Mediaboss Marketing

Social networking is fun. It's a great way to get the word out if you're doing a big event, and it may have even replaced the news for breaking stories.

As a country, our citizens are primed and ready to go viral at a moment's notice. We walk around cocked and ready to shoot footage, snap a picture and upload it for the world to see. And here's the best part: We don't have to do any fact checking, we don't have to get permission, we don't have to care whether the thing we witnessed was justice or not. Nope, we just care about it going viral.

I'm not judging any of it, I'm just issuing a note of caution. We might just be handing over a little too much power to the phantoms of social media. I first found out about the Brooks House fire from a Facebook post and I first learned of the death of Phillip Seymour Hoffman from Facebook posts. When Tropical Storm Irene hit, I was able to see the damage it did to surrounding communities via Facebook posts. As someone who covered the event very closely, it honestly made my job a lot easier, so I'm not saying that Facebook doesn't have its place it does. But that place shouldn't be at the head of the table.

Citizen journalism, fantastic. Blogs, wonderful. However, people will often ridicule the actual media for not breaking a story they saw eight days earlier on blogadocious.com (made that up, don't try to find it). You and I as citizens have the freedom of speech thing, so we can say what we want, factual or not. The media, however, does need to do its homework and report accurately. I bring it up, because I think we've forgotten that, because we want it now, true or not and the bloodier the better.

Social media has provided us with that tool to get things awfully bloody in a hurry. But here's my fear as a society we give social media too much power. If we were to use the birther thing as an example, I could tell you that in 1983 the first person that suggested that Barrack Obama wasn't a U.S. citizen would have had to do hard research to prove it, which they would not have been able to do and the story would not have gotten any traction. Fast forward to 2008, and all you have to do is post the question on the Internet and before you know it, it's taking up our valuable time. Then sprinkle on a little social media and citizen journalism (the unregulated kind) with the great unwashed then you have a power-in-numbers situation that won't go away. Power to the post!

On the one hand, it's good, and on the other hand, it's bad. Unfortunately we all lead very busy lives and we need things streamlined for us. With that in mind, if you read something that snaps your head back, then you need to take the time to research it. If a headline grabs your eye that says "Obama presidency causes cancer" and it's posted to a website called rightwinggasbag.com, then don't repost; you're coughing up your power. If you read a headline that says "Obama presidency cures cancer" and it's posted to a website called leftwinggasbag.com, don't repost it again; you're shooting all your power to think it through in the foot. Do the homework and post responsibly.

But then there's the exception that proves the rule. Recently, a woman in New York petitioned the court to file for divorce through Facebook. She had exhausted all traditional methods but, alas, couldn't find her husband. That husband was active on Facebook so she asked the judge if she could serve him papers that way. The judge agreed. Basically, he said to do it three times then he'll grant the divorce either way. I see this as both good and bad. Again I feel as though we're handing over our power and creating a legal precedent, because we're about two legal cases away from changing our relationship status to get divorced. What the hell is up with that?

Fish is the morning talent on Classic Hits 92.7 FM. He also offers up his opinion online at http://www.whatdahell.net. Email him at fish@wk-vt.com.

Read more here:
Fish: The wild, wild west of social media