Two Bits – June 6

Social media is, without doubt, a very useful addition to our lives. Love it or hate it, it’s here to stay. It’s fast and useful and all those good things, even if it is replacing good old-fashioned conversation. I wish I’d had a camera on me the other day when I passed a restaurant and saw a table of six youngsters all totally absorbed in texting. They had nothing to say to each other.

In the world of publishing, there are “rules” governing what we print. We follow the code of the Press Council of South Africa (available on the council’s website if you’re interested) and we make a concerted effort to seek both sides of a story, verify information and check facts, as far as possible.

If a reader is unhappy with a Courier report, there are a few courses of action he or she can take: They can simply ask us to make a correction, but if we are not willing to do so for whatever reasons, they can either sue in the civil courts at some expense or lay a complaint with the press ombudsman for free. Then if the ombudsman finds against us, we have to publish a correction and/or apologise.

My point is that when we publish information, it is in our interest to make sure that it is substantially correct, or we can land in hot water. This doesn’t seem to be the case with social media.

On Facebook, Twitter and BBM, people seem to think they can say what they like. No, I stand corrected, they are saying whatever they like.

The level of discussion is not that different from what’s said in a pub between friends after a few jars. Fairly wild, a whole lot inaccurate, but what the heck, it’s just letting off steam. A person who is not present can be maligned and accused of all sorts of things, but what they don’t hear can’t hurt, right?

Well the big difference between chatting in the pub and chatting on Facebook is that the other person can read exactly what has been said about them.

Facebookers/chatroom dwellers say the most outrageous things about other people they would not dare say to their faces, either because it would earn them a punch on the nose or a spell in court.

Celebrities seem to be open game. Why, I don’t know, because they can be hurt as much as you or me. People think they can call Madonna or Beyoncè a slag or say they’ve got a fat arse, but imagine if someone said that about you? (If you’ve asked ‘Does my bum look big in this’ lately, don’t answer!).

But it goes a lot further than insulting celebrities. I came across a discussion about the Urban Improvement Project (UIP) that left my head reeling. People who should know better, but have obviously not absorbed a jot of the volumes of information that has been published about UIP, making simply wrong statements. Then they accuse others by name of supporting the process for underhand reasons, without offering a shred of proof. Well, I suppose in the end they are their own worst enemies – they’re just showing the world that they’re fools.

But whether something appears in a newspaper or is mouthed off on the internet, it still fits the definition of publishing. I predict that it won’t be long before people start approaching the courts to stop this open season on slandering.

* * *

“How long have you been driving without a tail light, buddy?” demanded the policeman.

The driver jumped out, ran to the rear of his car, and gave a low moan. His distress was so great that the cop was moved to ease up on him a bit.

“Aw, come now,” he said, “you don’t have to take it so hard. It isn’t that serious.”

“It isn’t?” cried the motorist. “What happened to my boat and trailer?”