From Journal to Journalism
Introduction
Social media usage has both positive and negative outcomes. In particular, the media article “The case against Facebook” addresses the disadvantages of Facebook. In the headline, Yglesias (2018) claims that Facebook causes loneliness and sadness. In the body, this claim is supported by evidence gathered from a journal article written by Holly Shakya and Nicholas Christakis and other studies. The other adverse effects discussed in the article are fake news, destruction of journalism’s business model, and difficulty in quitting the platform. Yglesias (2018) argues that Facebook fosters fakeness through rumors and misinformation, which may promote hate speech resulting in genocide. Facebook also threatens journalism’s business model through its digital advertising and sensationalism (Yglesias, 2018). Yglesias (2018) adds that deleting an account is challenging because Facebook creates useful connections, which promote one’s work. In this essay, the validity of the causal claim in the headline will be evaluated by analyzing how well Yglesias covered the original main journal article.
Summary of Journal Article
Social interactions are meaningful because they enhance an individual’s wellbeing. Indeed, research suggests that having positive relationships reduces mental illnesses and increases positive behaviors (Shakya & Christakis, 2017). With the rise of online relationships, it is essential to determine their effect on one’s wellbeing. According to Shakya and Christakis (2017), studies have revealed positive, negative, and no impact of online relationships on an individual’s wellbeing. The conflicting findings necessitated the study conducted by Holly Shakya and Nicholas Christakis. These researchers conducted correlational research to assess the impacts of both online and real-world social networks. The data was collected from national surveys where the instruments of measurement were self-reports of social media use and offline social interactions (Shakya & Christakis, 2017). In particular, the study used Facebook data and offline interaction data collected in 3 consecutive years (Shakya & Christakis, 2017). The information gathered was meant to identify which form of interaction is beneficial to human beings.
As mentioned earlier, the research aimed at determining the impact of both online and offline social networks. Therefore, the study entailed instruments of measurement for both networks. Shakya and Christakis (2017) note that the measures analyzed were reports on Body Mass Index, physical health, mental health, and life satisfaction. Offline interactions were measured using reports about the number of unique close friends, the degree of closeness with friends, and the frequency of face-to-face interactions (Shakya & Christakis, 2017). Additionally, Facebook measures included friends, likes, links clicked by the account owner, and the number of updates made by the account owner (Shakya & Christakis, 2017). Lastly, the data underwent statistical analyses.
Online social networks have a negative outcome on an individual’s wellbeing. The research findings indicate that Facebook usage lowered a person’s physical health status, mental health, life satisfaction, and increased the Body Mass Index (Shakya & Christakis, 2017). In contrast, having offline social networks increases physical health status, mental health, and life satisfaction (Shakya & Christakis, 2017). The similarity is that the interaction with offline friends is also associated with high Body Mass Index (Shakya & Christakis, 2017). Based on these findings, Facebook social networks are associated with negative impacts on wellbeing, and offline social networks are associated with positive impacts. The limitation of the study is the subjectivity of the self-reports (Shakya & Christakis, 2017). Overall, Facebook social networks are harmful to a person’s wellbeing.
Analysis
The journalist is correct concerning the relationship between Facebook and social networks. Based on the study, the association between Facebook and social networks impacts a person negatively (Shakya & Christakis, 2017). The journalist is also right when he mentions the source of data and the measures used (Yglesias, 2018). Lastly, Shakya and Christakis (2017) mention that the use of this platform negatively affects one’s wellbeing, and the impact is comparable to or greater than that of offline social networks. The author also states that offline social networks have a positive effect on an individual (Shakya & Christakis, 2017). Therefore, the journalist informs the audience about the research using the key findings in it.
The journalist is wrong regarding the use of this research article to support the subheading about Facebook, causing loneliness and sadness. In particular, using causal rules, the causal claims are not accurate. As mentioned earlier, the journal article provides an association between the use of Facebook and adverse wellbeing outcomes. It does not provide an association between the use of Facebook, loneliness, and sadness. It is also essential for the use of Facebook to precede feeling lonely and sad. Shakya and Christakis (2017) state that people with poor wellbeing are most likely to use Facebook’s social networks. It is unclear whether the comprised wellbeing implies feeling sad and lonely. Since this is the research article with accurate source information, the journalist should have used a subheading that is supported by its evidence.
The media article’s subheading should have concentrated on critical research findings. For example, the subheading should have read that the use of Facebook causes adverse effects on a person’s wellbeing. This subheading would have supported the findings of the leading research article and other studies. For the original research article, in addition to the self-reports, the journalist should have mentioned the reports gathered from real-world social networks. The journalist should also have included more details regarding the procedures of the study.
Conclusion
The media article is not an accurate representation of the journal article. Based on the subheading, an audience is most likely going to conclude that the use of Facebook causes loneliness and sadness. Arguably, the other studies briefly mentioned have provided these results. However, the journalist did not provide information that would aid in verifying the findings from their sources. Based on the provided original journal article, the subheading (which is part of the headline) does not accurately represent the research findings. It is misleading to claim that Facebook causes loneliness and sadness and provide inaccurate evidence to support the claim.
References
Shakya, H. B., & Christakis, N. A. (2017). Association of Facebook use with compromised wellbeing: A longitudinal study. American Journal of Epidemiology, 185(3), 203-211. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kww189
Yglesias, M. (2018). The case against Facebook: It’s not just about privacy; its core function makes people lonely and sad. Retrieved July 2, 2020, from https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/21/17144748/case-against-facebook