THE other night, a retrospective on the Watergate scandal that resulted in the resignation of President Richard Nixon was aired on US television. Among the interesting commentaries was the role that social media could have played in exposing Nixon and his White House cohorts much sooner, had the Internet phenomenon been available at the time.
Indeed, not one but several Deep Throats could have supplied the intrepid Washington Post reporters, Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, with leads and insider information, and the case could have been blown wide open sooner.
In a more recent incident, the speedy identification of the Boston marathon bombers was due in large part to the participation of the online community, tweeting and posting leads and photographs of possible culprits that, eventually, included the brothers, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.
But the involvement of part-time online detectives also resulted in harrowing experiences for some people on whom the shadow of suspicion had been inadvertently cast.
When the social media phenomenon was just beginning to gain popularity, I suggested that an effective deterrent to official shenanigans would be posting online instances of violations of law and abuse of authority and the perks of public office. Official vehicles being unofficially used. BIR and Customs agents splurging in nightclubs and living the lifestyle of the profligate rich. Mulcting cops. Civil servants demanding bribes. And public officials with their Number One-A or Number One-B.
Apparently, the omnipresent cellular phone camera has made wayward public personalities more careful about being caught in situations difficult to explain to their constituents or their better halves. But, like the well-meaning tweets and postings that contributed to the apprehension of the Boston terrorist suspects while putting others in jeopardy, overenthusiastic online transmissions can make some innocent folks victims of undeserved notoriety.
And then, too, there is the reality of social media being used for disinformation and for willfully destroying reputations, as well as for shaping perceptions and attitudes towards companies, products and individuals, especially candidates for public office.
Welcome to the new disinformation battleground.
No one will ever admit it, but in dimly-lit rooms of corporate offices, marketing firms, advertising and PR agencies and, of course, government offices, along with legitimate online research specialists, there are Department of Dirty Tricks (DDT) operatives, manning computers, monitoring news and activities in cyberspace and feeding calibrated messages into the World Wide Web.
In an informal focus group discussion that I conducted among young Filipino Americans in California, the respondents confirmed unanimously that they had learned to depend more and more on the Internet for breaking news and to look for products, service providers, shopping, dining and entertainment options. The same held true for communicating with relatives, friends and peers, exchanging views and airing opinions. Doubtless, that trend also applies to the Philippines, limited only by the extent of ownership of digital devices.
The threats caused by the ease with which stories, photographs and videos can be fed online, are exacerbated by the lack of oversight on materials posted. On the other hand, the attempt by Tito Sotto and other vengeful members of the Senate to impose legal sanctions on the cyber citizenry has, fortunately, been blocked. That “solution” to a perceived problem could have created even more serious problems, among them, the curtailment of the freedom of speech.
I would be the last one to suggest another try at online oversight by our lawmakers, even if ostensibly benign. The enforcement of regulations has a way of being carried to extremes by overzealous or malicious gatekeepers. But, it has to be admitted that a substantial percentage of verbiage fed online constitute propaganda and disinformation.
What are the possible consequences of this freewheeling use and abuse of cyberspace, particularly in social media? Are the tweets and postings really bending the minds of social media habitués? Does pouring on praise and going haywire with slander really result in creating the desired perceptions and attitudes among intended communications targets?
My own gut reaction, frankly, has been to be skeptical about any overdose of praise or personal attacks. I have gotten similar feedback from many others who follow the postings on Facebook and the comments on the columns in online editions of Manila newspapers.
In the first place, certain pseudonyms become familiar after a while, and their commentaries become predictable. These people are obviously propagandists or DDT specialists. Lacking credibility, their attempts at image building or disinformation are a waste of time and effort, with their employers throwing good money after bad.
Unfortunately, it’s not just the employers of these online operators who are negatively affected. The publications that do not moderate the trash posted along with their online editorial materials are, quite likely, being negatively affected as well.
To put it bluntly, if an online publication tolerates kababuyan and kabastusan, it runs the risk of being perceived as baboy and bastos. It shouldn’t take Tito Sotto to put that point across.
And then, there is the possibility that laying the criticism on too thick may actually have the reverse effect on the intended victim. That is, the victim is soon perceived as an underdog deserving of sympathy rather than of derision.
Applied to the current senatorial contest, the unrelenting attacks on some candidates, ostensibly for being bereft of qualifications or proper moral standing, may unwittingly be creating tremendous awareness for them. And in a very crowded field, top-of-mind awareness, even if ostensibly negative, could be as good as gold.
There is also the possibility that those who love to post their wisdom online may actually be seen as belonging to another planet, estranged from the down-to-earth world of the masses.
I’m reminded of the time Joseph Estrada ran for vice-president. I spotted him and Reli German in a corner of Kamayan Restaurant in Makati, downing drinks and throwing “Erap Jokes” at each other.
To the uninitiated, the jokes all sounded derogatory to Erap, making fun of his English and his intellect. Well, guess what? Those “pejoratives” served to endear him to the masses, resulting in his election to the vice-presidency and, subsequently, the presidency.
The bottom-line: Waging war in the new disinformation battleground is harder than one might think.
* * *
Email [email protected].
