THE algorithm of online apps selects topics or views that conform to what a user frequently browses. So, if posts that are critical of a political leader or celebrity are consistently viewed, there will be more of these views streamed for further enjoyment.
With social media, the cost of posting any news or commentaries on a subject is minimal. (He’s out golfing again.) Online views, unlike column feeds in traditional media, do not undergo any editorial vetting. The influencer invites his viewer to “subscribe” to his posts to increase his tally of followers and allow him to solicit ads for a revenue stream. The count of “followers” is indicated along with the time of posting — the more recent, the better.
Extreme opinions, diatribes, and even foul language, are becoming common, with no need for asterisks to fill in blanks. Only self-censorship is at work here. The comments are not always intended for polite conversation and flout any rules of diplomacy and discretion. The aim is to attack the reputation of the target, especially among former supporters. This category can even be more vicious with themes of betrayal and broken promises.
Repeated denials (this is all fake news.) even threats of filing cases of cyber libel do not really clear the smoke. A violent reaction, including threats of legal prosecution of the critic, is almost routine. This targeting of a particular critic only enhances his appeal and credibility to his followers. He becomes a folk hero of the critics.
The “influencer” posting items on a particular topic finds his audience through the pattern of topic selection. It’s then a continuing stream of similar topics, personalities, and messages that find their way to one who craves more of the same. (Just keep them coming.)
Social media “influencing” is a competitive field. The attention span of even a devout follower can be short. Even a fan can get tired of the same menu warmed over and served again. When the target audience is pre-selected by the app, the choices served to this segment can vary in depth of analysis, tone, presentation of data, and connection to the viewer.
Negative stories are not complete without the unflattering image of abject defeat, a mid-yawn boredom demonstrating aging (he fell asleep again in the middle of a presentation) or even bloated ankles. Video clips showing the target as alert, sympathetic, or even rational and articulate are put aside for the other camp.
Innuendoes of wrongdoing and even corruption tend to bank on the truism that where there’s smoke, there’s fire. Using smoke as a weapon of negative perception — creating a thick haze of innuendoes and guilt by association, eventually deprives the target of oxygen.
Should the target dismiss the smoke with charges of a smear campaign mounted by his critics or disenchanted supporters? Are these old allegations being recycled at this time which have already been answered. (I have already been cleared of these charges.) Such knee-jerk reactions are expected by the smoke belchers and they do little to clear the air.
In the contest between those who puff up their clients with favorable posts and imagined successes even in contests that did not take place versus those who follow the news and the missteps and outright disasters encountered, the critics get more traction. And usually, polls on net unfavorable ratings support the bashers.
Somehow, those puffing up the image of a high-profile personality are presumed to be professionally employed by the subject. These may include formally designated defenders of the besieged leader like a spokesperson that has even acquired the bullying tactics of the master with personal attacks on those who bring up uncomfortable questions. These defenders resort to personal name-calling of anyone who brings up a difficult question in the open forum.
There are designated places for smoking that are intended to isolate the smoker from polluting the surroundings and disturbing the equanimity of non-smokers. The besieged person in authority simply deletes critics from the invitation list.
Is it possible that those who smoke out high-profile personalities are providing a public service? Anyway, where there’s smoke, there’s bound to be a fire. Sometimes, it burns itself out.
Tony Samson is chairman and CEO of TOUCH xda.
