Final answer:
Social journalism has not replaced traditional journalism due to a combination of concerns regarding its lack of credibility and traditional journalism's adaptations for cost-effectiveness. Answer is d) Both a and b
Step-by-step explanation:
The question asks why social journalism hasn't replaced traditional journalism. The most accurate answer includes both the lack of credibility and cost-effectiveness considerations. Traditional journalism is still seen as a more credible source of information because professional journalists are trained to report in a manner that is both accurate and ethical, which helps maintain trust with their audience. In contrast, social journalism may be more prone to the spread of misinformation on various social platforms due to a lack of professional gatekeeping. Moreover, although cost-efficiency is a driving force behind the rise of citizen journalism, traditional media has adapted by becoming leaner and migrating towards digital platforms themselves, which enables them to maintain their presence without incurring excessive costs.
While both traditional and social journalism have unique advantages, traditional journalism continues to be a cornerstone of reliable news coverage. This can be further observed in the coverage of major events like COP26, where traditional outlets and social platforms both played roles, indicating the continued value of professional journalism. The real-world impacts of misinformation spread through social journalism have been seen in multiple countries, emphasizing the need for accurate, credible reporting from traditional journalism for the dissemination of important news and information.