A survey held in the United States in 2023 revealed that 40 percent of responding adults said that what they disliked most about getting news on social media was the fact that the news is inaccurate, an increase of nine percent from 2018. Other reasons given were low-quality news or other people's behavior. Social media news consumption is complex With inaccurate news being the main reason consumers dislike news via social networks, the issue of trust also comes into play. Whilst fake and manipulated content can circulate on any platform, social media platforms can exacerbate the matter, with written posts, video footage, and audio easily shared and disseminated at the click of a button. TikTok in particular, with its focus on short-form snappy content, ranked poorly in terms of trusted social networks - 50 percent of U.S. adults responding to a survey considered the platform very untrustworthy. What are the positives of news found on social media? Data from 2023 showed that 20 percent of adults in the United States who used social media to get news stated that convenience was their main reason for doing so. Speed and interaction with people were the two next most popular reasons for using social networking platforms as a source of news. Even so, the majority (more than a third) of respondents said they did not know why they liked getting news on social networks or did not answer. This speaks to the complex relationship the public now has with social media – its convenience, as well as its prevalence in users’ everyday lives, means that it can often be difficult to avoid using it. However, when it comes to news, users remain unsure.

A survey exploring British consumer attitudes to news outlets revealed that television was considered the most impartial news platform, with 61 percent of respondents aged 16 years of age or above who watched TV news weekly rating it highly in this regard. Social media fared less well with only 42 percent considering it to be impartial. This comes despite social media ranking among the most used platforms for news consumption in the UK. The pros and cons of news on social media Impartiality is of growing importance at a time when only around a third of UK consumers trust the news media. But is social media news really the most reliable source? Data shows that local groups or accounts on social networks are now the main source of online local news and information, ahead of search engines, local and regional news media sites and apps, and the BBC. These groups have their advantages in that local people can gather and share information with others in their community. But, a major drawback is that this information is often unverified, prone to bias, and hearsay. On the other hand, social media allows for quick and easy access to a wealth of news and information from a variety of sources. Why is impartiality important? Impartiality in news is vital in ensuring that the public have access to information that does not lean one way or the other – and this applies in particular to topics like health and elections. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a survey on perceptions of bias in news organizations in the UK highlighted this as an issue, with many Brits concerned that news organizations were more concerned with supporting an ideology than with keeping the public informed.

In the U.S. context, scholars have demonstrated that public support for military intervention is influenced by the elite debate as presented in the national news media, and that the volume of elite criticism reported is largely determined by opposition in Congress. Because the media “index” the debate among officials in Washington, a lively and comprehensive airing of the pros and cons of a military intervention often depends upon Congressional leaders taking an oppositional stance. But sometimes American reporters will incorporate a surge of foreign leaders’ critical views, even when Congressional leaders support administration policy or when they choose to remain silent due to strategic considerations. The question addressed by this article is whether such departures from traditional indexing behavior—which bring foreign views into media coverage in a significant manner –- can be predicted based on the circumstances and journalists’ incentives. The article also explores whether high-visibility opposition by credible foreign leaders, in particular United Nations officials and European allies, can substitute for partisan cues from domestic leaders and invigorate a national debate in a manner that influences public opinion.