Many people now get their news from social media rather than from newspapers or television.
A full IELTS Writing Task 2 answer to this question, with a paragraph plan, ideas you can use, and the vocabulary that fits this topic.
The question
You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.
Many people now get their news from social media rather than from newspapers or television.
Do you think this is a positive or negative development?
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.
Write at least 250 words.
How to read this question
The strongest analysis distinguishes distribution from production. Social media changed how news reaches people, not who gathers it — and since the advertising that funded reporting followed the audience to the platforms, the trend has weakened the very journalism it distributes. Building on that separation avoids the usual essay about misinformation and produces a much more specific verdict.
Paragraph plan
Introduction — Paraphrase, then give the verdict: negative overall, because platforms distribute journalism while removing the revenue that produces it.
Body 1 — The genuine positives — speed, reach, access for people excluded by cost or geography, and eyewitness reporting from places journalists cannot get to.
Body 2 — Why negative — ranking by engagement rewards outrage over accuracy, and the funding transfer has hollowed out local reporting entirely.
Conclusion — Negative as structured; the distribution is an improvement, the funding model is the damage.
Model essay
Band 8.5–9.0 model essay
330 words
Many people now obtain their news primarily through social media rather than newspapers or television, reflecting the growing amount of time people spend on their phones each day. In my view, this shift is predominantly a negative development, notwithstanding certain genuine advantages it offers to consumers of news.
To begin, social media platforms provide considerably faster and more accessible news coverage than traditional outlets. To clarify, unlike newspapers, which are published only once daily, or television broadcasts confined to scheduled time slots, social media delivers real-time updates on unfolding events, allowing users to stay informed continuously throughout the day. Moreover, these platforms grant ordinary citizens the ability to report firsthand from locations that professional journalists may struggle to reach, occasionally surfacing important stories that traditional media might otherwise overlook. In addition, social media allows users to engage directly with journalists and eyewitnesses, fostering a sense of participation absent from traditional broadcasting. For instance, footage captured by bystanders during natural disasters has repeatedly informed the public before official news crews arrive.
However, this convenience comes at a considerable cost to the reliability of information consumed by the public. This is attributable to the fact that social media platforms rarely enforce the same rigorous editorial standards and fact-checking processes that established news organisations traditionally uphold, allowing misinformation to spread rapidly among users who may share unverified claims without scrutiny. Furthermore, sensationalist headlines designed purely to maximise engagement frequently take precedence over balanced, well-researched reporting. Moreover, once misleading claims circulate widely, corrections issued afterward rarely reach the same number of people as the original, inaccurate post. Consequently, public trust in accurate information has diminished considerably, while algorithm-driven content increasingly exposes users only to viewpoints that reinforce their existing beliefs, deepening societal polarisation.
To conclude, although social media offers speed and accessibility that traditional news outlets cannot match, I believe its overall impact on public discourse remains predominantly negative, given the scale of misinformation and polarisation it continues to generate.
Created by a Band 8.5–9.0 IELTS Writing achiever — Premium. Sign up free to read the rest of this essay and unlock every model on the site.
This is a positive or negative development question. The essay above shows you what a strong answer looks like when it is finished. What it cannot show you is how to get there from a blank page in forty minutes.
That is what our Writing Study Library is for: the structure we teach for this exact question type, the paragraph pattern that goes with it, and the sentence openers for each stage — so the essay is planned before you start writing rather than assembled as you go.
Introduction: Paraphrase people getting news from social media instead of traditional outlets and state the opinion that this is predominantly negative despite real advantages.
Body 1: Argue that social media delivers faster, more accessible, real-time news and lets ordinary citizens report firsthand from events journalists cannot reach.
Body 2: Argue that social media lacks editorial fact-checking, spreads misinformation and sensationalism, and deepens polarisation through algorithm-driven content.
Conclusion: Restate that despite its speed, social media's impact on public discourse remains predominantly negative given misinformation and polarisation.
Word or phrase
Meaning
Used in a sentence
real-time
happening and being reported instantly, without delay
social media delivers real-time updates on unfolding events, allowing users to stay informed continuously throughout the day
firsthand
obtained directly through personal experience rather than secondhand
these platforms grant ordinary citizens the ability to report firsthand from locations that professional journalists may struggle to reach
editorial standards
the professional rules a publication follows for accuracy and quality
social media platforms rarely enforce the same rigorous editorial standards and fact-checking processes that established news organisations traditionally uphold
fact-checking
the process of verifying that reported information is accurate
social media platforms rarely enforce the same rigorous editorial standards and fact-checking processes
misinformation
false or inaccurate information spread regardless of intent to deceive
allowing misinformation to spread rapidly among users who may share unverified claims without scrutiny
sensationalist
presented in a shocking or exaggerated way to provoke interest
sensationalist headlines designed purely to maximise engagement frequently take precedence over balanced, well-researched reporting
algorithm-driven
controlled or determined by automated computer rules rather than human judgement
algorithm-driven content increasingly exposes users only to viewpoints that reinforce their existing beliefs
polarisation
the division of opinion into two sharply opposed groups
deepening societal polarisation
Created by a Band 8.5–9.0 IELTS Writing achiever — Premium. Sign up free to see the ideas and vocabulary for this topic and unlock every model on the site.
Answers checked here may be published on this page, without your name, to help other learners. Nothing else about you is stored.
Common questions
Everyone writes about fake news here. How do I stand out?
Move the argument from content to funding. Noting that platforms distribute journalism without paying for it explains the decline of local reporting, which is concrete and rarely mentioned. Distinctive essays usually come from asking a different question, not from finding fancier vocabulary.
Should I blame the platforms?
Explain the incentive rather than assigning intent. "They optimise for engagement, and engagement is uncorrelated with accuracy" is stronger than "they want to spread lies", because it accounts for the outcome without requiring a claim you cannot support.
Can I acknowledge benefits while still saying it is negative?
Yes — a verdict is a judgement about the balance, not a denial that the other side exists. Stating the positives properly before your verdict makes the verdict more persuasive and demonstrates the range examiners look for.
