I, along with most of Canada, was appalled at the Vancouver Riots after the Vancouver Canucks lost to the Boston Bruins in game seven of the Stanley Cup final. However, in the midst of my disgust, I was fascinated by the events that were unfolding in the national news coverage as I witnessed the masses capturing the riots via smart phones and sharing them on social media. In the midst of breaking the law, the rioters and looters activities were being passively encouraged by the riot onlookers who stayed to witnesses and record these events. At the same time my eyes were witnessing this spectacle, I was listening to the commentary of the new’s channel reporters who, along with myself, were shocked and appalled by the hundred of onlookers who were, at the very least, recording and witnessing the destructive behaviour while all along recording it on their electronic devices.
Part of what was most shocking and ironic to me was the contrast between the new’s reporters commentary of the appalling behaviour of those who were witnessing and recoding the events and the deluge of ads the same new’s channel constantly run encouraging people to be iReporters – in essence, to do the very things that they were appalled at.
Our culture has radically shifted because of smart phones and social media. The human condition is still the same but technology (as it always been since the Tower of Babel) has found a new outlet of expression. Every piece of technology created alters our social construct and our culture and social media technology is no different. The same technology that was used to bring down oppressive regimes by putting power in the hands of the oppressed is also used to help organize riots and public looting. The same technology that stirred a crowd to act foolishly will be used, in the end, to bring justice.
Technology is not a passive force in our world, culture or social constructs.
great point that such use of social meadia is not passive. (curious aside: I wonder if you think social media is amoral until used?) I think we quickly buy the lie that the one filming it is not a part of it. we forget to step back from the screen and imagine the camera person on the scene gawking (i.e. “raising awareness”). and what if we step even further back and imagine ourselves enabling all this? do we share some culpability for watching (i.e. being an intrinsic part of this media-culture)? I’m not sure the answer is to have NO news coverage, but the sensationalization of news-media has all but assured that we don’t already.
I tend to think that all technology is, in itself, amoral but that it’s use can have intended and unintended results. An example would be the telephone or email and how those communication technologies helped shaped culture. The sad part is, as you aptly described, in this form of technology (social media) we, the audience, share culpability in this as well. We are not simply passive observers in all of this (Unlike the myth of Star Trek’s prime directive). Social media is nothing without an audience – however passive they may think or desire to be.
I would argue that news coverage is good and even iReporters can be helpful (interestingly, I think they are promoted because they are economical (cheap) reporting techniques for cash starved 24 hour news channels). The problem is, there is no filter, nor is there the same inherent structured accountability. The challenge with the leveling of power systems that social media helps create is that it also comes with less accountability (as seen in the shame justice you mentioned in your recent blog post). Strangely, in many ways, this technology might move us into more of a shame based culture rather than a guilt based culture.