; others misunderstand an image or draw conclusions from incomplete evidence. The consequences, however, can be serious regardless of the original intention.

Journalists face pressure to respond quickly because audiences expect immediate updates. Yet publishing an unverified claim can cause lasting harm, even if a correction follows later. Before publishing a viral video, journalists should establish its source, date and location as far as possible. Claims about casualties, criminal allegations or identifiable individuals require particular care. Reporters should seek corroboration, consult relevant sources and give those facing serious allegations a fair opportunity to respond.

News organisations must also make corrections visible. Quietly changing a headline or deleting an inaccurate post can leave audiences unaware that they received false information. The pressure to publish first is understandable. But being first to circulate an unverified claim is not the same as being first to deliver reliable news. In a crowded information environment, accuracy is not an obstacle to journalism. It is one of the main reasons why journalism remains necessary.

AI and the next challenge

Artificial intelligence (AI) is adding another layer to this transformation. AI tools can generate text, produce realistic images, manipulate audio and create videos that may be difficult to distinguish from authentic material. These capabilities can help journalists analyse information and work more efficiently, but they can also make deception easier. A convincing image no longer guarantees that an event occurred. A recording that appears to contain a public figure’s voice may not be authentic. A polished article may contain fabricated details or unsupported claims. Verification must therefore extend beyond checking whether a source exists. Journalists may need to investigate how an image, recording or document was produced, whether it has been altered and whether independent evidence supports its content. AI can assist with transcription, translation and document analysis, but it cannot replace human judgement, source protection, ethical decision-making or independent verification. News organisations should establish clear standards for using AI, disclose its use when it materially affects content and protect confidential information.

Audiences, too, need to become more cautious about accepting digital material at face value. The answer is not to assume that every photograph or video is fake, but to recognise that appearance alone is no longer sufficient proof. As convincing synthetic content becomes easier to produce, credible verification will become even more valuable.

Sixteen years on, trust remains the measure

For The Daily Sun and other established news organisations, the lesson of these 16 years is that adapting to new technology is necessary but insufficient. Digital platforms, mobile reporting and audience interaction can expand a newspaper’s reach, but technology alone cannot establish credibility. That depends on editorial judgment, independent verification, fairness and a willingness to correct mistakes.

In 2010, audiences often depended on newspapers and television channels to bring important events to their attention. Today, they may encounter an eyewitness video, a political claim, a citizen’s complaint and a viral rumour before a professional report appears. The audience has become more active, and the tools of publishing are available to far more people.

Yet access to more information does not automatically produce better understanding. The challenge for established news organisations is to embrace digital innovation without allowing the pursuit of speed, clicks and engagement to weaken editorial standards. Newspapers must listen to their audiences, report on issues that matter to communities and present information in accessible formats. They must also retain the patience to investigate, the discipline to verify and the independence to report findings even when they are unpopular.

These responsibilities are not obstacles to a newspaper’s digital future. They are the foundations on which that future must be built. The next chapter of journalism in Bangladesh will be shaped by technology, changing audience habits and the growing participation of ordinary citizens. Professional news organisations cannot reverse these changes, nor should they try. Their task is to make the expanding flow of information more reliable, meaningful and useful to the public.

The platforms may change, newsrooms may evolve and relationships with readers may become more interactive, but journalistic success will continue to depend on whether people can rely on a newspaper to distinguish evidence from speculation, investigate matters of public importance and report responsibly. Sixteen years of change have transformed how Bangladesh receives its news. The next sixteen will test how well its media organisations can earn and maintain public trust. In a world of widespread publishing, a newspaper’s true value is in aiding the public’s understanding of truth, rather than merely being the first to deliver news.

_________________________________________________

The writer is an Assistant Professor and Chairman of the Department of Journalism and Media Studies at BGC Trust University Bangladesh. He can be reached at [email protected]