The social media revolution is not over, by far. One can safely conclude that it has had possibly the greatest impact on free speech and communication of all times, rivalling the newspaper and even threatening its existence. But that, of course, is not the end of the story.
Recently, we’ve seen a demonstration of the sheer power, but also the danger, of social media in all its unbridled glory, when the wife of entertainer Sean Paul, Mrs Jodi Stewart-Henriques, popularly called ‘Jinx’, complained about intolerable noise coming from a neighbouring property in upscale Norbrook, St Andrew, allegedly owned by Mr Usain Bolt, the revered runner and world’s fastest man.
“Between the bikes… loud, horrid music, parties and screams, I honestly wish he would go back to where he came from. He’s a horrible neighbour. I cannot wait to move,” ‘Jinx’ posted on Facebook. She added that her recourse to the police for help had been futile because “it’s Bolt”.
The complaint went viral on social media and had tongues wagging intensely, until ‘Jinx’ issued a comprehensive apology, which suggested that something happened in the interim to make her change her mind about the tone and content of her initial complaint.
“After some much-needed introspection, I would like to publicly apologise for the comments made about Usain Bolt. Not only were they unwarranted, but also highly inappropriate, and for this I am truly sorry,” she said in a letter to the editor.
“My intention was never to degrade or disrespect anyone, but without realising, I did. I allowed pent-up frustration to get the better of me and did not conduct myself in a respectful manner. I apologise to those persons who I hurt, including friends, family, my husband, and the Jamaican people at large, but especially Usain Bolt.”
The problem is that whether the apology was coerced from her by her husband or Mr Bolt’s lawyers, or was genuinely of her own decision, the damage was already done. Mr Bolt being world renowned made the international news as a result, and not for breaking a record!
It is instructive that the letter of apology was sent to a newspaper. We are not at all surprised.
If indeed the complaint was first sent to a newspaper that follows the tenets of journalism, efforts would have been made to ascertain the truth of Mrs Stewart-Henriques’ complaint, with comments from Mr Bolt, prior to publication.
But that is where the difference between traditional news media and social media lies. Information on social media is not often cleansed before posting. There is little incentive to do so and people are often hurt by that information. In the traditional news media, there are checks and balances prior to publication, or severe penalties in law, such as suits for defamation.
Credibility remains the most important currency in the jungle that is today’s communications media. It is precisely here that newspapers have the edge over social media.
test
Well here on one hand you have traditional media on the other is the emergence of social media.. which is quickly replacing traditional media..anything on social media have the potential to go viral in seconds..social media is becoming most of us only source of news,so in trying to keep up traditional media copy,regurgitate, steal, repeat, some of the internet or social media stories of the day without fact checking.. no sourcing of info no proof, but just copy and paste ..and send straight to press… newspapers should die, because they have taken their customers for granted for too long.. the same should be said for TV news ..recent report state the more you watch TV news the more bias you are in your views towards Blacks.. traditional media is on it’s last leg.. we will live to see online news and social media replace them..
Traditional media is just about dead in a world where we cannot exist without our smart phones which is our accessibility to the outside world. The thing about social media, it has no boundaries and removes international and geographic borders. We are all one big extended family on social media and it is no respecter of persons. Everyone in every capacity, from every walk of life is fair game and gets treated according to how he/she is perceived by the masses.
Right now, companies have created profiles for each of us, based on our comments, likes, shares, tweets, retweets and other social media activities. This profile creates a psychological profile and helps to determine who we are and what our propensity for violence and other things are. Based on this, the government can place you under surveillance for the potential to commit a crime. They can even go as far as to preemptively arrest you on the potential to commit a crime and hold you indefinitely without charge or trial under the NDAA.
This is no joke and Jinx and Bolt are only the softer side of the impact of social media.
Social media simply is just part of the increasingly globalized world we’re in. The danger as the article rightly said is the credibility of the disseminated information. The fact that you can simpky be anonymous and cauz a stir is both comforting for some and damaging for others. The malicious people can come out if ‘hiding’. Those who want info instantly , now has it. But in truth..accurate info is still better found in print media….