If someone says something stupid during a phone call with you, do you write a published article about “the dangers of telephones?” Personally, I do not.
So why are there so many articles about the “dangers” of social channels just because people say stupid things there? Some moron posts on Facebook that he would like to do something destructive, and inventory-starved journalists rush to blame the channel, rather than the person who posted the message.
Red herring? Or just dumb?
It’s hard to overlook that these “news” stories, articles and features are predictably published on traditional media channels, primarily print and television. Notably, these media formats have the most to lose with the rise of social media, so it’s reasonable to wonder if the obfuscating stories are calculated.
Let’s all acknowledge something. The presence of social outlets does not change the genius-to-idiot ratio of the general public, it merely reveals exactly what that ratio is. Dislike (or in some cases, disgust) for what you see mentioned online simply means that you dislike the thought processes of the general population, which is your right. But don’t blame the microphone.
Slamming the social web for the contents posted there is like asserting that Guttenberg is liable for incendiary propaganda printed on the printing press. It’s like saying that radio is invalid because an announcer mistakenly uttered an obscenity on-air.
The social web is not responsible for what people say online. People are. The social web simply gives a wider reach, a louder speaker, and a bigger audience. Like all forms of media, it can be used for either good or bad. But the responsibility for the message still remains with us, the people who use the channel.
Traditional media friends: tone it down. And for Pete’s sake, get on point. Use social referrals to gain your share of the voice online, instead of throwing rocks from the sidelines. Social is not going away. And clouding the message to blame the channel isn’t going to play well in the long run.