Nobody needs to be reminded that our interconnectivity as a people has grown exponentially over the past decade. Just ten years ago, Facebook wasn’t even a twinkle in the eye of Mark Zuckerberg, and Twitter was even further from Jack Dorsey’s mind. Web-based diaries were just becoming popular and obnoxious little pagers were still popular products for cell phone providers.
The way we do business, shop for household goods, go to school and even talk to one another has undergone a significant revolution since the turn of the milennium–and this trend will only continue in the coming years. At its best, this paradigm shift facilitates a more responsive society–I can donate money to the American Red Cross for humanitarian relief via text message mere minutes after a disaster occurs, or pull up information on the latest round of bills being considered by the US Congress.
But how have these changes affected who we are, as people? Are we able to look up from our Blackberrys and iPhones long enough to consider this question and its ramifications?
A friend and I had a series of conversations recently that transcended multiple forms of communication. Not surprisingly, the nature of these “talks” was political and revolved around support for American President Barack Obama. For the purposes of illustration, we’ll call my friend “Frank.”
The dialogue began thanks to Facebook. Frank posted a status on his page to the effect of, “How does a Kenyan Keynesian Muslim Socialist come off giving anyone financial advice?”
I responded by stating simply, “I think three of your four adjectives for the President of the United States of America are wrong.” That opened the floodgates: Frank’s friends–most of whom don’t know me from Adam–barraged his status with accusations of my being poisoned by an evil liberal conspiracy, describing how utterly destroyed they had become because of President Obama (writing from their iPhones, no doubt), decrying couch-sitting druggies who they believe they are paying to live like kings thanks to the tax money withheld from their hard-earned paychecks, and–of course–throwing ad hominem around like candy at a Labor Day parade. Frank replied a few times over the course of the thread to back up his original statement with carefully selected phrases about job growth, the right amount of taxation for a wealthy individual, and the worthlessness of individuals who, allegedly, “won’t help themselves because they’re lazy.”
After a certain point, I decided to abort the thread altogether and sent Frank a Facebook message outlining my thoughts regarding his original posting (i.e. President Obama is not a Kenyan Muslim Socialist; we can argue Keynesian at a different time). Frank replied–without any ad hominem–that the recent health care law showed President Obama was “an obvious socialist” who risks the destruction of both the American economy and our way of life because of “outrageous spending.” He pointed to recent perceived slights by the administration against Britain and Israel, coupled with a shift in foreign policy more favorable to “revolutions backed by the radical Muslim Brotherhood and other terrorist organizations in the region” and a speech in Egypt in which the president was welcomed by “one of their own as somebody who sympathizes with Islam” as proof that–while he might not be a Kenyan Muslim–he certainly wasn’t a friend of Americans.
Sensing his unwillingness to consider my point of view, I backed off the argument and let our Facebook communiques subside. A few days later, he called to ask a work-related question. Towards the end of the phone call, I asked him if his temper had cooled after our most recent back-and-forth and apologized for inciting him. He told me he was indifferent and expressed how incredulous he was that I had “the guts to stick up for a failed American President” in the middle of a conservative group of people. I offered my view that “the only failed president in my book is the one who doesn’t try,” agreed to disagree for the time being, and ended our call on positive terms.
The next day we bumped into each other out in town–a relatively rare occurrence for us. We sat down for some drinks and I purposefully steered the conversation to the political arena again (it helped that venomous FOX “News” programming was on one of the televisions). We each hashed out our own personal beliefs about the economy and the motives of the president. We highlighted where we agreed and mitigated our disagreements as far as we could until more friends stopped by and the alcohol began flowing more liberally (pun fully intended). Towards the end of the night, Frank remarked, “you know, I think President Obama’s a good guy. I think his heart’s in the right place. I’m just not sure he knows what he’s doing with the economy.”
What began with caustic rebukes and blatant disrespect towards the president and Americans on Welfare ended with a humble admission that both of us could live with. But the ways in which social media are interlaced in this story uncover an uncanny trend.
Just to recap, over the course of our dialogue–which spanned barely one week–President Barack Obama went from:
–A Kenyan Keynesian Muslim Socialist (on a public Facebook page), to
–An obvious socialist who sympathizes with Islam and disgraces American values (in a more private Facebook message), to
–A failed American president (via cell phone), to
–A good guy, whose policies Frank doesn’t believe help the economy (face-to-face).
Did Frank’s opinions change greatly from Sunday to Friday night? Probably not. But our degree of interaction did–from the “fire-and-forget” world of Facebook to a personal, physical conversation where Frank and I were both forced to take ownership not just of our facts and opinions, but of the rhetoric we used to highlight our points.
Is Frank a bad guy because of any of this? No way! A passionate electorate is exactly what this country needs.
But when our news organizations and media establishments rely so heavily on opinon and sensationalism from Facebook, Twitter, RedState, DailyKos and other personal (often anonymous) blogs, we erode the quality of our discourse. When a writer can remain anonymous–and given a free media to spout whatever ideas fancy him at the moment–he or she is not obligated to take ownership of that rhetoric. When those words become hateful and misguided–or both–and achieve wide circulation, what do we gain? The focus becomes penning the most bombastic epithet and not engaging in the type of rigorous debate that solves problems or achieves consensus.
Live televised debates with GOP presidential candidates and President Obama are about to ramp up, no doubt hosted by sites like CNN, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and the like. You won’t find any Republican candidate calling President Obama “a good guy,” and why not? Because it doesn’t win votes? Or perhaps because our accessible, anonymous advances in social media have created an environment in which the caustic and sensational are rewarded with free publicity and unlimited campaign dollars?
The technological whirlwind we currently find ourselves in is opening so many i
ncredible doors for our country and our planet. While it can serve as an unprecedented force for good worldwide, it also opens the door for Information Age-muckrakers eager for any opportunity to gain a little bit of fame or a few easy bucks.
But we’ve been here before.
When automobile travel eclipsed the horse and buggy, we each bore the burden of responsibility over recklessness. When television programming expanded and violence and questionable material became easier to access, we each bore the burden of responsibility over recklessness.
In a new century, that same mantra of responsibility over recklessness should be encouraged and expected as we further the great reaches of social media.
1 comment