The concept of knowing your audience is one that anyone who
has ever written or spoken publicly has heard. Most people in general have heard it used colloquially
to caution against speaking in a way that could be deemed appropriate in some instances,
but is considered inappropriate in the situation at hand. When digital communication, especially social
media comes into play, “knowing the audience” becomes vastly more
difficult. To simply identify who will
be receiving the communication is not easily established because once you hit
send, the internet has it and it can be infinitely copied and transferred and
moved to different places where the exposure is potentially everyone that
exists and everyone that will ever exist. This is a scary proposition.
It is easy to think that the only way to be safe and ensure
that your communication is appropriate is avoid communicating. I contend that this is a very one-sided
approach to attaching responsibility for communication. In a world in which every communication will
potentially be received by the sum total of humanity, present and future, it is
imperative that the receiver of the communication take some responsibility. First, let me lay the foundation for why.
In the days before digital communication, most communication occurred first-hand, at least on the individual level. If a person was having a conversation, it was likely that he or she was aware of who was the other party. If it was a relative or old friend, then there was an established relationship with defined expectations and a general understanding of what was appropriate and what was not. If something was borderline, or seemed inappropriate, one’s initial reaction might be to question:
-Did I understand that correctly?
-Did the other
party miscommunicate that?
-Am I missing
vital information that might change the context?
Of course, if it was communication with a stranger or with
someone with which there was not such a well-established relationship, the same
such communication might be questioned, but would more likely be taken offense
to and assumptions would be made about the party sending the message.
Communication that was not personal was slightly more
detached. Advertisements on billboards
might send a message that an observer didn’t agree with. That observer would most likely disregard the
message. Perhaps it might be mentioned
to another person in conversation (as an advertisement, it seems like that
might be a good thing), or if the person was horribly offended, perhaps he or
she might contact the advertiser, or choose to not do business with them.
I think where we often see communication problems in today’s
digital world is that we do not properly evaluate whom we are communicating
with, nor how we are communicating. If I
post a message on a social media site, my intent might be to make a statement
that I believe to be true (or satirical, or clever, or humorous) to those that
I communicate with. Often I could
incorrectly evaluate the relationship that I have with even the intended viewers. If we are digitally “connected”, then I might
assume that we have an established relationship. I forget that we have not done the work that
it takes in the real world to forge those levels of understanding. Taking offense will likely happen easily. I also might forget that posting on social
media is not like an in-person utterance, a written note, or a phone call. It is the digital version of the highway
billboard that is seen by everyone that passes.
Here’s where the responsibility of the receiver comes
in. With the billboard example, the
higher the level of response, the greater the effort required. If we hate the message (or perceived message)
and disregard it, no energy is required.
If we talk about it, some energy is required. If we boycott or respond to the owner of the
message, much energy is required. With a
social media post that is absolutely comparable to a billboard, the energy
required to even aggressively respond is not much greater that what it is to
move along. If we responded to the
billboard by placing our own billboard right next to it; That’s social
media.
It's the responsibility of the viewer of social media to ask
the questions we reserve for those to whom we give the benefit of the
doubt. Did I understand that? Not everyone has the same experiential lens
through with to see the world. If I want
to honestly evaluate what a person means and why they are saying a thing, I
must be willing to do the legwork to find out.
It is easy to judge through my lens without having any concept of with whom
I am communicating. Did the other party
miscommunicate that? I value this one
greatly. It is more beneficial to personally
communicate with someone for clarification than it is to immediately assert why
he or she is so wrong. If I do not fully
understand the message, as intended, before I erect my righteous-response
billboard, then I am at fault for any misunderstanding. If the conversation happens via a visible
thread, that’s not me seeking to understand.
That’s me trying to make an example.
I should reach out privately.
Preferably in person. At least on
the phone. Humans can still interact off-line.
Finally, am I missing information that provides context? We live in a world where sources are sited
continually, but rarely verified. In
fact, they are rarely even evaluated.
Every individual has a platform to publish, and are not limited
(greatly) in what can be presented. It
doesn’t have to be true, it doesn’t have to be honest, it doesn’t even have to
be understood. Often, we allow a
headline to serve as our validation as readily as we would an expert
testimony. There is little we can do to
limit what information is put out there, other than to be diligent that we are
not putting out information that we don’t absolutely know to be certain. What we can do is be critical of everything
we see, especially that with which we can easily agree, and we can be certain
to exhaustively scrutinize the information, while giving every effort to fully
understand the person that is sending the message.
Please comment to let me know your thoughts on whether or
not people have different communication expectations online than they do in
real life.
No comments:
Post a Comment