as an illustration. i didnot watch soccer match chelsea vs newcastle united that broadcasted 3 am in y country.. so, when i wake up i open twitter and saw twit newcastle unite vs chelsea 1-1 and to look more information i open web and see match info.. then i want to know how was goal moment, i open my podcast and search the match.. and at the end i got match informatiaon same as those who watch a night , i went to office and meet some colleague we talk i dont think i miss any information.

so based on that ilustration, i think its changing way of people get information from conventional to digital era.. so you can assume agree or not agree it become part of information distribution flatform

I think social media is a great place to get started, but to quote someone's Facebook might be a stretch. I've updated networks asking questions like: "We are looking for students who have worked unpaid internships," "Did you attend the city's Flood Awareness meeting Tuesday?" etc. We received replies and followed up with individuals through phone calls and e-mails (almost everyone has one of the two, iif not both, in their profile).

If there is breaking news, a news organization could say something along the lines of, "We are getting reports on Facebook and Twitter of XYZ happening, stick with us while we confirm." I think CONFIRMING is the key point here, it's so easy for wrong information to spread.

I am a great benefiary of social networks, facebook gets me more information faster that google nowadays. The subcategories there in are very relevant, i save lots of time in endless research by getting people on facebook give me vital information. Social networks can be of value only if we use them properly and verify information we get with other sources.

Facebook statuses are not credible for journalists to use as sources of information. Some are based on rumours or just what people are thinking. Journalists can only use faceb ook statuses as tips on which they can do further research.
From Dina

In my experiance there is no such things as credible, ethical sources of information. There are only true and false informations and all sources could give you both true and false ones. We all make mistakes. Credible looking sources such are statistic agencies or university experts could feed you with false info weather in purpose or by accident. Facebook or your noisy neighbors' wife can also give you both true and false info. It's all about getting facts from as manny sources as possible and select them by crossevaluating them to each other to minimize the possibility of making error. Ermin.

Social network is first a source of information no matter the shortcoming.As a journalist when I get information from social network I usually cross check at other reliable sources in order not to misinform my readers. I am always very careful about information - pass to my readers because it is my by line that is there and any credit or condemnation goes to me. So journalists should go the extra mile to verify information gotten on social networks before using them.

Yes, Journalists can use the social media information BUT they should always find ways of cross checking the authenticity of that information.

The credibility of the source of the information and what information is it. From Richard

I think there is nothing wrong in using Facebook source as long one know that they are not using implicating words and langauges. the subject also matters. It would only help in closing the gap between the mainstream media and citizens, in fact it provides more inputs. But always take the congent ones.

Social networks are useful we can not ignore that. As a journalist, it is to me to pick from different opinions or thoughts on social networks and from there start a big story. No doubt social networks are important sources.