The Social Media Trap 

By Hank Silverberg

You may have connected to this blog through Twitter or Facebook. Maybe you also have an Instagram account or Linked In. Social media has become part of everyday life for millions of Americans. Many of us look at it first thing in the morning or the last thing at night before going to sleep.  But as  Admiral Ackbar said in Return of the Jedi—"IT’S A TRAP”!

I could quote studies from sociologists about Internet addiction or recount stories of people whose lives and careers were ruined by something they posted on social media, but I would rather look at the big picture—what it is doing to the way we communicate both personally and professionally, and how that is damaging social discourse.   

Twitter and Facebook began as wonderful social tools. I set up my Facebook page more than ten years ago when my children were in college. It was a way of keeping in touch with what they were doing in school and for them to follow what was happening at home. I rediscovered high school and college buddies I hadn’t talked to in decades. It was a great place to post vacation pictures for extended family or exchange barbecue recipes with all my “friends.” 

Then along came Twitter. Mix in smart phones, which made both of them mobile, and everyone’s desire to be “liked” or “followed,” and the formula was set for a dramatic societal upheaval.

For many people in the workplace, Twitter and Facebook soon became marketing tools—a fast way to promote your product or send out your news release without ever having to actually talk to another human being.

For journalists it was considered a major breakthrough in the one-way nature of the trade. We could now interact with our viewers, listeners or readers like never before, almost instantaneously.

In some newsrooms it became a bit of a contest to see who could attract the most followers or get out the first tweet in a breaking news situation. The competition was not new, but the speed was mind boggling and sometimes oppressive.  

At first reporters and news organizations just used Twitter and social media to promote their stories. I posted mine on a special Facebook page set up for that (It was separate from my personal page and has since been disconnected.) and I had my own Twitter feed just for work. I didn't tweet anything not work related. Like most reporters at the time I tweeted only breaking news from something I was covering or maybe something a colleague was covering. Later, we’d tweet a link to our website for the full story. No harm done. It was just another platform for our work.

Law enforcement and politicians discovered it was easier to tweet out their news releases or post them on Facebook than to send them to hundreds of news agencies in an email chain with hundreds of addresses. It often got lost. The public could see the information too, unfiltered by the media. That was irritating to the gatekeepers (editors) but again, not dangerous. Lost children were found faster, road closures or weather delays were relayed to motorists faster. It was positive.  

Social media was hailed as a great tool, but at the same time companies were putting out “social media handbooks” to guide employees. It was not a good idea, we were told, to post pictures from that drunken party last Saturday night or beach shots in that skimpy bathing suit.  Most people, including journalists, got that message.

Journalists were warned to keep their political views off social media and treat it the same way as the stories they wrote—objective. Even a Facebook post with security restrictions, we were told, could be seen outside our small circle of “friends” and you never knew if or when it would be shared.

Journalists loved the two-way nature of the medium. We could see immediately what the public was saying about our work and interact on occasion.  And more importantly we could see what the competition was on to, faster. 

Somewhere though, as the run-up to the 2016 election began, the envelope was pushed too far. Maybe it was around the time Twitter increased its limit from 140 to 280 characters. 
   
Interest groups, political parties and the general public began using Twitter, Facebook and other social media extensively. And the fight was on. At first, most journalists ignored the incessant chatter.  @HankSilverberg, my twitter handle, didn’t notice the change right away. When I stopped being a reporter, though, the constraints of objectivity came off, and I found myself re- tweeting or re-posting stories I liked and replying to stories or posts that irritated me.

Then the “fake news” stories began. Not just stories political candidates called “fake news” because they didn’t like them, but real fake stories planted to influence public opinion and elections. Some reporters got caught in the same trap as the general public and were soon slipping opinions into social media feeds to counter the hits they were taking from trolls or partisan stories that were simply lies. You know what happened next. 

The man who eventually made it to the Oval Office began using Twitter as his main platform to reach voters, and the 24-hour news cycle became the 240-character news cycle.

 So, Social Media is now a cesspool.  Even the keen eye, with the time or effort to care, has trouble deciphering fake news from the real thing. 

A new study from Oxford University says online manipulation campaigns are now being carried out by governments or political parties in 48 countries, including the United States. The researchers called it a "critical threat to public life" that is trying to "undermine the trust in the media, public institutions and science."  

http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/93/2018/07/ct2018.pdf

This brings me to my point. It is with a great deal of joy that I note some journalists are giving up social media.  They will no longer read tweets, send tweets or even react to tweets or other social media on social media platforms. They will write their stories based on facts gathered through traditional methods and let them stand on their own merit. They may use Twitter or Facebook as a platform to publish their stories, but that’s it. No more comments.  

This is a good thing. But it is going to be very difficult for many people to do. It’s hard to watch someone, especially those in public office, lie again and again and not say anything. It is also hard to take shot after shot of criticism from the public, politicians and other media without returning fire. It may be better to challenge them with facts in a story rather than a tweet and to ask them about facts in person rather than a twitter reply or Facebook post. Maybe we can just ignore the trolls.  

My suggestion would be to start implementing some restraint as an experiment on “Throwback Thursday,” and eventually we may all wean ourselves out of the trap. 

  (Your suggestions and comments are welcome. See feedback below)  

 

        (My latest book "The Campaign" can be purchased at Amazon.com, BN.com or      hanksilverbergbooks.com)