SOCIAL MEDIA, ELUSIVE TRUTH AND APOLOGIES

Media was driven by trained personnel. Then came new media, which emphasised free flow of information. Traditional media struggled to remain relevant to a digital audience.  Engagement became a conversation and media became social. So why expect only the truth? There are more interesting variants of information like rumours, gossip, speculation, and if need be, apologies!

If social media mimics society, then surely, you shouldn't just expect distribution of fact-checked, panel-beaten information, presented in a straight jacket of truth, ethics and integrity.

One hears something, probably truthful, but likely to be false. Instinctively, it seems, the urge to share becomes too overwhelming.

Simplistic satisfaction could be derived from being the first to break/forward the news/misinformation, or just anticipating adulation and validation among peers, (why....because).

Also, being perceived to be in the know appears to be highly valued, (as demonstrated by the number of followers on social media), which secures a prime spotlight, among hunters, gatherers and distributors of 'raw' information.

The truth shall set you free.

But which truth? (Yes there's more than one):

- That which is peddled by purported believers, hinged on selective application of scriptures.

- What the government wants you to believe, based on preservation of national security, public order and other ex patre considerations.

- Tainted/painted truth in the form of  propaganda

- That which is built on empirical/verifiable evidence... but hurts terribly.

- A convenient white lie, not far from the truth.

- Being economical with the truth is in the best interest of those concerned.

The options were limited in the days of trusted mainstream media.

But with social media, anything and everything, from anybody who is somebody or nobody, can and will be shared at lightning speed, with careless abandon.

Laws and regulations will come and pass but verily verily I say unto you, the man that taketh the Internet from the masses, will haul us back to the dark ages, and pretend to control information flow.

THE STRAY TWEET ON THE TREND: CAN SOCIAL MEDIA OVERRULE TRADITIONAL MEDIA?

A Kenyan TV station has been running an innovative talk show, which directly taps into new media. To fit in with social media parlance, it's called 'The Trend.' And it inadvertently could have set off a new trend: allowing a journalist from a competing channel to fire a question at one of its guests.

The 'stray tweet' from the external journalist certainly turned up the heat in that discussion, succeeding in putting the guest on the defence, and perhaps helping the programme host to raise an issue that probably would not have been covered.

It indeed drew a sharp rejoinder from the guest, who did manage to identify the 'stray' question was from a journalist, (from another station?).

But what made the programme producers to pick out this 'stray tweet' knowing very well it was unusual to give a platform to a journalist from a rival station to make any contribution in their show?

That particular move, is by all means daring. And it serves to indicate how social media can easily tear down the walls put up by rival or competing traditional media outlets.

Should this trend be encouraged?

I think so. The conversation never ends!

NO POLICY CAN FULLY POLICE SOCIAL MEDIA

The line between Social Media and Traditional Media is gradually being obliterated. Not because these two are almost becoming one and the same thing, but by virtue of the fact that social media elements are being assimilated into traditional media platforms and vice versa.

Initially, major media outlets had been suspiciously looking at the growing influence of social media networks, perhaps hoping this would be another time-bound fad.

But the phenomenal uptake of social media and the massive incorporation of its elements in every day life has meant that any credible media outlet, ignoring the need to embrace this new dynamic in news consumption, would be doing so at its own peril.

At first, the main media house plunged head on into the social media terrain, hoping to capitalise on any inherent advantages and probably not giving much thought into the possible dangers posed by this action.

But upon realisation that it is just not goodness that oozes from the social media juice, many a traditional media outlet had a rethink and naturally sought to come up with formal rules to guide the use of social media elements.


Futility of Social Media Policy

And off late, there has consequently been a flurry of social media guidelines being crafted and serious attempts to enforce a company approved online interaction policy.

This I believe is necessary, but only to the extent of ensuring there is some form standardised approaches that are close to a media company's overall ideals or values.

But I think it will be an exercise in futility for a media house to imagine that its social media guidelines will fully restrict, especially its journalists, from straying into uncomfortable territories that could 'embarrass' the company.

This is mainly because there is no escaping an ever present possibility of conflict, first because it is difficult for journalists to differentiate between their professional and personal lives, as far as the use of social media is concerned

And secondly, Internet-based interactions demand such a high degree of openness and transparency that  a traditional media house would cringe at, given the sometimes deep and even clandestine dalliance with external forces and pressure from funders, state agencies, politicians or commercial entities.

So yes. No policy can fully police social media.