In Defence of Social Media

[crazyjane]

Social media gets a bum rap.

Before I go on, for full disclosure - yes, I'm an avid Tweeter. I have Facebook and Google+ accounts. I am, in the vernacular, an interested party. Anything I write will, to an extent, be self-serving.

However ...

I've just about had enough of a smug mainstream media that rests on its dusty laurels and tuts about the irresponsible nature of tweeters, the ignorance of Facebook posters, and the all-round unruliness of those who use social media as a platform for their views and comments. I was recently commissioned to write an article for Victorian Writer about my work as a political blogger. While working on that, I found that social media had become indispensable to me, both as a tool for disseminating my work and raising my profile, and as a quick-and-dirty publishing platform for instant commentary on political and social matters. That started me looking more closely at how social media responds to issues of the day, and to that wonderfully
inapt concept of 'breaking news'.

And what I found was that, by and large, social media is at least as ethical as mainstream media in its dealings with the wider world. People were more prepared to admit it if they'd got something wrong, and to identify their personal opinions rather than cloak them in a veneer of objectivity (which is more than I can say for many in the mainstream media).

Don't get me wrong. Social media has its twats. You only have to look at the #auspol discussions on Twitter to find a 'wretched hive of scum and villainy' (with apologies to George Lucas). There's racism, sexism, classism, lies, damned lies, and duelling statistics out there. But - and here's the important point - that sort of stuff doesn't go unchallenged. For every person making an outrageous claim, there are dozens, even hundreds, calling for the facts or presenting opposing arguments. Racists are exposed and homophobia is met with righteous, protective anger. Social media isn't a debating society. It's a forum; but unlike the one in Rome, when you climb on this speaker's pedestal, everyone can hear you.

It's loud, it's messy, it can drive you crazy and it can make you proud to be part of it. It's uncontrollable - and I think it's for this very reason that the mainstream media just doesn't know what to do with it. Their usual response is to belittle or even dismiss it as a mere 'echo chamber', devoid of any real content. Someone coined the term 'Twitterati', no doubt intending it to be derogatory. Others are at pains to point out anything that even looks like social media 'getting it wrong'.

Twitter (probably the fastest moving social media platform) does get it wrong from time to time. The most famous recent example is, arguably, the hunt for the Boston Bombers. In what could best be described as a giant game of 'Telephone', incorrect names and details bounced around the world. In the aftermath, the mainstream media were quick to point the finger at Twitter for that. They carefully didn't mention their own role in disseminating the misinformation, nor that Twitter issued corrections as soon as the facts were known.

But then there are times when Twitter gets it right. When the death of Yothu Yindi singer Yunupingu was announced on June 5, there was a major stumble by both mainstream and social media. Among many Australian indigenous tribes, showing images of a dead person is prohibited. Generally, the media have dealt with this by issuing a warning just before going on to show their footage. In the case of Mr Yunupingu's tribe, however, there was a specific prohibition against using the deceased man's first name. His family issued a media release fairly early in the day, saying they were comfortable with footage being shown, but asking people to use only his surname.

For the most part, mainstream media completely ignored this. In some cases, they added to their usual warning the extra detail that they were going to use his name, but that was as far as they went. Nearly twelve hours after the issue of that media release, it was still happening. (The notable exception was the ABC, who apologised and complied with the family's wishes as soon as they were informed.)

This example of - well, you could call it stupidity or heartlessness, take your pick - was rightly scourged on the ABC's Mediawatch program last night. There was simply no excuse for getting it wrong. What followed, however, was a slap on the wrist for social media. The program's host, Jonathan Holmes, commented almost as an aside that Twitter was doing the same thing.

Now, I don't know about you, but doesn't that sound a little 'playground-ish'? 'It's not fair, Miss, Johnny was doing it too!' It's a little pathetic.

It's also wrong. Social media was the first to respond to the family's media release. Over the day, thousands of apologies went out over Twitter, along with re-tweets of the warning not to use Mr Yunupingu's first name. On Facebook and Google+, people pulled earlier posts and substituted them with apologies and amended valedictions. Where posts violating the family's wishes still existed, the writers were made aware of the situation and urged to correct their output. This started within minutes of the first tweet hitting the timelines.

By contrast, every prime-time TV news service (again, with the exception of the ABC), including those filmed and broadcast in the Northern Territory (home of the Yolngu people), did nothing.

You'd think that a program devoted to - literally - watching the media might make a note of that. Instead, social media was misrepresented and criticised, while the program wagged its finger at mainstream media before congratulating it on eventually getting its act together.

Yes, there are an awful lot of cute kitten photos, annoying games, and conversations of interest to no one but those involved on social media. But really, is that so different from what you see on television? If you watch Channel Ten's prime-time news, you get the 'adopt-a-dog' story. There's almost always what's called 'human interest' just before or after the weather. And as for the sheer number of reports on reality and game show TV - saints preserve us. Franky, I'd rather have Farmville requests. At least you can easily filter those.

In the end, of course, social media is what you make it. Whether you want use it for inviting your friends to parties, sharing silly pictures, or engaging in social and political discourse is up to you. That's what a forum is - a level playing field. You can get up on your high horse and claim your argument from authority is better, but you'd better be prepared to defend it, because social media gives us something we largely haven't had - a way to talk back to the 'official' media, to challenge what we're told and present our own point of view.

Comments

[megpie71]

The mainstream media's biggest problem with the social media has always been that it makes it impossible for them to guard the gates of "what is news?". "News" is itself a tricky and slippery concept, because it's mainly defined by the role of the mainstream news media - if they think it's important, it's news. Even if what they decide is important is a long discussion over whether the frock being worn by the wife of the heir to a particular European token monarchy is a fraction too short. It's news because it's being covered by the news media - and since the news media are somewhat incestuous in their sourcing (as in, they pinch stories from each other all the time) what one branch thinks is "news" can serve as a defining style for all the others. See the Australian political media for further details, particularly if you want to ask them what the Gillard government has managed to get right.

What news gatekeeping means is the mainstream media, until fairly recently, has been solely responsible for deciding what counts as "news" (and therefore important) in our society. Social media threatens this role. Social media opens up the possibility that the emperor will be shown not to have any clothes on. Social media also threatens the other major role of the mainstream media, namely that of news dissemination. If everyone has already heard the story via twitter, and linked to the pics taken by someone's iPhone, and seen the footage someone shot of the event, and gone to a tweet aggregation wherein the facts of the story have come to light, why should they purchase newspapers? Why should they bother to pay for services like the ABC and BBC through their taxes? Why should they bother to watch the TV news (and the advertising contained therein)?

Social media threatens the very existence of the mainstream media. It's not surprising they react like kiddies in the playground.