We hear over and over how much social media has changed communications in our current world, how it contributes to divisiveness, how anger rules. There are many voices speaking out on this issue through many different types of venues – newspapers, televisions commentators, magazines, online forums, and, of course, on social media itself.
As an older person in our society, I remember when print opinion columns ruled the day. You had to read and absorb to assimilate someone’s position, letting it percolate as you thought about what was written, what it meant to you and if you agreed or disagreed (and why).
As reading slowly evaporated and television news and opinion ascended, rather than taking time to think and digest, viewers instead received images (typically driving emotions) rather than reading. You were told something.
This evolution was slow, probably insidious. Like the frog who won’t jump from the slowing boiling kettle, us humans slowly adapted to this changeover without thinking too much about it. “Eh, did you watch Dan Rather last night? Naw, I’m a Tom Brokaw guy.” Ted Koppel came on the scene. Jack Germond and Jules Whitcover emerged. John McLaughlin became famous, bringing his classic “WRONG” phrase to political commentary, raising everyone’s blood pressure on his weekly panel (all white male talking heads, BTW; though I found and read columnists like Ellen Goodman and Bill Raspberry outside the WM spectrum, you had to take an extra step to find alternative voices).
Those media giants mastered the medium, built audiences. From there, the 21st century brought us the next combative step as we moved into the social media world -- public figures (and others) yanking the social media reins hard, hitting your hot buttons. Say anything (kind of like talk radio). No oversight. Damn the fact checking.
As a journalist watching this occur, I can’t say I saw this coming. I remember going to a meeting of a communications organization sometime before 2010 to hear a speaker on this new platform called “Twitter.” I thought, “Hmmm, this is something new. We can use this to get our message out.”
Which was true, initially, to an extent. Short messaging was the basic mantra of early Twitter. Write it short, send it out, connect with others, find your audience. Like any new technology, people adapted to it, and learned to use it in less-than-expected ways – hate messaging, anger messaging, finger pointing, lying.
The evolution in that direction occurred post-2010. Which likely coincided with growing divisiveness on the political spectrum. People wanted to be heard. Social channels provided options and choices. Say what you want.
Which brings me to what I’ve come to believe about social media in general: good, bad or indifferent, people want to be heard. That’s a good thing. Everyone has a story.
Where it goes off the rails is how the noisy, belligerent, ranting voices tend to dominate the various channels. They get the most play (or others seem drawn to want to watch and listen to the crazy outliers).
The quiet, intelligent, thoughtful voices take the nosebleed seats. While I’m sure there are many thoughtful voices getting traction, the “louds” get more play and hence rise in the standings.
It’s sad. It’s also easy to stop. Don’t go to the angry sites. Don’t watch the videos, TikTok or manipulated memes. Minimize or eliminate your exposure. I guarantee you that you’ll feel better. You can change a negative perspective into a positive one.
As an older person in our society, I remember when print opinion columns ruled the day. You had to read and absorb to assimilate someone’s position, letting it percolate as you thought about what was written, what it meant to you and if you agreed or disagreed (and why).
As reading slowly evaporated and television news and opinion ascended, rather than taking time to think and digest, viewers instead received images (typically driving emotions) rather than reading. You were told something.
This evolution was slow, probably insidious. Like the frog who won’t jump from the slowing boiling kettle, us humans slowly adapted to this changeover without thinking too much about it. “Eh, did you watch Dan Rather last night? Naw, I’m a Tom Brokaw guy.” Ted Koppel came on the scene. Jack Germond and Jules Whitcover emerged. John McLaughlin became famous, bringing his classic “WRONG” phrase to political commentary, raising everyone’s blood pressure on his weekly panel (all white male talking heads, BTW; though I found and read columnists like Ellen Goodman and Bill Raspberry outside the WM spectrum, you had to take an extra step to find alternative voices).
Those media giants mastered the medium, built audiences. From there, the 21st century brought us the next combative step as we moved into the social media world -- public figures (and others) yanking the social media reins hard, hitting your hot buttons. Say anything (kind of like talk radio). No oversight. Damn the fact checking.
As a journalist watching this occur, I can’t say I saw this coming. I remember going to a meeting of a communications organization sometime before 2010 to hear a speaker on this new platform called “Twitter.” I thought, “Hmmm, this is something new. We can use this to get our message out.”
Which was true, initially, to an extent. Short messaging was the basic mantra of early Twitter. Write it short, send it out, connect with others, find your audience. Like any new technology, people adapted to it, and learned to use it in less-than-expected ways – hate messaging, anger messaging, finger pointing, lying.
The evolution in that direction occurred post-2010. Which likely coincided with growing divisiveness on the political spectrum. People wanted to be heard. Social channels provided options and choices. Say what you want.
Which brings me to what I’ve come to believe about social media in general: good, bad or indifferent, people want to be heard. That’s a good thing. Everyone has a story.
Where it goes off the rails is how the noisy, belligerent, ranting voices tend to dominate the various channels. They get the most play (or others seem drawn to want to watch and listen to the crazy outliers).
The quiet, intelligent, thoughtful voices take the nosebleed seats. While I’m sure there are many thoughtful voices getting traction, the “louds” get more play and hence rise in the standings.
It’s sad. It’s also easy to stop. Don’t go to the angry sites. Don’t watch the videos, TikTok or manipulated memes. Minimize or eliminate your exposure. I guarantee you that you’ll feel better. You can change a negative perspective into a positive one.