What is Truth in the Media

Is public argument truth? Does it encompass that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality. Well it would depend on whose reality you wanted to go with. The online article "We are indeed less willing to agree on what constitutes truth" by Clay Shirky addresses Shirky's beliefs that "the Internet allows us to see what other people actually think" and then proceeds to foretell our future.

Can the internet allow us to see what people think? In general I would say yes, people are posting their thoughts, their beliefs, and sometimes their rage. But it really depends, both on the person who is posting (some are good at hiding their thoughts) and on the readers perception (some people can't see their way out of a paper bag).

The internet is truly filled with information. Today you can easily find the average weight of a female chimpanzee, or reviews of restaurants in a nearby town. The amount of factual information that is available to us today at the touch of our fingers is amazing. And even the infamous comment section, be it on youtube, or a news site, can hold gems, great historical debates, a statement that props up your flagging belief in the good of humanity, or just those that reaffirm your belief that society is doomed.

But what of "objective" media in an online world? The truth is that it is still a work in progress. I agree that we can't go back to how it was back in the day of Walter Cronkite. But as I see it we don't yet have a clear view on where we want to go. I don't believe as Shirky does that the new media needs to be "more willing to attack other outlets for ethical lapses in public", but I do believe they need to have a set of ethics. And I believe more and more people are becoming aware of a new need for the people who are making our online news sites or informative blogs to learn to understand information credibility and accept their role as todays journalist with the accompanying journalist ethics (Bartlett).

But will tomorrow's media and news really be a dog eat dog world were only the most factual and ruthless will thrive? I sure hope not.

Resources:

• Bartlett, Jamie. "The Strengths and Weakness of Social Media." Audio blog post. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. University of Oxford, 9 September 2013. http://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/strengths-and-weaknesses-social-media. 19 October 2016.
• Shirky, Clay. "We are indeed less willing to agree on what constitutes truth." The Poynter Institute. 17 October 2012. http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawire/191757/shirky-we-are-indeed-less-willing-to-agree-on-what-constitutes-truth/. Accessed 24 October 2016.

To Speak Online

Have you ever tried to communicate to someone only non-verbally? It is often very frustrating as you're just not understood. And even when they understand your non-verbal answer they'll still try and demand a verbal response. So why do many theorists of the quality of online communication think that the lack of non-verbal cues makes online communication a poor, and maybe detrimental substitute for face-to-face communication?

Let me introduce you to professor Joseph Walther who in 1992 came up with the Social Information Processing Theory. His theory is that people adapt to the restrictions of the online medium by looking for clues in the language people use as well as adapting their emotional and social expressions to the language they have available, although it might take longer (Griffin). Check out this great interview with him on Youtube. I found his thoughts and replies to be well thought out and admired his ability to not get herded somewhere he wasn't intending to go with his theory. He also, when asked about the danger of the internet, said that the internet is like a big city in it's content and diversity, and you should approach it with the same caution as you would a big city (Griffin). A very apt description.

As we more and more use online communication, also known as computer mediated communication (CMC), I believe that it is self evident that people are adapting to learn and create new ways to effectively communicate without the non-verbal component. And despite my earlier comments I do think non-verbal communication is very important, just not absolutely necessary. People are learning all sorts of ways to communicate effectively. There are emoticons as well as the various abbreviated messaging shortcuts, using more direct questions (Child, 118), and even just learning to construct really good sentences and thoughts. The written word has been with us for a long time, and I think it is good to see it evolving into importance again, although we may not always be comfortable with evolution's chosen direction.

Also, look into Walther's Hyperpersonal Model which "has changed the way communication theorists think about CMC" (Child, 119).

References:

• Child, Jeffrey, et al. Experience Communication. McGraw Hill Education, 2014.
• Griffin, Em. "Joseph Walther on Social Information Processing Theory." YouTube, uploaded by A First Look at Communication Theory,29 January 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOXbYj0I1cE.

What We Say Online

It is true that in online social media I have those few friends who choose to go the extra mile in telling bits of their life. From a taste for tasteless but funny memes, to a few paragraphs from a book being written, to someone's personal struggles, to poetic spouting, to intricate word snapshots of the couples one is marrying that day. To be honest it is these people that keep me engaged in social media sites.

In any relationship, whether it is online or in person, you should always be aware of what and how much you are saying. You should understand the repercussions that can happen by giving too much information to the wrong person. And just like you don't talk smack about someone (like say your boss) where the wrong person might overhear, you should be aware that the same is true of the internet. Most sites on the internet are not private and you should never treat them like they are. You need to pay attention and monitor yourself. "Self-monitoring usually makes people more competent communicators because it enables them to see how their behavior fits or doesn’t fit in a given social setting" (Floyd, 27).

But how much is too much? You can read a lot out there saying how social media is not the place for such public disclosers. But I read part of a fascinating article by Alex Lambert who made a case for "public" intimacy. For getting away from the constrained view where intimate relationships only existed in the home or family sphere, and take it back to Aristotle's ethics where intimacy becomes part of your civic interaction, "because a civic order, a “city”, is above all a network of friends" (Lambert 28). I think there is a lot of truth in this statement.

I personally function best with general reciprocity, that is giving with no expectation of an equal or immediate return (which in American culture you supposedly find in families and not much elsewhere). So I post the types of things I would like to know. I will often post short snippets of my day, things I made or did, or bits of philosophical questions. But I am always asking questions about my online posts. Will I be upset if some unknown person finds this out? Will this come back to bite me? Only you can answer these questions for yourself, and yes sometimes you will get it wrong. But that happens in any friendship. And ultimately you have to make the decisions of what parts of your life you will tell.

References:

• Floyd, Kory. Interpersonal Communication. McGraw-Hill Education, 2012.
• Lambert, Alex. Intimacy and Friendship on Facebook. Macmillan Publishers, 2013.