I wouldn't have a concrete answer; however, the foreword in Quanta Magazine's "Alice and Bob and the Wall of Fire" describes the relationship between journalism and scientific literature quite well. When it comes to 'social media' though, best ask Elon Musk or something; my credentials don't give me much background on this particular topic. Interesting question however.

Scientific literature : Deeper is the analysis and communication about the concepts the basics are left to the reader's understanding

Social Media /others: Diluted for mass understanding and more on the relevance side (like story telling)

Recently, I attended a workshop at my university about "science communication"

which somehow related to your question. And here is a summary of what I've learned, it may contribute in answering your question:

Generally, there is a gap between scientists and the public including media. This is because the scientific culture is different from the public and mass media. Since the public don't read research papers, we need to get them aware of research findings simply because they're consider as stakeholders for most of the works.

Science communication is the science that tries to fill up this gap. It emphasizes on simplifying the scientific language for the public as well as the mass media to a level they can digest the information easily. So, scientists need to chose to communicate with the public either directly through social media, communities, online .. etc. in the simplified language, or through media channels.

Reaching the public through media is not as smooth as it sounds. Journalists and editors are not necessarily coming from scientific background, therefore, they use their communication skills to simplify the language for public after they interview scientists. However, the main goal of mass media is not only to report scientific findings, but also to make sure the story they write is interesting for public to read.

And this is the point where differences occur.

Thank you!