The Instigator
swadha
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
KuriouserNKuriouser
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

social media versus traditional media/ is social media better than traditional media?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
KuriouserNKuriouser
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/12/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,341 times Debate No: 25558
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

swadha

Pro

what is good for a brand?
A.) 25 million Facebook fans

B.) An article in the New York Times

Ideally, you"d like both.

But if forced to pick, I"d probably go with A. Facebook fans are a constant " a set of people who have opted into your content. While they don"t all receive your content all the time " they have made a commitment. They are interacting and sharing your content on an ongoing basis. They want some kind of relationship.

An article in the New York Times is definitely valuable. The New York Times is one of the most influential media outlets in the world. It"s circulation and online reach is enormous. It"s point of view can change minds. But a single article is fleeting. It"s impact in this noisy, fast-moving world is, well, questionable.

In the end, the impact of the article depends on how it was written, how it was displayed and shared. In other words, its impact is out of the hands of the brand.

Have we reached a point where a brand"s digital communications audience is more valuable than third-party coverage from traditional media channels?

It may be a simple matter of mathematics.

A company with a modest social media footprint " 50,000 Facebook likes, 5,000 Twitter followers, 1,000 LinkedIn followers and a YouTube channel with 1,000 subscribers consistently reaches more people than a sporadic program dedicated to generating news articles in the traditional media.

The social media audience as outlined above is a consistent and reliable subscriber based of more than 6.5 million. Every time this brand releases news or information it is guaranteed to be pushed out to this audience. And this doesn"t count tweets or videos that have the potential go viral beyond the core audience.

The same company would have a difficult time reaching 6.5 million people using just traditional media, especially since those audiences are shrinking.

However, complicating matters is that it has become difficult to cleanly divide social media from traditional media. For example, the New York Times not only has its print edition, but a huge social and digital presence: Facebook, Twitter, blogs, websites, interactive applications, etc. So scoring coverage from a newspaper isn"t just about the "print" article, but how that content is pushed out on all of a newspapers channels.

That said it is becoming easier to argue that brands with strong social and digital networks no longer need to invest as much time and energy in traditional media relations to reach their audiences.

What do you think? Are a brands" "owned" channels a better way to reach audiences? Does "earned" media still do a better job?

People gain information, education, news, etc., by electronic media and print media. Social media is distinctly different from traditional media, such as newspapers, television, and film. Social Media is relatively inexpensive and accessible to enable anyone (even private individuals) to publish or access information, compared to traditional media, which generally requires significant resources to publish information.

One characteristic shared by both social media and traditional media is the capability to reach small or large audiences; for example, either a blog post or a television show may reach zero people or millions of people. The main properties that help describe the differences between social media and traditional media are:

1. Reach " both traditional and social media technologies provide scale and enable anyone to reach a global audience.

2. Accessibility " the means of production for traditional media are typically owned privately or by government; social media tools are generally available to anyone at little or no cost.

3. Usability " traditional media production typically requires specialised skills and training. Most social media does not, or in some cases reinvent skills, so anyone can operate the means of production.

4. Timeliness " the time lag between communications produced by traditional media can be long (days, weeks, or even months) compared to social media (which can be capable of virtually instantaneous responses; only the participants determine any delay in response). As traditional are currently adopting social media tools, this feature may well not be distinctive anymore in the future.

5. Permanence " traditional media, once created, cannot be altered (once a magazine article is printed and distributed changes cannot be made to that same article) whereas social media can be altered almost instantaneously by comments or editing
KuriouserNKuriouser

Con

Thank you to my opponent for beginning this debate. I would like to point out, however, that half of Pro's discussion in R1 was cut/paste plagiarism of whole sections from the first source cited in my arguments.

Pro has the BOP to show that social media in general is better than traditional media. I, as Con, must refute his arguments. I argue that social media is not generally better than traditional media, but rather, that each form of media serves different needs and users in various contexts and so, each is the most suitable within its domain.

I look forward to debating with my opponent.


Definitions
:


Social media includes web- and mobile-based technologies which are used to turn communication into interactive dialogue among organizations, communities, and individuals. It is "a group of Internet-based applications (that) allow the creation and exchange of user-generated content. (1)."

Traditional (or Old) Media are traditional means of communication and expression that have existed since before the advent of the new medium of the Internet. Industries that are generally considered part of the old media and broadcast are cable television, radio, movie and music studios, newspapers, magazines, books and most print publications (2).

Better: more useful, suitable, or desirable (3).


(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(3) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 1
swadha

Pro

Thanks for accepting the challenge. I must state that it is not mentioned anywhere that the matter cannot be cut/paste for any reason. The main thing is that the idea needs to be conveyed.
So for now, I have to continue supporting social media and my worthy opponent has is against the motion.
Social media is a boon to the common man. A particular brand that may be overlooked in the newspaper, will surely catch a glance at a social networking website.
Taking a look at the non commercial aspect, traditional media provides one way communication whereas social media is a medium for two way communication and hence is more interactive and interesting.
Social media gives a platform for active involvement. Also, traditional media is time bound. We get a newspaper after 24 hours, a magazine is printed on a weekly, monthly or annual basis. On the other hand any updates or changes can be done via social media instantaneously. It has a much broader platform and is based on community decision making. Man is a social animal and hence the social media plays a very important role. A person who might be feeling lonely, just turns on the internet and hours pass by. You type a search on google and you get 20000 results! Traditional media has a boundation of words and hence the knowledge can be insufficient. Bulk of information provides an individual with multifarious choices and the right to choose the best. Traditional media leaves no choices to make.

