During my early years building a career in journalism, many colleagues and mentors offered me the same advice: You have to be on Twitter. At the time, it made sense. The social media platform was the place online to find sources and story ideas, share work, connect with fellow reporters, and follow global events.
But that changed when Elon Musk bought Twitter in 2022. He overhauled content moderation, allowed users to buy verification, welcomed banned accounts back, and labeled some independent news services as “state-affiliated media.” Since the platform’s rebrand to X in 2023, Musk’s stewardship as a “free-speech absolutist” has continued to provide safe harbor for hate and disinformation online.
The lesson for journalists, says freelancer Nithin Coca, is that “building an audience on a single platform is a risk, because that platform can be taken away from us by its owners at any time.” Many with a following or routine on X have continued to try to make it work. But they, and others who decamped entirely, are also experimenting with emerging—and newly intriguing—social platforms.
Options abound. Mastodon offers self-hosted social networking, cultivating smaller online communities governed by users. Bluesky, developed by Twitter’s former CEO, was designed for “public conversation” and boasts a similar newsfeed to the former bird app. Instagram now offers the text-based, Twitter-mimicking Threads app in addition to its photo sharing. Reddit provides a digital bulletin board. Video news on YouTube and TikTok is climbing in relevance. Some journalists and publications are also exploring more-direct ways to connect with readers, like building community chat rooms on Discord or distributing articles through the messaging service WhatsApp. In its 2024 report on digital media, Reuters notes that we are in the midst of a “great platform reset,” with more social media platforms reaching audiences with news than ever before.
To make sense of where journalists should put their energy in this dynamic landscape, I convened a group of reporters, editors, and communicators for a roundtable conversation. The discussion has been edited here for length, flow, and clarity. Participants include:
Tulika Bose, a freelance reporter and producer, and former senior multimedia editor at Scientific American
Nithin Coca, a Japan-based freelance journalist covering energy, climate, and tech
Erin Kissane, a social media researcher and former managing editor of the COVID Tracking Project at The Atlantic
Annalee Newitz, a freelance journalist, science fiction author, and founder of io9
Pierra Nyaruai, a freelance journalist who covers food systems and climate from Kenya
Kendra Pierre-Louis, a climate reporter for Bloomberg
Kiri Rupiah, the communities editor for the pan-African newspaper The Continent
David Shiffman, a PhD marine biologist and science communicator
Kate: Do you feel that the value of social media for science journalism has changed over these past couple of years?
David: As a scientist and science educator, social media allowed me to provide story ideas to journalists. As a freelance journalist, it allowed me to quickly find expert sources, especially those from historically underrepresented communities. And as a reader of news, social media’s ability to amplify expert commentary meant that I often knew broader and deeper context for the story of the day, or that I knew that a widely shared story was nonsense. All of this has gotten much harder under Musk’s Twitter leadership. There’s too much nonsense being shared, too much noise to find a good signal. And that gets worse when harassment from extremists and bigots bullies experts off the platform entirely.
Kiri: [Social media allows] regular people to put a name and face to the information they are receiving. This goes a long way toward building trust and transparency, “democratizing” public discourse, and promoting critical thinking. While social media platforms have created a grievance economy which relies on algorithms that reward trash and folly, there are ways to adapt.
Erin: Social media at its best gets science stories out to readers and viewers who wouldn’t otherwise encounter them. I do think the landscape has changed enough that we’re in a new era of social media: one that’s much less centralized, and harder to understand for scientists, journalists, and various publics. Doing a good job with social media in 2024 requires participation in more places and an attention to the differences between those places to get the most value out of each of them. I think that kind of broad and attentive participation can help science journalists put more value into each of these places, too. But it’s pretty hard to understand where everyone is right now.
Tulika: All social platforms are different, are constantly in flux, and have their own unique ecosystems, communities, and ways to engage. For example, I worked to start a TikTok at Scientific American after coming from NowThis [a news organization that specializes in short-form videos]. A lot of my work was convincing editorial that the platform was a good fit for fun, vertical science video explainers (and not all restricted to dance videos). There’s now a TikTok team doing fantastic work with great results.
The social media landscape is changing, but the fact that it’s always changing is what is the most consistent about it. Being informed by social media without relying on it—especially as it changes—might be the best way forward.
Kendra: I think the big difference [today] is that we’re more aware of [social media’s] downsides, which is that it can be used to spread misinformation, wreak havoc on elections, and even facilitate, allegedly, genocides. On the other hand, it can be an incredible tool of transparency. Part of why so many of us are aware of what’s been happening in Gaza, for example, is because we’re seeing it on social media feeds recorded by people living through it in an area that’s effectively off limits to external press.
Kate: What social media platforms are you currently using? If you’ve made a transition to newer platforms, has that felt successful?
Annalee: I divide my time between Bluesky, Mastodon, Discord, Slack, Instagram, and the plain old web. I find most of my sources by searching through the archives of journals, as well as academia.org and even departmental websites. A story I was assigned a couple of weeks ago came to me because I met the editor at an in-person event. I feel like we’re in a moment where we’re turning to smaller, trusted communities online and in real life. Maybe the experiment with massive platforms like Facebook and Twitter is winding down.
