The former Irish Times editor, Conor Brady, has made a contribution to the seemingly unending debate about the differences between mainstream and social media.
Given his veteran journalist status and newspaper background, it may be no surprise that he finds some social media output to be unacceptable.
In fairness to Brady, I don’t think the headline to his column, in the Irish edition of the Sunday Times, “Trust and respect for the media are being bruised by the hunger for hits”, reflected his central concerns about arguments raised at a women in media conference and at a Boston College conference.
But he did make make much of an alleged “drift to desensitisation, coarseness even, as the boundaries between conventional media and ‘social’ media break down”. Note those redundant apostrophes, with more to come. He wrote:
“It was shocking to hear [at the women in media event] speaker after speaker describe the offensiveness and abusiveness they encounter on social media and the sense of helplessness at being unable to prevent it or respond effectively.
At the same time, it was striking to hear so much emphasis from editors and journalists working in social media on the speed of their responsiveness as well as the volumes of ‘hits’ and ‘impressions’ they rack up, but with little focus on the value or the importance of what is being said.
News is increasingly about the instant and the urgent, and not so much about the important or the enduring.
In this climate it is inevitable there will be poor judgment calls, with perhaps unintended hurt and sometimes unfair characterisation of people and organisations that come into the news agenda.
And it is not possible to ring-fence these new media in such a way that they don’t influence more traditional media. All, from newspapers to radio programmes to television stations, are finding themselves caught up in the whirlwind that demands instant reaction, allowing virtually no time for reflection or application of critical judgment...
The internet and social media cannot be uninvented. However, if journalists and programme-makers allow the urgent and the trivial to drive out the important, and if they frequently sacrifice judgment to speed, there will be a breakdown in trust and respect for the media.”
I would guess that some critics of the mainstream press would counter that its questionable ethics - including plenty of “instant reaction”, a failure to apply “critical judgment” and the “unfair characterisation of people” - existed well before the arrival of the internet.
Misbehaviour by newspapers in particular has a long history and all of the sins he visits on social media have featured in countless analyses of ink-on-paper editorial output.
So he may be wide of the mark by blaming digital technology for journalistic misdemeanours. It is pushing it to suggest that mainstream media is being led astray by social media.
That said, he surely has a point about the need for newspapers and TV newsrooms to resist the temptation to react too hastily to online postings.
More importantly, it cannot be denied that Brady is right to point the “offensiveness and abusiveness” encountered by women. That was a major finding of the Guardian’s recent series about online harassment.
I may be unduly naive in thinking that it will, eventually, die down. That is not to say we should turn a blind eye to the phenomenon. It is vitally important to highlight the abuses and, where possible, to expose the abusers. Law-breakers must be brought to book.
But we need to put trolling in some kind of historical context, viewing it as an initial, if unacceptable, response to the freedom to shout and scream and swear while maintaining anonymity.
It is the online equivalent of crying “fire, fire” in a crowded cinema when no fire exists. In other words, a misuse of freedom of expression.
I doubt that it will stop entirely but I have a hunch that it will decrease in intensity and, most importantly, its effect will be diminished by a greater understanding by victims of the cowardice that underlies it.
