Has social media increased the quality of news and information, or decreased it?

    If you take a picture, does that make you a photographer? Not really. So if you happen to post something about an event you witnessed, does that make you a reporter? Sorry, "citizen journalist"(sounds rather socialist, doesn't it? kind of like "citizen general".).Of course it doesn't.
  Lets say you read a post by an individual, do you take the entire post as being factual, or do you compare the story to what professional news sources say about it? If the story is even remotely important, you will check with more traditional sources like television and radio. And just because 100 or even 1000 people report something, it doesn't make it accurate, or even remotely true. Professional journalists reputations, and consequently their livelihood, depend entirely on the accuracy of their sources. Check, re-check, and check again. Making sure the information is accurate before it's published or goes to air. Are "citizen journalists" taking the same amount of care before reporting?
  The amount of false information is almost unmeasurable, it's so vast. How can that improve quality? Is there more news being reported daily now then before the advent of social media? Of course there is. Having more of something does not increase it's quality, in fact the opposite is usually true.
People feel that they must have their information now instead of waiting until later that day or the next. Perhaps by waiting that extra hour or day, we allowed the news to distill itself, filter out all the contaminants to the point where we end up with something a little more palatable, more truthful.
Professional journalists have access to sources that "citizen journalists"( sorry, I really don't care for that term, it implies a degree of professionalism, where there really isn't any ), simply do not. A journalist that has gone to school, and paid their dues in the trenches trying to get that big story, will also have access to confidential sources that non-professionals will not.
  I was always taught that you should think about what you say, before you say it. If news from social media was presented in much in the same way, then the quality of news likely would improve, but instead we end up with far too many posting, before thinking.
All media has an agenda, social media even more so. Their agenda appears to be to further the cause of social media, and therefore the inherent commercialism that goes with it, as opposed to simply presenting events. To create the impression that because it came through social media channels, somehow it's more important or relevant.
  Diluting information into little, tiny soundbites, not enough for a clear understanding, but just enough to make you think you are clearly informed. Compared to a newspaper for example , where a story can be broken down and explained clearly enough that you can actually make an informed opinion about a story.
  The latest weapon in the social media war, is drone journalism. Using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV's), to photograph events from high up. Inexpensive, easy to operate, and mostly risk free. They are not just used by governments either, individuals wishing to capture a particular angle (literally), can also acquire one. So not only is Big Brother watching, but little brother is too. Now you don't need to be anywhere near an event to report on it. You can interpret what's going on by a picture taken from several thousand feet up. Have we forgotten what reporting from the field used  to mean? Have you ever heard recordings of Edward R. Murrow reporting from London  during the height of the Blitz. You can actually hear not only the bombs going off around him, but the planes that just dropped them, flying overhead. Have you seen the video of Walter Cronkite reporting on the assassination Of President Kennedy? You could see the emotion it what he was saying. Can you get that with someone using their I-Phone to report a story? You can't tell if they are even being serious or not.The information was far more in-depth, and more importantly, personal.Can you get that with someone using their I-Phone to report a story? You can't tell if they are even being serious or not.They were speaking to you directly, instead of just posting something in the hopes that the most number of people possible will see, with no real concern about how well it has been understood.
  Is it better, no. Is there more, of course. Is more better? Not as far as I can see.