Change is the rule of nature. Social media is an advanced form of traditional media. It is a symbol of development. And development cannot be denied. Progress is what keeps the mankind going. Progressive media is one such advancement in the mankind.

Now, the room is open for my worthy opponent.
KuriouserNKuriouser

Con


Thank you, Pro, for your arguments. I much prefer to read them than a Wikipedia article. Anyway, let's move past that and enjoy the debate =)



"A person who might be feeling lonely, just turns on the internet and hours pass by."


This can be true and has also been the subject of much debate. Are people replacing real relationships and interaction with other people by using social media instead? So many today sit at their computer hour after hour on Facebook or a chat room. It allows them to avoid going out of their house and building intimate relationships with other people. This may be a dangerous and harmful trend. Just a few of the problems empirical studies have shown from SM include:


"Teens who use Facebook more often show more narcissistic tendencies while young adults who have a strong Facebook presence show more signs of other psychological disorders, including antisocial behaviors, mania and aggressive tendencies."


"Daily overuse of media and technology has a negative effect on the health of all children, preteens and teenagers by making them more prone to anxiety, depression, and other psychological disorders, as well as by making them more susceptible to future health problems."


"Facebook can be distracting and can negatively impact learning (4)."


Pro says that "traditional media is time bound."



He couldn't be more wrong. First, TM as objectively defined in R1 includes cable television and radio. People are able to receive news and other information from reliable sources as soon as it breaks. Second, TM such as newspapers and magazines have all expanded to include electronic website versions of their publishing. These newspaper sites update their news constantly as the news breaks and the magazines often put out new articles daily (i.e. Psychology Today).



Social media is good for spreading ideas, but is an unreliable source for factual information



Pro is correct that there are incredible benefits to social media. Those he lists are useful to allow the common person a voice to those who care to listen. Anyone who wants to can write a blog or send out a tweet to hundreds or even thousands of people. This fact also presents a danger. Since anyone who wants to can now say virtually whatever they like, it allows for mass dissemination of misinformation and outright lies. How many made-up quotes falsely attributed to idealized personalities are spreading around Facebook now? How many made-up facts and outright lies are being passed around about current events and other "facts"? The vast majority of people have not developed critical thinking skills necessary to question these falsehoods. They accept and spread this misinformation like a contagious disease to millions. How do we verify what we've read on social media? We go to primary sources found in TM!



I am not condemning social media. My contention is that it has its place in giving voice to those who were before unable to reach anyone with their ideas. Within its domain it is a beneficial phenomenon. I find Wikipedia useful, but it does not replace the importance of traditional media; CNN, peer-reviewed journals, or the New York Times as reliable sources to go to for the facts. Most social media are secondary or even tertiary sources written by amateurs and can not compete with primary sources like peer-reviewed journals when we want reliable information about much of the world.



If you want to read someone's ideas about cooking or hobbies, go to social media. If you go to a blog for information about science, current events, or anything fact related you had better confirm that information against a primary source in traditional media.



Social media is not an advanced form of traditional media.



I strongly disagree with this notion of Pro. Social media is not an advanced form of traditional media. It is not the case that traditional media has evolved into something better. Traditional media still remains as the best source of reliable, factual information even when we want the most up-to-date news. Social media has not replaced traditional media, but rather, compliments it. It allows regular people without any means, to express themselves to the rest of the world. This is an incredible thing, but it fulfills a different purpose than traditional media. Since they are complimentary and fulfill different roles it can not be said that one is better than the other.



Thank you for listening to my arguments. I look forward to hear those of my opponent =)



(4) http://www.apa.org...


Debate Round No. 2
swadha

Pro

swadha forfeited this round.
KuriouserNKuriouser

Con

I notice that my opponent logged in about 8 hours before the expiration of his round. If he doesn't have an argument to give it would be appreciated if he would have the courtesy to concede the debate instead of ignoring it through continued forfeiture.

I thoroughly refuted Pro's arguments in R2 so I have nothing to rebut in this round. Extend my earlier arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
swadha

Pro

swadha forfeited this round.
KuriouserNKuriouser

Con

Extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
swadha

Pro

swadha forfeited this round.
KuriouserNKuriouser

Con

Pro gave examples of the benefits of social media, which I largely refuted by showing equally detrimental effects that come from it. I have also shown that traditional media and social media exist for completely different purposes. One of the primary uses of traditional media is the dissemination of reliable factual information, which social media can not compete with. Social media, however, allows creative expression and interaction among the users themselves that can not come from the one-way flow found in TM. Since they are used for completely different purposes it makes no sense to say that one is generally better than the other. My opponents argument is analogous to claiming that wrenches are better than screwdrivers. The claim makes no sense because each has a unique function that is equally valuable, yet incomparable in overall value to the other. My opponent has failed to meet his burden of proof and I'm confident I've given the reader sufficient argument to vote Con.

Thank you for reading and voting on this debate!
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Xerge 5 years ago
Xerge
swadhaKuriouserNKuriouserTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeits...
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
swadhaKuriouserNKuriouserTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: titty sprinkles
Vote Placed by baggins 5 years ago
baggins
swadhaKuriouserNKuriouserTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Plagiarism and forfeit.
Vote Placed by phantom 5 years ago
phantom
swadhaKuriouserNKuriouserTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: triple ff