Addendum to Benefit or Bane

Very early on, I wrote a post about most news outlets using social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook. Even back then, I had noticed a rather disturbing trend in viewer/reader interaction through such sites.

For me, posting to such a site is to inform and help people. Sometimes it's about a weather alert; sometimes it's an update on a breaking news story; sometimes it's a preview of a story for that evening; sometimes it's asking for viewer opinion on a particular topic.

However, there is a problem. Since these kinds of messages are usually providing information, I personally would appreciate it if viewers/readers would not get nasty in return.

I'm talking about the snarky comments that various viewers post. I know snarky isn't necessarily a negative word. However, since snarky does mean snide remarks, I think there is a chance for a negative connotation.

To be snide is to make a comment expressing contempt, to be derisive of something. Neither of these is a positive connotation. So when someone gets snarky on a social networking site, those comments also tend to be negative.

To put it in colloquial terms, to be snarky is to cop an attitude or to give someone lip.

Some viewers are rather predictable in posting their hate and prejudice. To me, that makes them simply look like fools. They rant and rave and show they are too ignorant to look beyond themselves to the larger picture.

Some attack the news organization, screaming obscenities. In their own way, such postings are just another form of ranting, no matter the topic, which again reduces the mentality of the poster.

Some appear to attempt a reasonable request, such as asking for information regarding something they think the news organization should cover, but the person's manner of going about it is not a nice request at all.

For example, one day, a post was put up with a question on some topic to which the first response was someone screaming about why the news organization wasn't covering a missing girl in a nearby city.

Well, the organization called on that possible missing child, because that isn't something you leave hanging. Turns out it was a hoax message from another country. A response to that line was posted. To which the original screamer said it should still be in the news. Luckily, another viewer posted a reply saying the local organization doesn't often do international news.

That's not to say that all such posters are incorrect. Some do actually post relevant and real events. Like the popular local teacher killed by her husband who then killed himself. Or one of the many nasty crashes on the interstate that send people to the hospital. Or the various roads and intersections local people consider dangerous... To those people, Facebook and Twitter are the Benefit because they are trying to get valid information out.

Those are just a few examples of many, but many of the posts have been along the same lines: they accuse, claiming the news outlet isn't doing its job. Thus, they are the Bane. But when the person in charge responds, they don't want to hear the answers.

Like people who have their noses glued to a Bible. Their minds are already made up, don't confuse them with facts.

You might find that an odd comment coming from someone like me, but considering how many times I've been told I am going to burn because I don't go to a particular church or genuflect a certain way... Well, I usually just tell those people to go away. Just like the ranters posting on the social networking sites, these cannot see beyond their own nares.

They rant, they scream, they rave and they only make themselves look idiotic.

You may have seen some such comments in the past. I read far too many condemning such things as homosexuality; gay marriage; the don't ask, don't tell policy; even Islam. It may seem strange to include that last one is such a list, but because of the controversial nature of the belief system in recent years, it still fits.

Especially when it comes to some of the commentary that exists. Due to the fact that it is a different belief system, there are many out there who attack it just because it is different, even though it is related to the two other most commons forms of beliefs today: Judaism and Christianity (all three are monotheistic, beginning with the oldest - Judaism, and ending with the youngest - Islam). Some posters scream about false prophets (or in some instances, false "profits"), etc.

Truly small-minded and ridiculous.

Far too often, I have seen comments that are based solely on the biases of religious texts. While some such texts can be quite beautiful (take the "Bhagavad Gita" for instance, which is some absolutely gorgeous poetry in my opinion), to base every single opinion a person opines on one is foolhardy. A religious text is not the be all and end all. There is an alpha and omega, but as humans, we do not have the capacity to understand that totality. Therefore, any religious text is of necessity incomplete.

Thus, such comments, especially when they get snarky and attack people, are also incomplete, leaving out vast possibilities and potential options.

In any event, to respond with nasty, demeaning, even inappropriate comments does NOT make the news organization look foolish. It makes the poster look that way.

I myself bite my tongue more often than you can imagine. When I read hate-filled, ignorant commentary, it does make my blood boil. I'm only a human after all, even if my thinking is a bit on the odd side. But more often than not, I do not vent my irritation by posting a reply to a negative comment. (Go back to the original "Benefit or Bane" to read about my own foibles when it comes to venting on Facebook.)

So when you post to a news organization, please refrain from making negative comments. Like the old rule your parents probably told you, if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything. Or at least make your "criticism" constructive, not destructive.

Posted in December 2010.

Benefit or Bane?

Facebook and Twitter, they've appeared everywhere now. People are often saying follow us or tweet us... Share with us every thing in your lives. For journalism, the question I think needs to be asked is quite simply is this trend a benefit or a bane?

For the people using these social media, they feel they can talk about anything and everything without thought of who might see it. (Privacy settings are a wonderful thing though, aren't they? Even if they are only a fleeting thing...) So sometimes people may say or write something that isn't exactly flattering of others or of themselves. (I'll admit, I've done this a few times...) But those posts can often been seen by more than just friends... There might be a few enemies... A few people you might not consider "right in the head" but two of the greatest groups that might see those things? Potential/current employers and journalists.

I'm sure the employers comment makes sense. It has been talked about, on the news of all things. People who may be considering you for a job want to see what kind of person you are and what better way to do that than to look at what you write, post and do on a social networking site where you most likely would feel comfortable to say just about anything you want without editing. (Again, I'll be the first to admit I've let my typing to get the better of me on those times when I have been especially upset, disturbed, lost or otherwise perturbed.)

People are using such social networks for their daily diaries, writing their thoughts, feelings, emotions, et al. for the world to see.

Thus, in order to keep up, journalistic organizations have taken their places among the members of these social media. Most have RSS feeds set up to automatically post things to Twitter or Facebook. So as soon as something is completed, bang there it is! Such posts take potential readers straight to the main source of the story, thus the news organization's Website.

You can search so many people's names and sometimes even find the person you're wondering about. Or you can search for a memorial page posted for someone who has gone. On such sites, journalists might find a contact to interview, to get their impression on what has happened or a topic of interest.

Organizations, both for-profit and not, also use the social networks to find people who are interested in them. From the SPCA to Coldwater Creek and so many others, the social networks give them a place to offer specials for friends, fans or followers. Thus such organizations and businesses generate new business, new contacts, new sources of donations and revenue.

Some days it seems there is just no such thing as privacy anymore, especially in the face of such social networks. Even though a resource like these can be a treasure trove for people specifically searching for information, but there is a negative side.

Take the whole Erin Andrews and the man who videotaped her situation. Those videos ended up posted online and could be linked to various pages on social networking sites, including Facebook, Twitter and even YouTube. So in that instance, her privacy (and the privacy of all the other women he taped) was violated and that violation was out there for all to see.

Perhaps even worse is the fact that once something is posted online... It's very hard to get removed.

Take the example of the little girls at the dance competition and the "outrage" generated by both their costumes and their dance moves. The parents of at least one of the girls said in an interview they had tried to have the video taken down, but that because of how many places it had been posted, they were unable to do so. Truthfully, as someone who once danced (many years ago) I think the outcry was ridiculous because the people who were fussing probably don't know much about modern dance or the outfits that go with it. Those girls were fantastic! Especially for their age group!

So, in the end... Is the social network a benefit or a bane? I certainly cannot answer that question, and if anybody else can, feel free! However, I doubt there is any one or any complete answer. In some respects, these networks are amazing sources of information and more. In others, they are an invasion.

I cannot call myself any sort of expert on the issue. I can only go on what I have seen, what I have heard and what I have experienced.