Discussion 60
In the new media landscape, literature suggested that the power of the public has become increasingly apparent in the news process and, at a juxtaposition, that the audience is both gravitating away from journalistic institutions, but also, remaining loyal, seeing them as a credible, trustworthy source of information above all others. While literature indicated evidence for each argument, results from the Delphi were unanimous: social media is not being seen as sidelining journalism in favour of the public or individual voices - there will always be a need for journalism and, while there may be a reduction of traditional journalists, there will always be a need for unbiased, skilled writers: “What journalists can do is work to their USPs - their diligence, impartiality, the fact they can report with accuracy and fairness, and keep doing what they do best - if they're the best conduit for the news, people will come to them. I think there will always be a place for journalists, they've just got more competition now.�
Though journalism is arguably more important than ever, social media is changing the structure of traditional journalism which is being perceived to have both positive and negative effects on the quality of output and some of the very characteristics of journalism that make it inherently important: accuracy and fairness. Literature suggested that the traditional way of newsgathering has altered, and the panel of experts took opposing sides in arguing that it both strengthened: “...the information that news outlets are able to gather through