IMO, lazy journalism. Useful and interesting material that can trigger/continue other/the conversation, but as a former journalist I know my UE and the credibility of the article would be damaged as soon as I saw attribution given to a tweet or online blog comment... if the fact checker or author noted that the source was directly contacted to confirm the contents of the social media reference, then ok, but at that point why not quote the source directly?

IMO, lazy journalism. Useful and interesting material that can trigger/continue other/the conversation, but as a former journalist I know my UE and the credibility of the article would be damaged as soon as I saw attribution given to a tweet or online blog comment... if the fact checker or author noted that the source was directly contacted to confirm the contents of the social media reference, then ok, but at that point why not quote the source directly?

As you note, it does speak to social media, and may continue the conversation, but at what cost? Is the story about social media, or the content/meaning behind the quotation?

Likely the latter in most cases, so I say just get it from the horses mouth, not his avatar.