‘I’m not sure what to trust’: a student navigates the news in the age of social media

An Ofcom report this week marked a tipping point: more people now get their news online than on TV. We asked Ben Herd, a 20-year-old currently at university, to keep a diary for a couple of days of how he was following news stories and current affairs. He gets most of his news from social media …

10 September

TikTok

A significant number of the videos in my feed are about Israel and Palestine. One video from the Olympics shows a young sports fan being interviewed before being interrupted and told by an older man that he mustn’t talk about Israel. It quickly escalates into a shouting match between the two with the younger man chanting “free, free Palestine!” and the older man telling him “Fuck you”. The anger is crazy and visible.

I soon get another video on the same topic: a Jewish director, Sarah Friedland, dedicates an award acceptance speech to condemning the actions of Israel towards Palestine. Celebrities speaking out on issues seem to perform really well on social media, because you need users to be instantly fascinated by your content. (Although actually I’d never heard of Friedland before.)

And then actor Mark Ruffalo turns up, raging about Elon Musk, calling him a “two-faced, turncoat traitor” for turning on his environmental work by endorsing Donald Trump. He finishes with a rallying cry: “We are the ones that have to move forward together.” Although I have no context for any of this, seeing a person that you respect say something that aligns with your views is really quite rewarding in a strange way.

But beneath the post there’s a row in the comments. The inability to communicate with people with different views online is a huge problem and makes trying to understand the reasons for their opinions near-impossible. It can quickly turn into resentment and a condescending feeling towards the “other side”. It’s very isolating, I think.

X

I check out the X For You page to see if there’s anything interesting about the US political debate happening later. Instead, I get a video of a dead toddler, drenched in blood, being dragged from rubble in Gaza having been killed in the conflict. That is followed by a video of four young people in Palestine casually walking along a desolate road. The four are struck, out of nowhere, by a bomb which appears to tear them to pieces, limbs flying across the shot. None of the images are verified. But it stays with me.

BBC iPlayer

I’ve turned to actual television on my laptop for the debate itself but I’m still thinking about those images. Two interviewees (I’ve no idea who they are) seem to be congratulating the candidates on their stance on the war; both supporting Israel – the quote was along the lines of “supporting Israel, one of the US’s biggest allies, in their right to defend themselves”. It’s quite surreal. For a young person who is not totally engrossed in current affairs seeing the most powerful people in the world commend Israel for “defending” itself is disheartening and confusing.

I grew up assuming politics was about coming to the aid of victims and holding bullies accountable; these videos feel like glaring reality checks that it isn’t. It creates a strong disdain for how the world is run. But I also worry about whether I am getting the whole story; it feels impossible to know from a handful of videos on social media. One of the biggest problems is that I’m not sure what to trust any more. And these short videos don’t always feel like the right tools to help us form our views.

I only watch 4o minutes of the debate and then doze off.

11 September

X

Post-debate the ‘For You’ page is filled with constant replays of the “immigrants are eating pets” speech from Trump from the BBC, LBC and more. The BBC’s video in particular is just the clip from the debate, with no added facts to confirm or debunk Trump’s claim and a row in the comment thread below. This kind of posting feels typical for news coverage online. Tiny clips, lacking context, with the goal apparently being to rile both sides, gaining interactions in the process. Videos like these just end up feeling more divisive than anything. When they come from institutions like the BBC’s official account it is pretty unnerving.

TikTok

A short slideshow posted by an account called “Vote Blue” shows recent, extreme headlines responding to Labour’s winter fuel payment cut. The policy could “kill nearly 4,000 people” it says, and “£150” would be added to household bills for a wind turbine “building spree” as it is put, a subhead adding that all profits from the expansion will go to foreign-based firms. No extra context is provided and a quick scan of the account (Vote Blue?) makes me think that it’s a post solely published to garner controversy and interactions. Ignore.

On social media, ignoring news stories you disagree with is pretty normal. More than likely a story that does align with your views will appear sooner rather than later and the one that challenges you is forgotten.

12 September

TikTok

A video comes up of an interviewer going to Trump rallies and speaking to supporters about their views. This is a common format and the creator often goes with the goal of maturely discussing and challenging attendees’ opinions. But sometimes the goal is more to embarrass and shame rally-goers, with smug commenters egging this on. This kind of belittling political content, I think, is one of the keys to the growing divide in politics for the younger generations.

I watch lots of videos about politics today but the final one is posted by the CBC news channel, with Allan Lichtman giving his prediction of the US election; a Kamala Harris victory. He contextualises his prediction saying he’s correctly predicted every election since 1982 using his own formulae, 11 or so keys, of which the eventual winner will need a majority of to win. The formula is not instantly understandable but does feel reassuring, somehow. He goes on to talk about the debate and its fallout, saying a debate shouldn’t decide where someone’s vote goes, it should be policies and previous successes. To let debates do so would give power to ‘soundbite’ politics which is dangerous. This one impresses me. Lichtman stays unbiased and measured throughout (rare for social media). He provides context for why he is being given a platform to speak and finishes with a very mature message to viewers. It was pretty refreshing to see, honestly.