Can self-referencing bullshit become a happy medium?

A report recently published from a study in the US revealed that a large proportion of journalists use social media and blogs et al. for research. Hands up if you're surprised? If so, there's some Lego and juice at the back, so go and play quietly while the grown-ups talk.
Of course we're not surprised, any hack with half a brain will happily turn to public resources and blogs etc. to see what the masses are rambling on about, so as to not have to actually talk to real people. I joke. You can read the findings of the report here: http://www.journalism.co.uk/2/articles/537316.php and here: http://us.cision.com/news_room/press_releases/2010/2010-1-20_gwu_survey.asp but only after I've finished, okay?

Now. I am in two minds about the staggering 61 per cent of reporters using Wikipedia (WIKIPEDIA IS NOT AN ACADEMIC RESOURCE...wow...University flashbacks) and so on to do research - and I am definitely not sure how I feel about using Twitter and Facebook for genuine research purposes.
Wikipedia should be treated like a dictionary or encyclopaedia that an idiot child has been turned loose on - I wouldn't trust it, but under the crayon scribbles and bits of crisps, there are often some useful pointers to other sites and books and real-life resources. Generally these lie at the bottom of the page, and the more cunning among us will make a note of these and trot down to the library post haste, but nine times out of ten you will find yourself suddenly and completely intrigued by the etymology of swear words or whales or and how the hell it is that babies can breathe underwater. Honestly.

Facebook and Twitter, while public platforms, are not actually intended to be public platforms - stay with me - but as interpersonal public platforms. It's a podium to stick your views and opinions and favourite music on, but not for strangers to throw rotting vegetables at, but for your friends (be they real or Internet Friends) to admire, agree, sycophantically mention in real life (sorry, IRL) - and sometimes give their real opinions on as well. However, if you did this in public - you would be branded as socially awkward. Or just, you know, a twat. There is a dreadful sketch about this by a comedy group who I will not name (for fear of acid reflux burning the words as I speak) but it is available here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrlSkU0TFLs As much as I hate them for even existing, they raise a good point. Would you think about using Facebook as a resource now?

Twitter, while it hurts me to be such a fucking hipster about this, is actually more useful in this instance than Facebook or public news blogs. Brevity is king, and an accurately-worded statement or opinion is infinitely more useful and relevant to current affairs - and, conversely, it's significantly easier to ignore the rubbish. These will generally consist of people being a waste of bandwidth and supplying the inane: "@littlefluffybunny is doing the washing up lol" or it'll be a mad sprawling mass of inaccurately placed apostrophes and capital letters, or everyone's friend - Britney Spears pr0n.
All these issues taken into account, Twitter and microblogging - or useful RSS-style feeds like Reddit can be pretty damn helpful for finding out what people are genuinely talking about.

On one hand, social media can be used quite efficiently as a shortcut to public opinions on current affairs, and has been used by yours truly on occasion when deadlines have been looming and I need a quick events NIB. Also if you ignore the virals about bra colours and something to do with money and sex (yes, I feel uncomfortable about that, too) then social media can be used when appropriate, but I don't think 65 per cent is a healthy amount of journalists to be using it regularly. I don't think these sites should actually be used to see what 'people in the street' are talking about. That's what actual people in the actual street are for, savvy?

Concerning the job hunt.

As I previously stated, all my training, interest and knowledge is in the media field - not that I can claim to know a great deal or have the most experience possible - but I'm far from dense. I can generally fit myself to a job specification quite happily, or just reword the advert to make it sound like I'm what they're after. I tend to use agency websites because I find them the most useful, and I use industry ones on a weekly basis to try to hunt for the most applications I could send.

Sometimes, I use national job websites, such as - oh, let's call it 'The Protector' newspaper's jobsite. I like to read The Protector because it makes me look intelligent on public transport and, well, I like to read the supplements and do the crossword. Anyway. I have found that a lot of people in my position find the website imposing and somehow, full of grown-up's jobs which we feel far too young and underqualified to begin to comprehend.

The following is a selection of real jobs I have found using The Protector's jobs website.

Generally the mysterious and confusing world of graduate jobs is filled with "Sales" positions, and The Protector's jobs site is no better. I did not go to University for four years to sell old ladies on the unprotected electoral roll information or advertising space. Next.

Ooh, this looks good: a "TV, Online and Radio Editorial Campaign Executive". You know me by now, and I call a spade a spade - and this spade is a PR Officer if ever I saw one. This is just one example of The Protector's love of calling a spade a handled garden-related digging device.

In the Creative sector, an "Information Architect". I can vaguely recall my web coding tutor banging on about this, and I didn't understand it then, and certainly don't now. (Sorry, Simon. You really were dreadfully boring, and far too old for that haircut. Sorry again.) As far as I can work out, it's a web developer with a nicer title, but to me those are two very separate words that have no business being together. Next.

Also in the Creative sector, a "Senior Actionscript Developer". Unfortunately, this isn't the superhero position I had hoped it was, and seems to be something far geekier and more fun, judging by the amount of acronyms in this badboy: "...be familiar with Zinc and or SWF studio and have knowledge of database driven systems using XML & SQL and PMT." I may have made that last one up.

Finally, my favourite find: "Director - Audiences and Media Division". The role is being advertised at the Very Famous Art Gallery on the south bank of a Very Famous river, somewhere - I assume - in between the residences of Ratty and Mole. Anyway, being a fan of the VFAG myself, I decided to have a proper look at the advert, just to see what they were after. The following is a direct quote from the ad:

"Make the audience journey through the VFAG's collections more textured, driving strategic audience engagement, particularly with those whose cultural preferences may yet be unformed."

Yep, I made that face too.

I can only assume making an audience journey more textured would require blindfolding some poor unsuspecting tourists, dragging them through a damp corridor lined with woodchip and crackling strip lighting, smelling vaguely of pot pourri and despair - filled with broken down boxes and dead flies - before dumping them in a back room between a Matisse and a Hockney, in front of a "challenging" and "subversive" massive sculpture of the VFAG owner's genitalia, whipping off the masks and yelling "What is this?! Tell me what your cultural preference is now, huh?!"

I like to think that the role is available to whomsoever can figure out what the fuck any of that actually means. Maybe you win a prize, too.

I would really quite like a job now, thanks.