As I mentioned yesterday, I am changing the
way I do “dialogues” on Facebook. Of
course, what I call dialogue some might call “trolling,” but we can agree to
disagree.
Can’t we?
Maybe not. If we agree to
disagree, we can keep talking. If we
don’t, there’s no discussion at all (maybe an echo chamber is all), and there
can be no progress.
I think that’s key to the whole Facebook/Social Media thing
I discussed yesterday. Can we have
“effective communication,” whether the subject is political or not? In a conversation over the weekend, I began
to wonder if there had been any research on that subject. I even Googled, “social media stifles
effective communication” to see what popped up.
Wow.
There’s a shitload.
That’s the good news.
It’s not terrible conclusive. That’s the bad news.
This is not terribly surprising, as social media like
Facebook is relatively new. I remember
doing research on television’s effect on perceptions in the Eighties, and TV
had been around for more than three decades.
I am going to talk about some of that research, along with something
else I am currently reading that gave me insights as to my “new direction.”
One report that was
at the top of the Google list (for me, your results may vary) was done here in
the Northwest by Quinn Thomas, a Public Affairs organization HQ’d here in
Oregon. Entitled, “NEW REPORT: Social media and public opinion,”
it did what good research is supposed to do – offer insight and raise even more
questions on the subject. You can
download the report for free here. It’s an interesting read.
Caveats: the study
centered on users here in the Northwest, and, as the report indicates, we are
not exactly the makeup of the rest of the country, so you can’t read that into
it. We’re a bit more liberal, younger,
more professional (especially as how they targeted participants – it just
worked out that way). Still, what I took
from it was that even as we SAY social media has influence, we aren’t really
sure that true.
More specifically, we say we’ve changed our mind or become more informed about a subject, but those other guys…I dunno. Sounds right.
One must remember than Quinn Thomas is a PR firm, so, their
ultimate users of the report (clients who want to use social media for a
specific purpose) have ulterior motives, to be sure. Still, this take-away from the report hit me like
a ton of bricks:
Where it (social media) doesn’t seem to
have as much traction is as a forum for civic dialogue. What is often held up
by digital innovators, technologists, and communications professionals as the
revolutionary force behind social media’s success appears to be the public’s least supported rationale for using it. At the end of our analysis, that is perhaps
the most concrete counsel we can provide in helping others avoid the mistake of
thinking a Facebook page or a Twitter handle is an easy solution to
communications or engagement challenges. (emphasis
mine)
There were also a couple of quotes used in
the report from participants that summed up nicely the conflicting views of the
value of social media. Both of these
quotes come from younger (under 30) Facebook users. Consider:
“I think social media is an
ideal location where you can plant a seed and expose people to new information.
It’s a great place to be exposed to new information, but not necessarily form
new opinions. It plants a seed. Then you can go from there.”
“I kind of take social media
with a grain of salt. It is like the writing on a bathroom wall. It is not necessarily information, but it is
not necessarily misinformation. It is opinions.
It is social before it is media.”
Go back and re-read both quotes. What are they really trying to say? Social media works, but it doesn’t; it’s
there, and it’s not there. You can get
new info but it won’t change anything, unless it’s something something
something. I am confused.
Well, I was confused. Then I came across a section from a book I’m
reading, and it all makes sense. “A Man
of Misconceptions” is the story of Father Arthanasius Kircher, the legendary 17th-Century
Jesuit priest who was a great genius and/or colossal crackpot…or both. Living in an era of radical transformation,
especially in the realm on understanding and knowledge (the scientific method
has just been introduced, changing the way we understand things from interpretation
to observation), Kircher was prolific, writing about a vast variety of
subjects (in lengthy, well-illustrated 900-page tomes), getting some things very right and others horribly wrong.
The part that jumped out at me in regards to
our current discussion of Facebook conversations (and the way things are) was
Kircher’s book “Latium,” a study of the area around Rome. Kircher claimed Noah first settled in the
region, his traits and qualities serving as the inspiration for Roman and Greek
mythology. But what struck me was
Kircher’s own description of the engravings and maps depicting the region “not
as it was,” but “as it could and must
have been.”
I think that’s what the quotes above are
trying to say. I think we WANT Facebook
(and main-stream media) to be both informative and effective, to give us enough
information, the “right” information, the most useful information…but we have
trouble with that. Anything that seems
to contradict what we already believe, we discard. We embrace what we already know. We tell things not as they are, but "as they could and must be,"
We all do this to an extent. We're human. So it goes.
Therefore, I will still try to “find common ground” with
MOST anyone. I remain optimistic about
this. But I will not join into some
subjects, nor “dialogue” with everyone.
Some subjects, alas, are too complex and/or
too explosive to discuss online. That’s just my opinion. It’s just not worth the time
and effort to go down certain paths. So
I won’t. You’ll see where I avoid
comment. Enjoy.
There are also some responders who I will no
longer bother with. Brick walls are
brick walls. If I see a change, maybe
I’ll join in, but not until. Not that
you’ll notice. Or care.
Otherwise, let’s keep it going. I'll be picking my battles carefully.
No comments:
Post a Comment