Just maybe.

But if political journalism is to thrive and reach a bigger share of the public, counting on social media to achieve that goal may be a mistake. Platforms such as Twitter and Facebook are rapidly becoming a wasteland of untruths and misinformation. It's not just the "fake news" out-rating real news on Facebook, but the bots and trolls on Twitter that can be used to overwhelm reality-based information.

Social media can be easily gamed by those in the know. As political bot expert Samuel Woolley told me, the "alt-right" is a racist movement with maybe "a few thousands, maybe a few hundred who speak very loud" using the medium. But looking at how the media has covered them, you would think there were millions of "alt-right" adherents.

The distortion speaks volumes for how social media is taking political reporting, and by extension, democracy, for a ride.

Thanks to a technology that is truth-neutral but prioritises popularity over the credibility, vast swaths of the public are less informed and more hoodwinked than ever. PizzaGate has long since been debunked and still I see tweets demanding further investigation. Alex Jones' InfoWars is viral nonsense. Still I have people tweeting me to get the "real story" from his site. And now, of course, the news of the dossier of Trump's dirty dealings in Russia is just a "hoax".

If this is what social media can offer the public, the question needs to be asked, what do social media companies offer the media, especially in terms of all-important political reporting?

The answer may be, not much at all.

Especially if politics on social media degenerates into a funhouse where nothing is true and anything goes. Moreover, if the public uses, and is encouraged to use, social media as a tool to snowball their fellow citizens and gum up legitimate political discussion, what is the utility of it for real political journalism? It's more akin to an obfuscation machine. If politics on social media are increasingly an unreliable wasteland, isn't it time for the public to adjust their expectations, too?

We rely and expect media organisations in democracies to fight for the shared democratic values of society – justice, transparency, accountability – on the basis that an informed public can make the best decisions.

Why is social media permitted to unleash demagoguery, lies, intimidation under the guise of politics?

The technology itself is, of course, value-neutral.

But the leadership of the companies creating the technology isn't.

To date, social media outfits take little responsibility for the disservice they regularly do to informed democratic debate. By Twitters' own rules Trump should be banned for bullying and intimidation. Facebook's commitment to stopping "fake news" has so far been to handball responsibility to the debunking site Snopes. With revenue of US$18 billion and profits of US$3.7 billion in 2015, how much of a sacrifice would it be to fund an office to debunk and eliminate the worst content from the platform?

Facebook's recent announcement about creating journalism tools barely addresses the issue.

The answer is not to fight social media, of course, but perhaps to change the culture around political news consumption on it. If social media is dominated by the likes of Alex Jones, and marquee trolls such as Mike Cernovich and in fact Donald J Trump, himself, maybe it should be ceded to them. Facts mean nothing to these people. Leave them to their fantasy world.

At the same time, ensure that readers know politics on social media can't be trusted.

Is it, perhaps, time for news outlets to band together and create their own information zone reliant on rigorous reporting, lucid analysis and a verifiable fact? A place where the mission is to inform the public without fear or favour?

Media outfits today sometimes remove the paywall for stories they share on social media to build new audiences.

Why not reverse the trend for political reporting?

Instead of promoting political news on social media, why not frustrate the sharing of those stories, to drive the conversation back to a more sensible platform, and increase the relative value of credible political news?

Today media outlets offer their own apps.

How hard would it be to add link buttons to fellow vetted media sources, giving readers access to an ecosystem of verified, real news that cuts social media – the swamp of distortions and conspiracy – out of the loop?

Today journalists rely on social media to build audiences. Not so long ago, social media wasn't a factor at all.

The uptake of technology changes radically. Podcasts were once the rage, then passe, and are now back with a vengeance. Things change.

Trying to change readers' behaviour in one aspect of news may seem radical. But it's no less radical than what's happening to democracies today.

Today news organisations are expected to put up the brave fight for the values that keep democracy strong, while serving content into a realm that adulterates it, distorts its meaning and exposes it to sinister forces that have figured out how to game it for effect.

Media leaders need to think strategically and think hard about where their organisations need to go. Social media platforms, starved of real news, can either invest in real reporting or get used to a content starved of real media's input.

For media, though, the risk remains greater. Social media has created a platform that could eventually destroy legitimate political reporting, and with it, the ability to have an accountable democracy.

The views expressed are the author's only and don't represent the views of Fairfax Media.