OK - does it bother anyone other than me that official statements are delivered by twitter.
I don't want or intend this to be political, but a discussion on social media. In Canada today there was a train derailment that caused massive damage. The Prime Minister is quoted in the news in the following way:
Prime Minister Stephen Harper made an initial statement via Twitter: "Thoughts & prayers are with those impacted in Lac Megantic. Horrible news."
Now I don't care whether is the PM of Canada, POTUS, Pres of a multi-national corporation, or the mayor of Mt. Crawford, VA - there has to be a better and more correct way to make important, serious statements other than twitter.
Your thoughts of comments?
> Now I don't care whether is the PM of Canada, POTUS, Pres of a multi-national corporation, or the mayor of Mt. Crawford, VA - there has to be a better and more correct way to make important, serious statements other than twitter.
Social media isn't just a toy -- there are a lot of people for whom SM platforms are primary communications tools. While I wouldn't expect the Canadian PM's Twitter response to be the only means of addressing the matter, I don't find it inappropriate.
politics and public media
By the middle of the last century radio had become a powerful tool to talk to the masses in real time. I believe Franklin Roosevelt was the first POTUS to appear on tv, but I don't think it was a political maneuver; very few folks down here on the farm probably watched it. The next couple of presidents made appearances as tv came into its own.
The power of public media became apparent when JFK and RMN debated on the tube and poor ol' Nixon sweated like a hooker in church. JFK was cool as a cucumber and sailed on into history. Point is, public media IS a viable tool to reach the masses and carry political messages.
I don't tweet, probably never will. But like it or not it's effective. That's probably what counts.
Dave-
Being married (happily) to a Sassanach, I'm 'up' on British lingua franca and 'twit' set out in the Free Dictionary is:
twit2
n
Informal chiefly Brit a foolish or stupid person; idiot
[from twit1 (originally in the sense: a person given to twitting)]
'Nuff said ?
Derek
What hath God wrought?
No problem at all even though I do not have a twitter account,
It is for others rather than myself and I see it as a 21st century version of the telegraph. I choose not to participate but do not think that others should be restricted.
Yikes, even the Pope besides politicians tweet!
They are just using social media to express their thoughts
[flash width=560 height=315]//www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/pkafFxtc8A8?hl=en_US&version=3&rel=0[/flash]
>there has to be a better and more correct way to make important, serious statements other than twitter.
Chicken or Egg? The making of important serious statements is driven by the technology to disseminate them. It's a byproduct of the ________ (internet/social media/24 hour news cycle...fill in the blank) that you expect a statement from a politician after a train derailment in the first place.
[sarcasm]Emperor Titus made an initial statement via messengers dispatched along the cursus publicus : "Thoughts & prayers are with those impacted in Pompeii. Horrible news."[/sarcasm]
And now for something completely different
Brit twits:
[flash width=420 height=315]//www.youtube.com/v/k5ba1OKY7Xc?version=3&hl=en_US[/flash]
> The making of important serious statements is driven by the technology to disseminate them. It's a byproduct of the ________ (internet/social media/24 hour news cycle...fill in the blank) that you expect a statement from a politician after a train derailment in the first place.
And the politician, ever seeking to maximize popularity in the run-up to the next election, feels obligated to meet that expectation. The politician also knows the vote of the person who expects that statement to come via a tweet counts just as much as the vote of the person who thinks twitter is frivolous.
It's modern communications.....technology improvements move faster than most expect, especially old geezers like us. I suspect there are young people out there right now that have no idea what a land line is.
As more and more people enter the "twitter" realm, it makes sense to offer official statements using that media. After all, what percentage of the population now has access to a twitter feed? Perhaps part of your reaction is due to the silly sounding name "twitter". Doesn't seem (to our generation) to a a serious communications option. Yet, my wife and I found out about the death of Osama bin Ladin by sitting next to someone using twitter.
In a similar vein, my wife and I find that it is more efficient to send text messages to our nieces and nephews.......they answer a text almost immediately, but a voice mail or even and e-mail may not get a response for hours, or even days.
When you go to a movie or a Broadway show, nearly everyone is on their device, right up until the moment the auditorium goes dark (and the rude ones stay on even longer).
Those of us in our 60's, 50's, 40's, didn't grow up with so many types of communication options, so it seems odd. However, I'd be willing to bet that the twitter feed of the Canadian PM reached more people than a news conference would have.
> ..... the twitter feed of the Canadian PM reached more people than a news conference would have.
And it did it instantly; how long would have a news conference taken, to set up and broadcast?
Look back and see the oldest generation complaining the most, about new technology, ideas. Historically, it hasn't done them any good; time and technology marches on.
Lately, the complaining hasn't done much good. Technology and new ideas are growing faster than most can keep up with. Is that a good thing? I hope so; only time will tell.
Did you ever read the book: "Fahrenheit 451"?
>Technology and new ideas are growing faster than most can keep up with. Is that a good thing?
"Technological change is neither additive nor subtractive. It is ecological. I mean 'ecological' in the same sense as the word is used by environmental scientists. One significant change generates total change. If you remove the caterpillars from a given habitat, you are not left with the same environment minus caterpillars: you have a new environment, and you have reconstituted the conditions of survival; the same is true if you add caterpillars to an environment that has had none.
This is how the ecology of media works as well. A new technology does not add or subtract something. It changes everything. In the year 1500, fifty years after the printing press was invented, we did not have old Europe plus the printing press. We had a different Europe. After television, the United States was not America plus television; television gave a new coloration to every political campaign, to every home, to every school, to every church, to every industry. And that is why the competition among media is so fierce. Surrounding every technology are institutions whose organization -- not to mention their reason for being -- reflects the world-view promoted by the technology.
Therefore, when an old technology is assaulted by a new one, institutions are threatened. When institutions are threatened, a culture finds itself in crisis. This is serious business, which is why we learn nothing when educators ask, Will students learn mathematics better by computers than by textbooks? Or when businessmen ask, Through which medium can we sell more products? Or when preachers ask, Can we reach more people through television than through radio? Or when politicians ask, How effective are messages sent through different media? Such questions have an immediate practical value to those who ask them, but they are diversionary. They direct our attention away from the serious social, intellectual, and institutional crises that new media foster."
-Neil Postman "Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology"
