Media & AdvertisingAdvantages–Disadvantages
IELTS Essay: Social Media as a News Source (Band 9 vs 6.5)
In short
Below is a full Band 9 model answer to this IELTS Writing Task 2 question, the same question written at Band 6.5, and a criterion-by-criterion breakdown of exactly what separates them — so you can see what to change in your own writing. Then check your essay with the free tool.
The question
An increasing number of people now use social media as their main source of news, rather than newspapers or television. Do the advantages of this development outweigh the disadvantages?
How to approach a Advantages–Disadvantages question
For an advantages/disadvantages question, first check exactly what is asked: 'discuss the advantages and disadvantages' wants a balanced account, whereas 'do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?' demands a clear verdict. If a verdict is required, state it in the introduction and return to it in the conclusion — listing pros and cons without deciding is a Task Response failure.
The plan
- 01Introduction: paraphrase the trend and state that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
- 02Body 1: outline the advantages — speed, free access, and democratic, first-hand reporting.
- 03Body 2: outline the disadvantages — misinformation, lack of fact-checking, and echo chambers.
- 04Conclusion: confirm the verdict and recommend treating social media as a supplement to real journalism.
Band 9 model answer
The way people consume news has shifted dramatically over the past decade, with platforms such as Twitter and Facebook overtaking print and broadcast media for a large segment of the public. Although this shift brings undeniable convenience, I believe its drawbacks — chiefly the erosion of reliability — ultimately outweigh its benefits.
The appeal of sourcing news from social media is easy to understand. Information now travels almost instantaneously, so users learn of breaking events the moment they unfold rather than waiting for a scheduled bulletin. These platforms are also remarkably democratic: ordinary citizens can document injustices or disasters first-hand, giving voice to perspectives that traditional outlets might overlook. Combined with the fact that most feeds are free and endlessly personalised, it is little wonder that audiences have migrated online in droves.
These advantages, however, are overshadowed by a serious cost to accuracy. Because posts are rarely fact-checked and algorithms reward whatever provokes the strongest reaction, misinformation spreads faster than measured reporting can correct it. Worse still, personalised feeds trap users in echo chambers that reinforce existing beliefs and deepen social division. Where a seasoned journalist is bound by editorial standards, an anonymous account faces no such accountability, leaving readers ill-equipped to distinguish fact from fabrication.
On balance, while social media has made news faster and more inclusive, the flood of unverified content and the polarisation it fuels pose a greater threat than these gains can justify. Readers would be wise to treat such platforms as a supplement to, not a replacement for, the rigorous, accountable reporting that reputable journalism still provides.
The same question at Band 6.5
These days a lot of people use social media like Facebook to read the news instead of newspaper or TV. This trend has some good points and some bad points, but I think the bad points are more than the good points.
On the one hand, there is some advantages of getting news from social media. The main advantage is that it is very fast, so people can know about important events immediately. For example, when there is a earthquake or accident, we can see it on social media before it is on the TV news. Also it is free and easy to use on the phone, so everybody can access it anytime. Another good point is that normal people can share what happen in their area, not only the big news companies.
On the other hand, there is also many problems. The biggest problem is that the news on social media is not always true, because anyone can post anything without checking. Sometimes people share news that is completely wrong just to get attention. This cause a lot of fake news and people believe it. In addition, social media only show us the news that we already agree with, so people become more divide in their opinion and this is not good for the society.
In conclusion, even though social media give us fast and free news, I believe the disadvantages like fake news and division are bigger than the advantages. People should still use the newspaper and TV to check if the news is real.
What separates them, criterion by criterion
| Criterion | Band 9 | Band 6.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Task Response | Delivers a clear verdict that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages and develops both sides fully, weighing speed and access against reliability. | Answers the question but keeps points general and thinly supported ('it is very fast', 'anyone can post anything'), only stating the verdict rather than arguing it. |
| Coherence & Cohesion | Cohesion is varied and unobtrusive ('These advantages, however, are overshadowed', 'Worse still'), so ideas build smoothly. | Uses formulaic linking ('On the one hand', 'On the other hand', 'Also', 'In addition') and lists ideas. |
| Lexical Resource | Flexible, precise phrasing such as 'the erosion of reliability', 'echo chambers' and 'in droves'. | Repetitive, high-frequency vocabulary ('news', 'people', 'good points', 'bad points') with little variation. |
| Grammatical Range & Accuracy | Complex sentences are handled accurately ('Because posts are rarely fact-checked and algorithms reward whatever provokes the strongest reaction...'). | Mainly simple structures with subject–verb and agreement errors ('there is some advantages', 'This cause', 'social media give', 'what happen'). |
Examiner's note
The higher-scoring essay reaches a clear, well-supported judgement and develops both sides with flexible language and accurate complex sentences. The 6.5 response covers the same ground but leans on formulaic linkers, repeats 'good points/bad points', and contains steady grammar errors ('there is some advantages', 'This cause') that mark it as an intermediate answer.
Vocabulary from the Band 9 answer
| Word / phrase | Meaning |
|---|---|
| consume news | to read, watch or listen to news |
| almost instantaneously | very nearly immediately, with no real delay |
| breaking events | important news that is happening right now |
| give voice to | to allow a view or group to be heard |
| in droves | in very large numbers, as a crowd |
| echo chambers | online spaces where people only encounter views they already hold |
| editorial standards | the rules a professional publication follows to keep reporting accurate and fair |
| distinguish fact from fabrication | to tell the truth apart from something invented or false |
Frequently asked questions
What does 'outweigh' require me to do?
When the question asks whether advantages outweigh disadvantages, you must reach a clear verdict — do not simply list both sides. State which side is stronger in the introduction and confirm it in the conclusion.
Should I give equal space to advantages and disadvantages?
Roughly balanced coverage is safest, but the side you consider stronger can be developed a little more. What matters most is that each point is explained and supported, not merely mentioned.
Can I use 'I' in this type of essay?
Yes. Because you are giving a judgement, phrases such as 'I believe' or 'in my view' are appropriate and help make your position explicit to the examiner.