Having been involved and currently involved in a few campaigns, I am curious as to the real benefit of the Social Media as opposed to face to face critical discussion. The derisory nature or lack of debate is something which concerns me. Speculation about the SOS (Save Our Services Campaign) and how we are or are not doing things by those who haven’t engaged or showed up to a meeting, yet can snip from the side-lines is something that jars me.

We often see this in campaigns and unfortunately there will always be differing opinions on how best to tackle a certain issue, but there is a basic strength in the collective that can be drawn from. To-date the campaign has got its requisite thumbs up (likes on social media) and garnished support from the wider population locally.  However this must be taken in context of the mighty keyboard.  It’s unfair to say that this is the only thing to come from the social media space as its really not.

 

Where does social media fit in this era? It’s used for many to spout what I call google facts, which I have to say is often incorrect as Google only report what you or I put on it.  To this end, I have seen umpteen incorrect articles on not only hospitals and health care but also how best to challenge something of injustice within communities.  It is useful to get support in the broad spectrum of media congestion, The Mary Boyle story by Gemma Doherty for instance.  This story whilst followed by many of us for some time, really only hit the high notes of a campaign after the online YouTube video was released.  Until then many people didn’t hear of the case.  What it has brought is, and its not exclusive to that campaign, the nastiness of the few.

 

As someone who has been on the wrong end of this for things I have said and done down through the years, its disturbing how someone credibility can be torn to shreds on social media, no matter how the or what medium they utilise to redress this. I would like to point out that I am not defending those whom this has been thrown against, namely politicians and the state organisations, but in terms of how does anyone really get their credibility back when completely falsely accused.

A case I only know of through the media, the Ian Bailey Case, seems case in point. This person has never been convicted of anything in Ireland yet is shunned by many.  His case and its current pending French Legal Challenge has largely gone off the radar in twitterland and facebookers.  Why?

 

In foreign countries social media which was used to gather people to congregate and oppose oppression was used recently by the Turkish Prime Minister (via Face Time on an iPhone) to rise the people to overthrow a supposed coup. Whilst admirable to use this medium, it was also hypocritical given he himself opposes most from of Social Media and controls the vast majority of it thought government sanctions and blocks.

Pokemon Craze has seen aimless people behave almost abnormal in the search for a virtual image in their locality. Where does this ultimately begin to level out and people regain some sense of reality and what is real in their lives.  It also fair to say, why am I even writing this as who will read it let alone agree with it, never mind take it as absolute fact and most definitely read this in the spirit it was intended.

A muse to far, or a slanderous piece that can be litigated against by someone. So what’s the real life context for Social Media, maybe split the terms and leave it at that, 1) Social and 2) Media.

Advertisements