Day 115 — Speaking: Media, News & Social Media（メディア・ニュース・SNS）

Mostly through news apps that curate headlines for me, rather than visiting a specific website. It's convenient, but I do sometimes wonder how balanced the selection actually is, since it's all algorithm-driven.

Fairly often, yes, though probably not as much as I used to. I mainly use it to keep up to date with friends and a few topics I'm genuinely interested in, rather than for news itself.

Quite significantly, actually. I used to rely on a couple of specific news sites, but now information reaches me passively through my phone, often before I've even gone looking for it. I'm not sure that's entirely a good thing.

To a certain extent, but I'm fairly selective. I tend to take viral posts with a pinch of salt and cross-check anything surprising against a source I consider credible before I believe it.

I'd say it largely comes down to how these platforms are designed. Algorithms tend to show people content that confirms what they already believe, so users end up in a kind of echo chamber where opposing views rarely appear. That, combined with sensationalist headlines that are designed to provoke a reaction rather than inform, makes it easy to accept information uncritically. That said, it could also be argued that a lack of media literacy education plays just as big a role.

To some extent, yes, although it's a genuinely tricky issue. On one hand, these companies design the algorithms that amplify content, so arguably they bear at least partial responsibility for what spreads. On the other hand, holding them fully accountable raises uncomfortable questions about censorship and who gets to decide what counts as "false." On balance, I think platforms should be required to be more transparent about how content is promoted, even if outright censorship isn't the answer.

It's hard to say for certain, but I'd guess personalisation will only intensify, with AI curating increasingly individualised news feeds. That could be useful in some ways, but it also risks deepening echo chambers even further. I also wouldn't be surprised if there's a counter-trend towards people deliberately seeking out more traditional, vetted sources as a reaction against misinformation fatigue.

I'd argue it is, yes, even if its role has changed. Traditional outlets generally still have stricter editorial standards and fact-checking processes, which gives them a level of credibility that a lot of social media content simply doesn't have. That's not to say traditional media is flawless — far from it — but by and large, it still serves an important function as a more reliable reference point.