|
“Social media is full of people that can sport toxic behaviour in everyone but themselves. The world doesn’t need more critics, it needs more self-awareness.”
— podcaster Steven Bartlett
Toxic social media content is increasingly becoming news. Is it time for news organizations to “just say no”?
The Macro
My heart fell twice when I read the story about how the stars of the wildly popular Canadian TV show Heated Rivalry were being tormented by online hate.
I was heartbroken that, once again, online trolls would take something so positive and successful and drag it down into the muck of social media. I was also heartbroken that cast members of the show decided to issue a statement about it.
On March 6, lead actors Hudson Williams and Francois Arnaud posted Instagram messages condemning hateful posts. “Don’t call yourself a fan if you share racist / homophobic / biphobic / misogynist / ageist / ableist / parasocial / bigoted comments of any kind. None of us need your hateful ‘love.’”
Actors Francois Arnaud, left, and Hudson Williams, centre, in “Heated Rivalry.” (Bell Media)
I won’t go over what was said on social media, but Williams and Arnaud were not exaggerating about the ugliness of the content. It was 100 per cent repulsive. I will, however, express my dismay that Williams and Hudson took the bait.
There is nothing in this world that is objectively beautiful, constructive or innocent that cannot be perverted by social media. So, when the stars of a viral television program speak out against online hate — which they are absolutely entitled to do — that’s absolutely newsworthy. However, it’s also a huge contribution to social media’s toxic feedback loop.
In journalism, the feedback loop occurs when journalists use toxic social media posts as a hook for a story. By repeating the toxic content, journalists are drawing more attention to it, which increases the amount of interaction with it online, which expands both the audience and (in most instances) the toxicity.
It was interesting to me that the response by Williams and Arnaud was covered heavily in entertainment news sites but less so in general news sites. My assumption is that editors realized, correctly IMHO, that it was a non-story. For example, this story was not covered by the Free Press, the Guardian or the New York Times.
It was, however, the subject of a column in the Toronto Star. A March 24 commentary by Sima Shakeri denounced those who wanted to use the story to promote hatred. But here’s the rub — even as the opinion writer was using this as a hook for a column, she also noted the content was the result of a “vocal minority of the show’s audience.”
You may believe hatred should be called out in every instance. I agree, but I also know that journalists cannot ignore how our efforts can promote or amplify the very things we are denouncing. Simply put, there are times when we have to demonstrate the discipline to just say “no.”
The awful truth is the fact social media is a petri dish for toxicity is not particularly newsworthy anymore. Social media companies have done a pathetic job at policing content, largely because the worst-of-the-worst content drives engagement. (Although, recent court decisions found Meta — the parent company of Facebook and Instagram — guilty of deliberately designing their platforms to be addictive, may force social media companies to find ways to be more accountable.)
Advertisement
 
Second, using social media content either as a hook or an add to a news story is lazy, irresponsible journalism.
Before social media provided us with a constantly flowing stream of online effluent, we often used “streeters” to augment our stories. This is where we send an unfortunate reporter out to stand on a street corner and ask random people for their opinion on a specific issue. I know why we do streeters, but I also believe it’s an incredibly lazy way of covering the news.
Is there news value in a single, random opinion? No. Just as there is no news value in random opinions expressed online. With streeters and social media posts, there is no way to gauge the true size of any constituency. This is particularly true online, where the sheer number of likes, dislikes, shares or reposts is not an accurate metric for measuring public opinion. Bots and the feedback loop ensure that all audiences on social media appear bigger than they really are.
I hate the fact that alleged fans of Heated Rivalry were subjected to any form of hate and abuse online. However, I also hope the two actors, and others involved with the show, see the online hate as not representative of the larger audience that loves the show for what it is.
We should never tolerate or ignore hate. But we should also be careful not to inadvertently fan its flame.
|
