The Watertown Public Opinion tries just a little too hard to denigrate online text. In April, their editorial board exaggerated the problems and downplayed the benefits of moving public notices online. This month, they blast Sarah Palin's self-serving, question-dodging propaganda but then twist that very reasonable criticism into a knock on social media:
Using the media to create a sense of anticipation and an air of mystery only provided more attention for the former governor of Alaska and GOP vice presidential candidate. And by answering few, if any, questions from the media she's using her social network sites to control not only the message but the medium. Like it or not, that's part of the world we live in. The problem is, however, you only get one side of a candidate - the sanitized version he or she wants the public to see. There is no give and take, no back and forth by objective parties not affiliated with the politician's camp [editorial, "Social Media Is Not Enough for Voters," Watertown Public Opinion, 2011.05.31].
WPO identifies some valid concerns. But the problems aren't with social media; they're with Palin's use thereof. Palin is choosing to use social media in a very specific way: drive traffic, boost her brand, raise profits. Some voters (and book buyers, and sponsors) will fall for it; others will not (cf. negative favorability ratings in 31 states out of 31 polled).
Palin's manipulative propaganda doesn't indict social media any more than Leni Reifenstahl indicted film. Blogs, Facebook, Twitter, and the rest of the Web can be used for rank propaganda, but they can also be used for rich open discussion by politicians, journalists, and other citizens who aren't afraid of it.
As always, your comments are welcome (see what I mean, WPO?).
I don't think a lot of the Aberdeen paper but the WPO is even worse.
I don't think much of Cory .... but mike is even worse.