For as much as I've learned about connectivity using social media, I've learned just as much about disconnection and apathy. I am admittedly a news junkie and if I could, I'd be hooked up to NPR all day. It's information that educates, that informs that tells me what is happening in the world. Today is not a good day - people are being violently assaulted because they have an opinion.
What's different about today? In some parts of the world, today is about disruption. Not the industry specific kind that comes about as a result of technology. That's what is so sad. The very tools referenced in 'Groundswell' by Forrester Research executives Charlene Li and Josh Bernoff, that emphasize emerging social technologies, also show a disinterested, audience who may feel what's happening in Turkey right now "Doesn't effect me!" Facebook doesn't show many posts in my network, even though I'm connected to several journalists and otherwise empathetic people.
What started out as a protest to stop bulldozing of Gezi Park, an open green space, turned into scenes of activists being hosed down by military in what looked like open warfare. In the instant when violence breaks out, social media works well to transmit images, video and twitter feeds, but in a long view, of civil unrest, where does social media contribute to telling the whole story?
It' s only when a bomb goes off in Boston, or a giant structure like the the World Trade Center, falls down, or a hurricane torn town out west do networks light up with 24-hour coverage and Red Cross calls for help. After the crisis, traditional media such as broadcast cable television or a documentary video seems to do a better job. I want to know what the outcome is as much as I react to the immediate devastation.
There's room for both technologies - traditional corporation models like broadcast media, and newer, more instant communications of social media. There shouldn't be an either, or. Each fills a purpose and together would serve the public as well as the stockholder. That business model is not an optimist's hopeless dream, but a realist in a real world possibility.
“What started out as a protest to stop bulldozing of Gezi Park, an open green space, turned into scenes of activists being hosed down by military in what looked like open warfare.” Is line is extremely thought and image provoking. You set the setting perfectly, using a wonderful turn of phrase.
ReplyDeleteOn the subject of your piece, you’re correct. The disconnect is astounding. In relation to Twitter discussing tragic events, right after the Boston Marathon Bombing (about an hour after, actually) someone tweeted: “Twitter does its best work in the 20 minutes following a disaster… and its worse over the next 20 hours”. (or something to that effect). And I think it’s true! After Twitter gets through with a disaster—the people tweeting first-hand accounts are safe, first responders have arrived—the Twitter feed kind of shuts down for the most part and we’re left to cable news networks and websites. However, I think the one exception thus far this year has actually been the Boston Marathon bombing, because Twitter users were instrumental in not only identifying the suspects, but also getting information out since it was easier to tweet than to call.
The point you raise (lifecycle of twitter topic) interests me. If there isn't already a graphic showing this - there should be! I guess what I meant to say is that social media, particularly Facebook doesn't always respond to breaking news, or if it does the connections (friends) a person has may not reflect that. I especially can understand better from seeing it and from a lecture on what Mark Zuckerberg meant by 'elegant organziation.' If I wanted more interaction about Gezi I might have used Twitter, rather than Facebook for conversation, or directly tag people I know who I could count on for at least a comment. This is acutally a good example of a user purposefully initiating a conversation but not simply through a post but rather a direct question instead. Thanks for input - it's got me thinking...which is always a good thing!!
DeleteThis is a great piece. Unfortunately I also think this is a geographical problem. You are right that people feel it doesn't effect them when it is in another country. It is sad to say but there are so many innocents who are harmed and even lose their lives and we know nothing about it. I don't believe this is a lack of social media technology in other parts of the world or a break down on using social media technology after news gets old. It comes down to what people feel is important to communicate with new social media technology. Again, great piece!
ReplyDeleteYour repsonse raises a good point: the idea of any content and its relatability factor. That's a huge factor in any interaction! People generally will respond to what interests them. Thanks!!
Delete