Publication Date : 04-05-2013
It doesn't take a new-media expert to say it - everybody knows that social media cut both ways. But Hernando Rojas should be credited for taking on the technological darling of the hour fearlessly. Speaking at a lecture organised by the Thai Journalists Association a few days ago, he basically said that few things inflame an ideological divide better than the social-connection tools at our disposal nowadays.
According to him, people depend more and more on their peers to learn about what is going on socially or politically. Rightly or wrongly, that habit comes largely from the belief that the mainstream media have been "inaccurate" or "biased" or both. The rest is history.
The more people are turned off by the conventional media, the more social media appeal to them. The catch is that "social media" are primarily friends, or friends of friends. More likely than not, people end up in their own "media circle" that does not incorporate the views of "the other side". In other words, social media groups normally find themselves doing what they accuse the mainstream media of doing. Bias or prejudice is all too common.
Everyone who uses the social media must be familiar with this kind of scenario. First there may be some estranged, aggressive voices, but sooner or later they will disappear, either voluntarily or by being "blocked" or "unfriended". Before everyone knows it, the groups are reduced to bunches of like-minded people who worship the same politicians, and subject the same groups to scorn. In more "democratic" social media groups, the "ideological" fight is often furious and can degenerate into name-calling.
Truth is, even in the freest social media circles, it's highly unlikely that two persons debating social, political or religious values will end up having drinks or a wonderful dinner together. It's also unlikely that peace efforts can succeed in the social media sphere even if the warring politicians agree to a truce.
The real "casualties of war" are people on both sides who have been made to hate each other. And they are using the social media to do anything but seek reconciliation. If those who started the war think they can end it by having someone post on his or her Facebook page "Let's end this and be friends again", they are thoroughly mistaken.
But, despite all their flaws, to blame the social media for widening the political divide is like saying that a plane crash killed many people because the mountain the aircraft crashed into was rocky. With or without the social media, Thais have been made to absorb political propaganda like sponges. If they are propagating what they have been told, or made to feel, on the social media, whose fault should it be?
One thing about the social media is that nobody can tell anybody what to do. While checks can be put on the mainstream media, everyone does what he or she wants on their blogs, Facebook or Twitter accounts. You can be worried, but there's nothing you can do about it.
All we can do is let the social media evolve. In spite of the apparently irreconcilable differences, having the people know both sides of the argument is better than having them believe that there is only one side to the story. Although some corners of the social media are infamous for their nepotistic tendency, the platform as a whole is open enough to make sure that no important information will remain unseen.
The hardest part of democracy is that everyone has to accept things that make his or her blood boil. The social media are teaching Thais this very tough lesson. Whether they can pass this test is another matter. The point is, they need to learn, no matter what.
Post a Comment
Post a Comment