Do declarations made by politicians using social networks have the same effect as those made through classical ways?

Question

Due to rapid development and spread of social networks, politicians among other public figures were forced into also using them to communicate various things (e.g. Trump's Facebook account, Trumps Twitter account)

Question: do posts made on these networks have the same power as public declarations made using more classic channels such as TV broadcasted press conferences?

I mean do they generate the same reaction? e.g. diplomats ask for clarifications when an important politician makes inappropriate allegations about some aspects of his/her country. Or some messages are simply ignored if not made using a classic way of communication (e.g. posted as official announcements or documents on Government's web site, TV broadcasted).

[Edit]

I will try to clarify the question by providing an example. Trump has posted the following message on his Twitter account:

The U.S. has been talking to North Korea, and paying them extortion money, for 25 years. Talking is not the answer!

This is clearly related to North Korea, and its relations with US. Does this kind of post/message creates the same effect as if it was said during a press conference, a summit? Or these messages are seen as less serious if a social network in used as a channel?

Answer 1

Authencity of the message is import and cannot be guaranteed even with the verified account (may be hacked). Due that social media is not a replacement for the official declarations and usual press conferences. You may listen for the account for the long time before realising it's fake. Better not to rely on this. Watch here the fake video of Zelenskiyy to surrender.

Answer 2

When POTUS rambles about going to war or openly criticizes his administration on Twitter, you take what he wrote seriously, as in it's not a joke he means it - irrespective of it not being an official or traditional communication channel. So yes, it's has just as much significance as the latter when something new and worth noting comes out of it.

Even if you were to leave out the countless reporting, commentary, and opinion pieces on Trump-related newsworthy events - of which there has been a plethora since he came to office, ranging from commentary that left most of the US aghast to war threats - you'd still be left with a hefty news barrage of articles that are analyzing or commenting on what Trump said on Twitter.

His tweet about banning transexuals from the army and its aftermath, for instance, generated ~13k news articles if a Google News search is anything to go by. That's quite significant, considering that the army is still awaiting a directive to that effect three weeks later.