Social ramifications of newspapers’ demise

Ban Muang’s closure changed that perception. 
But the shock waves are rippling beyond the media and affecting the whole of Thai society, as news consumption tilts away from print and the mass media towards social media platforms.
Globally, media-consumer behaviour has been changing for some time. Newspapers are increasingly being seen as lumbering beasts given over to heavyweight political, economic and cultural issues. Most consumers now like their news in “lite” form, on Facebook, Twitter and the likes. Here they can also follow their favourite celebrities, only pausing to check mass-media platforms when they want to find out more about a particular subject. Others find television is their most convenient source of news, though once again the detail of newspaper reports is missing.
Leading the trend away from mass media are young consumers – the Internet generation whose source of news is almost exclusively the social media.
According to a Pew Research survey released last May, a majority of US adults – 62 per cent – get their news on social media, compared to 49 pre cent in 2012. Only one third of Facebook users get news from websites and apps.
The situation is Thailand is similar. In a survey by the University of the Thai Chamber of Commerce last July, 800 respondents in Bangkok placed social media platforms top, with 4.13 points out of five. TV came second with at 3.81 and websites third (3.15). The respondents said they first read news shared by their close friends, ranking this source at 3.53 points. Official news outlets were the second most popular means, scoring 3.33.
A change in news consumption behaviour has led to a change in Thais’ perception of what is happening in society.
Personal observation of my own friends and acquaintances reveals that they tend to consume news shared by like-minded peers. They stick to their beliefs and shut the doors on different opinions, as if those expressing them were from another planet rather than people living in the same society.
Another shocking development concerns their “sharing” behaviour. They share posts they believe will draw others’ attention, regardless of whether they are factual. Often we see photos on social media platforms illustrating news stories, but then discovered to be “fakes” from old reports. The most recent case was a picture of twisted rail track in the South, accompanying a story on the effects of serious flooding. As it turned out the track in question was fine. Now imagine the consequences of sharing something that could actually hurt other people.
Such behaviour is especially damaging at a time when Thai society is so divided. Politico recently revealed that a fake-news website had been designed to seek donations from Donald Trump’s supporters. The latest example of fake news was the story last week that Trump had met Russian President Vladimir Putin before the US election. Inevitably, that “report” was shared by many, most of whom failed to recognise it was part of a promotional campaign for the new movie “A Cure for Wellness”. The phenomenon could be replicated easily in Thailand, especially when army generals leave the stage of power to civilians. 
Journalism is the activity of gathering, assessing and presenting news and information. Journalists pride themselves on assessing and verifying the events through facts, ideas and quotes and making them available to society. While it’s true that some journalists commit professional suicide by failing to uphold those principles, the news media – and particularly newspapers – rightly remain the most trusted sources among many.
However, that may not last forever. As the trend towards the social media is compounded by stringent new media laws in Thailand, more newspapers will fall. And the social sphere will shrink accordingly.