As we have discussed over the past five weeks, social media and social networking have revolutionized the way users interact with the internet, other users, companies, advertising, and the offline world. The emergence and explosion of social media has change behavioral patterns for information and ideas exchange dramatically, leaving many traditional media sources shaking in their boots. More and more, individuals and companies have come to rely on information provided via social media for important decisions.
A recent Cambridge Business News article (http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_business/displayarticle.asp?id=423848) discusses one such instance. According to the article, social media is changing the workplace environment, in terms of communications, protocol, and even recruitment. Now, in many cases, employees update their social media posts while at the workplace. While some companies permit such activity during lunch and breaks, others completely block these site. As the article argues, although blocking these sites during work time may encourage a more focused work ethic among employees, it negates the very purpose of many sites like Twitter, which rely on regular updates throughout the day for maximum engagement. Furthermore, many employers now reference potential hires' profiles during the recruitment and interview process to background check potential employees. While sites like LinkedIn are designed for this purpose, sites like Facebook and MySpace might misinform employers. For instance, an employer might find questionable content posted on a potential hire's wall, but perhaps that content was posted by a disgruntled acquaintance seeking to defame the user. An employer might feel concerned that a potential hire's photo albums are littered with party photos, but this content does not necessarily mean the individual lives a wild lifestyle (consider: people tend to take larger volumes of pictures at parties, so naturally, profiles will contain quite a few photos with the classic red Solo cup peeking in the corner). In other words, while social media sites provide some insight into potential employees, employers should take the content with a grain of salt and stick with focused recruitment sites, like LinkedIn.
What I find even more compelling (and perhaps disturbing) than these workplace trends is the emergence of social media content as news. More and more, people turn to blogs, posts, websites, YouTube videos, and even tweets for the latest news. On one hand, these social media sources provide news more instantly than more traditional media or even online newspapers and magazines. Recently, several major newsworthy events have first emerged on Twitter (like the Mexico City earthquake and the results of the Lakers games). On the other hand, these open source technologies essentially empower anyone to become a "journalist" or "reporter," raising credibility and bias issues.
At the same time, while I'm skeptical of Twitter and other social media sites as veritable news, I also wonder how truly trustworthy our traditional news sources are. Television and newspapers often rely on sensationalism to attract and maintain viewers and readers. Flip on the TV during news hours and you're bound to encounter a commercial for the latest BREAKING NEWS that you JUST CAN'T MISS! "Lead Poisoning: The Silent Killer...next, on channel 6" ends up being a two-minute report warning viewers that they might contract lead poisoning...if they drink 6 gallons of tap water a day...and lick their faucet. Every week, mass media seems to change its opinion on whether coffee will kill me or make me immortal. And don't even get me started on swine flu. So, while I'm tempted to criticize those who trust tweets, how truly trustworthy and unbiased are the traditional channels?
That being said, consumers have learned which sources among traditional media tend to provide the most accurate news and which sensationalize in excess (New York Times vs. Daily News; NBC News vs. Fox News). Perhaps the same will evolve as social media develops as a news source, with Twitter "followers" trusting certain users' tweets more than others. In the meantime, I think I'll espouse "trust no one" philosophy. Except maybe the Times, in moderation.
No comments:
Post a Comment