Column | Newmann: The darker definition of social media
Courtesy photo
“Social: marked by or passed in pleasant companionship with friends or associates.”
“Media: a medium of cultivation, conveyance or expression.”
The above definitions are from Merriam-Webster dictionary. Combine the two words being defined above by Merriam-Webster and one might expect that the term “social media” could be thought of as a comfortable interaction between acquaintances. The idea of “pleasant companionship with friends” seems rather warm and fuzzy. And almost innocent.
When social media first came into prominence, with the advent of Facebook, it did have an innocence of sorts. Folks would message one other about what they had for dinner. Or the latest antics of their cat. Or the television show they had just watched. Lots of mundane stuff, much of it between friends or associates.
But times have changed.
Support Local Journalism
Webster’s now defines social media as “forms of electronic communication … through which users create online communities to share information, ideas, personal messages and other content.”
Ironically, social media is, in many respects, no longer social. And one wonders if it’s even media.
Sure, you can still let folks know what you had for dinner. Or what your cat is doing. There’s still the wonderful ability to connect with friends and colleagues. And to share vital information.
But there’s also a much darker side to the equation.
The fact checkers, who used to provide a sense of order and sanity to several of the more prominent social media platforms, have been removed and in their place … well, some of the overlords of those platforms opined that the members of the platforms would act as the fact checkers. That’s a bit like the fox guarding the hen house. So now, while there’s still lots of reputable information being transmitted far and wide, there’s also a slew of really nasty—and often totally fictitious–stuff consistently making the social media rounds. And, sadly, much of it is being taken as the gospel by folks who either want to believe it or are naive enough to believe it. With no oversight.
This is not to say that back in the stone age of print media there was (or even still is) no rampant bias. Quite the opposite. Newspapers could — and did — resort to “yellow” journalism, a biased form of reporting (or even fabricating) events which could inflame all sorts of undue passions in folks. But that sensational journalism was out in the open for all to read. And to discuss.
The same can be said for television reporting, which — despite any perceived biases — is still out there for all to see. And hear. And discuss.
But many of the unsavory aspects of social media are nowhere near as open. They can inflame — and incite — with an immediacy while still being hidden in the ether of the web. With the untold numbers of platforms, one can virtually find anything to “substantiate” one’s own beliefs, no matter how outlandish. Or, in some cases, no matter how chaotic or, in some instances, dangerous.
There are other issues inherent in social media that belie the social definition of “pleasant companionship with friends or acquaintances.” Trolling, shaming, bullying, privacy concerns, screen addiction, mental health issues … these are just a few of the issues.
That’s not to say that social media cannot provide some very useful benefits. It certainly can. And does.
But sometimes the idea of going back to those early days of inane banter about what one had for dinner or what the cat did would be a welcome relief.
Tom Newmann splits his time between Edwards and Queenstown, New Zealand. He has been going winter-to-winter since 1986. He was also a journalist in Missoula, Montana, at the Missoulian for quite a few years. Email him at tsnnz12@gmail.com.