David: Of the Twitter alternatives, my favorite is Bluesky, which is trying hard to recruit scientists and science communicators. I don’t know what the “next big thing” is, and I don’t know if anyone else does either. Maybe there will be 10–20 small things and only nerds like us [will] use more than a handful of them.
I found there are quite a lot of scientists and technologists on Mastodon…. As an open-source, community-led network, it’s the only platform I’m willing to really invest in after seeing so many other social media platforms go through “enshittification. — Nithin Coca
”Tulika: I use X to connect with other science/tech/health journalists (it’s where I previously hired a good amount of freelancers) or [to] understand [or] give commentary about the current media landscape. I also use X to look for issues and controversy around a particular science subject that can lead to a great, underreported angle on a new piece. I use Instagram for sourcing, but through TikTok: I usually find their Instagram handle through TikTok videos and then reach out via Instagram DM.
Pierra: Platforms such as Reddit provide an amazing space for science discussions and debates, even in depth, while others like TikTok or X are great for reaching users with short-form content. Twitter used to be kind of my “public square,” in terms of the news I got and how soon emerging issues were updated, [but] I now seem to lean more towards Reddit for open discussion.
Kendra: I basically only exist on Bluesky, but until late last year I was also on Twitter. Twitter used to be a fantastic place to track the natural hazards associated with climate change. I remember distinctly learning about the Paradise fire in 2018 first from people tweeting about fleeing the fires. As Twitter transitioned to X, a lot of that functionality dissipated or was harder to find, which ultimately led to my pivoting to Bluesky. [It] seemed to be the place where the most people I had followed on what became X had moved to, it was easier (for me) than Mastodon or Discord, and my preferred mode of communication is apparently using the written word in three hundred characters or less.
Kiri: The newer platforms (Discord, Mastodon, Threads, Bluesky) each have their merits and drawbacks but have been the key to [The Continent] reaching readers who may otherwise not have African journalism on their radar. When we first started publishing during South Africa’s coronavirus lockdown, we realized that the bulk of mis/disinformation was coming from WhatsApp. It made sense to go where potential readers were, as opposed to asking them to sign up for yet another app or visit a website.
Nithin: I’ve mostly switched to Mastodon and LinkedIn, for different reasons. LinkedIn is how I connect with and keep track of sources. The fact that they offer LinkedIn for Journalists for free is great, as it opens up many more venues to reach out and network.
I found there are quite a lot of scientists and technologists on Mastodon, and it’s been an adequate, if not perfect, Twitter replacement. As an open-source, community-led network, it’s the only platform I’m willing to really invest in after seeing so many other social media platforms go through “enshittification.” I now regularly get more engagement on Mastodon than I ever did on Twitter, and have about half as many followers.
Erin: I refocused some of my attention to study Mastodon this year. Cooperatively and democratically governed network nodes are such an interesting response to the top-down and often opaque (and deeply frustrating) decision-making on big, centralized social platforms, and participating in a network with a whole array of hyperlocal norms feels like a generative and humane way to handle the unavoidable conflicts that arise when you connect millions of people.
That said, Mastodon is an intentionally low-virality network and it feels very different from the big platforms in ways that can make it a challenge for journalists—discoverability is still quite limited compared to platforms that rely on more algorithmic recommendations. But also, I think there’s an opportunity to build a very loyal following there; a lot of people are there for ethical reasons, and tend to appreciate communicators and researchers who take the time and trouble to discuss their work.
Kate: To borrow Kendra’s phrasing, how does being more aware of a social platform’s downsides impact your work there? Do you have recommendations for how journalists or publications can find good alternatives, or navigate their approach to a social platform when they have ethical issues with its management?
Annalee: At this point, I think all of us know that social media is full of propaganda and disinformation. What is less obvious, at least to Americans, is how much of that same disinformation is now being featured in places such as The New York Times and The Atlantic. No shade to the many excellent writers and editors at those publications; I named them specifically because I write for both. What I’ve witnessed over the past 10 years is the way social media has changed traditional media to the point that top editors at the big dailies and magazines are demanding the same “news feel” that they get from reading X. They see political extremism and culture war[s] sucking people into social media, and want to reproduce that vibe in op-ed sections and front-page news. [For now,] I’ll be ruthlessly evaluating the receipts, sources, and citations of everything I consume, whether it’s on the front page of The New York Times or in an obscure post on Mastodon.
Just as social media has changed mainstream media, I think the decade-long intensification of mainstream media attention on social media posts and accounts has fueled a lot of terrible behavior on the social networks themselves. — Erin Kissane
Nithin: Because of expanding state control over the digital space, I find social media not useful in connecting or keeping up with what’s happening to Uyghurs, Tibetans, West Papuans, or Kashmiris around not only human rights issues, but mining for critical minerals, deforestation, forced labor in supply chains, and the impacts of climate change. I do use Signal [in some places], [but] for Tibet or the Uyghur regions of China, the risk to anyone caught speaking with a foreign reporter is so high, I don’t even try. For West Papua or Kashmir, I’ve relied on trusted intermediaries, such as human rights lawyers or local reporters, who can communicate with people in remote regions more safely than I can.
