Since the media was first established, newspapers, television broadcasts, magazines, and radio have been a driving force behind spreading information, creating dialogue, and guiding the conversation of important topics. These media services played an essential role in public perception of important issues and therefore supported democracy. However, what these media outlets could not provide was an open conversation between the powers that be, such as government officials and the regular public. However, once social media came along, everything changed. What started out as a way to communicate with friends and family turned into the go-to source for information and conversation. Social media outlets such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram created a way for ordinary people to establish a voice and challenge the status quo. With that being said, the driving force behind social media is engagement. Without that, user engagement social media would just be another form of media.
Social media engages communications in a number of ways. Social media platforms such as Twitter and Instagram give a voice to the people who otherwise would not have a voice. This gives an insider glimpse to understand how the public actually feels on issues retaining to education, politics, and world views. Social media also allows the people to challenge what mainstream media is putting out in the world and, therefore, could act as a defense in misinformation. Social media also allows groups of like-minded individuals to build online communities with people from all over the world where they can share ideas, fight for causes, and provoke change. As Jessica Clark and Patricia Aufderheide (2011) explain in a new vision for public media, “these projects have provided a platform for people to meet, learn, exchange information, and discuss solutions. They have found each other and exchanged information on an issue in which they all see themselves as having a stake. In some cases, they take action based on this transformative act of communication” (P. 59).
However, social media positively engaging communications is not inclusive because it also challenges communications. Social media challenges communications because the dialogue can become diluted. With so many voices having an opinion and creating content can lead to misinformation. Yes, it is beneficial to challenge mainstream media and public officials with a voice of the public, but it is essential to have the ability to decipher between what is right and what is wrong. Just as people can create online communities to spread ideas and promote positive change, groups based on misinformation can form. Therefore, the biggest challenge to communications and conversations is the threat of influence and misinformation.
In the YouTube video provided, Markiel Simpson, a community organizer for Black Lives Matter and antiracist movements in British Columbia, heavily relies on social media engagement to turn his network into a campaign.
Simpson believes that networking is the most significant aspect of his plan. Once he establishes a network within a social media platform such as Twitter, his ideas take on a course of their own and essentially do the work for him. For example, once he established a network of supporters, all he had to do was create content or start a conversation, and Twitter would do the rest. His followers would either engage and debate among themselves, or they would retweet his ideas. When his followers retweet his ideas, their followers who may not even know who Simpson is become exposed to his ideas and therefore can contribute to the conversation.
To invoke change, he also stressed the importance of hashtags and creating a call to action. Adding a specific hashtag to an idea or conversation allowed that information to get shared easily. He also made a point to make posts pertaining to different people. You do not want to alienate a certain group, whether that be education officials, social justice advocates, or political leaders. He explained that messages should vary with different ideas in order to reach many groups to form allies and spread ideas.
Simpson also believes that social media platforms will continue to change, but it is essential to continue conversations of thought-provoking ideas. In his opinion, the best way to significant change is through social media. However, he stresses that people of power must make a stronger effort to engage with the public and bridge the gap between elected officials and grassroots movements.
References
Clark, J.& Aufderheide, P. (2011). A new vision for public media. Open, Dynamic, and Participator (55-67). Palgrave Macmillan.
Miller. (2021 June 1). EDCI – 338 MARKIEL SIMPSON.YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsoDHGaXNNs. Accessed 30 Oct. 2021.
Hi，Chloe. I agree with you that the driving force behind social media is engagement. Without user engagement, social media would be just another form of media. And you make the point that social media is not inclusive because it challenges communication. I like your blog very much.
Hi Chloe,
It is true that media outlets before the conception of social media was limited in matters of creating open conversations between the government and the citizens. I believe that democracy through social media is attained by the public harassing the government. Social media can truly give people a platform to disseminate wrong information for their own gain. You did a good job and I feel that including a title would offer a good direction to the reader.
Hi Chloe, You have written a great blog and I couldn’t agree with you more on this point, however, social media that actively participate in communication is not inclusive because it challenges communication as well. Social media challenges communication because the conversation can be diluted. There are so many voices out there with opinions and creating content can lead to misinformation. I think you realize the downside of it is that often too many voices can cause people to ignore the real voice and be easily misinformed. So we do need to have the ability to distinguish between right and wrong.