Tulika: Since I favor science/tech stories with an international-justice or health-equity bent, I tend to rely heavily on WhatsApp, or other messaging platforms that can be used in places with low bandwidth. I am always in communication with international source networks that I’ve been actively building around the world for years—so encrypted messaging platforms that can be used in places with low bandwidth are a must for me.
I’m also leaving Scientific American to potentially start a new [social media and news site hybrid] platform with a couple of ex-Google folks—something that can be used for international citizen journalists. As Kendra said, what has been happening in Gaza—and the way it has been playing out across our social feeds—has been tremendously eye-opening. Rampant misinformation has also been a problem, as has inaccurate framing from many well-known media outlets. I think social media is helping us see that more clearly. We just need a better way to filter, sort, and contextualize information coming from the ground.
For promoting your work, I think it’s helpful to focus on a couple of platforms for engagement, but also post your stuff as widely as possible, even on platforms where you don’t engage very much. — Annalee Newitz
Erin: I hope to see greater attention to not only the protection of traditional sources, but also the negative effects—on individual posters and on the networks themselves—of letting social media drive so many stories, to the exclusion of quieter sources and less-sensational approaches. (Even when Bluesky was in closed beta, I saw people’s posts getting scooped up and quoted in sometimes exploitative ways, and I’d love to leave that behind in the Big Platform era.)
Just as social media has changed mainstream media, I think the decade-long intensification of mainstream media attention on social media posts and accounts has fueled a lot of terrible behavior on the social networks themselves. It’s easy to think of the networks as tools, but journalists still wield quite a lot of cultural power [to shape] how various communities of people will behave and be treated online. I’d love to see the concerns and practices of the conscientious and thoughtful folks weighing in on this thread adopted more broadly and with an eye to the health of our social networks as well as our media landscapes.
Kate: What’s one piece of advice you’d give to journalists trying to make connections in today’s less-centralized online social spaces?
David: Know your nodes. It may be harder to meet, say, 10 expert sources on a particular subject. But you can still meet one, and if it’s the right one they’ll be able to put you in touch with others. A good connection knows how to answer most of your questions; a great connection can say, “I’m not sure, but here’s someone else you can talk to who knows more than I do.”
Tulika: Constantly learn about new platforms, the differences between them, and what you’re using them for—without overwhelming yourself. It’s a matter of preference. I would also try not to use every platform. Focus your attention.
Kiri: I’d say, although it seems obvious, be consistent in producing quality, reliable, and accessible journalism. All the pivots and algorithms will come and go, but to become and remain a trusted voice and build a loyal following regardless of space, do what you do, and do it well.
Annalee: For promoting your work, I think it’s helpful to focus on a couple of platforms for engagement, but also post your stuff as widely as possible, even on platforms where you don’t engage very much. For finding community and sources, I definitely think it’s best to focus on a couple of platforms where you already know several trusted people.
Kendra: I think where social media is concerned for sourcing, you have to go to where the people you are looking for are. I did a story this summer on the impact of climate change on concerts and other outdoor events. I really needed to hear from people who went to a Louis Tomlinson concert at Red Rocks that had been pummeled by hail. And for that I had to turn to X (I still maintain a burner X account [not linked to my name that] I use for stuff like this), because when the hail storm happened they live-tweeted it.
Kate: Do you have favorite ways to engage as a journalist or communicator—with peers, audiences, or publications—that don’t involve social media / the internet?
David: I’m up early in Miami today to go lead a shark-research expedition with 15 guests who are social media followers of mine [and] donated to help support the lab’s efforts to bring out public school students on future trips. In-person talks let me go into a lot more depth than a tweet or Instagram post, and spending the day with people while showing them an amazing experience will help train a new group of conservation ambassadors.
Nithin: I actually set aside some time every month to search for my articles, to see what places they’ve been shared. [I] do Google/DuckDuckGo and social media searches for my name, and recently published articles, and gather that in a single spreadsheet. I’ve come across my pieces cited in academic papers [and] referred to in analyses put out by large think tanks. I also have seen that a professor or teacher added an article of mine to a syllabus. To me, those are more insightful than the metrics I got from social media, and, I imagine, only a glimpse into the diverse ways audiences engage with our reporting.
Annalee: I do a lot of public lectures and conferences. I really like going to literary/book festivals, where I get to meet other writers and readers in a casual setting. Especially when so many books are being banned in the U.S., book festivals feel especially meaningful.
Tulika: I love to throw dinner parties. I find food to be a wonderful way to get people together and talking. You would be surprised, but journalists love letting off steam and having fun—and sometimes, that’s where the best ideas are born.
Kate Fishman is a freelance journalist based in San Diego, California, and an early-career reporting fellow with The Open Notebook. She has covered local news in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and California’s Mendocino County, where she was a Report for America corps member and cultivated a love for writing about ecology. Her reporting has appeared in Sierra, Reuters, High Country News, and Atmos, among other publications. Find her on X @katefishreports and on Bluesky @kaatefishman.bsky.social.
