Two references are cited about the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords: (a) Shootings prompt debate on tenor of political discourse; (b) Guns, anger, politics: A dangerous mix? (Links are offered at the bottom). The trigger of the tragedy is still inconclusive but a majority of people believe it happened due to the murderer’s ill mentality (See the video entitled What was Loughner’s state of mind as shown in the second reference). Before committing the crime, Loughner, the murderer, had posted many strange opinions on an online gaming forum. Those postings showed he resented his life, faced rejection, and searched for purposes. According to Nardi, Schiano, and Gumbrecht (2004), people engage in online activities because of certain purposes. In the case of Loughner, it seems that he attempted to release emotional tension through writing some startling opinions. When he was expressing those unpleasant thoughts, he might be seeking for others’ feedback in the meantime. Regarding what mentioned above, social media, the online gaming forum for example, bridge an individual and others in the society and make communication happen. However, it did not happen in the case. No one has taken serious action to treat his opinions and stopped the tragedy from happening. Krishnamurthy (2002, as cited in Herring, Scheidt, Bonus, and Wright, 2004) held that people were usually attracted by most insightful or controversial posts and commented on them. Loughner’s posts were extremely controversial, but why his posts did not get too much attention?
The situation probably could be explained in terms of the purpose of using social media. On the basis of Boyd and Ellison’s study (2007), people used social network sites (SNSs) more for keeping contact with someone they had already known than for interacting with strangers. Loughner, described as an isolated person, might not be a friend of other users in that online forum; therefore, those people did not seriously care about his deranged opinions because they cared more about what their friends said. After the tragedy happened, the public has intensively debating on what caused the whole thing to happen and what should the Americans do in the next step (See the first reference). In brief, there are four main concerns raised in the debate.
1. The medical system of taking care of the mentally ill should be reexamined. Reportedly, Loughner had mental problems while he was in the college and was asked to get a mental health evaluation to prove he was not dangerous. However, it is a common but inefficient solution.
2. The gun laws should be reexamined. It is dangerous that mentally-ill people, like Loughner, could easily purchase a gun. A foreign journalist even questioned whether the “surplus” freedom an American possesses boosts the prevalence of gun possession (See the video entitled Journalist questions US gun laws as shown in the second reference).
3. Someone’s opinion influences others through social media. Some people thought that politicians and celebrities should be careful when expressing their opinions, especially in the social media-booming age. Sarah Palin’s “Don't retreat, reload” to her followers and Sheriff Dupnik and his opponents’ debate are all the evidence. Moreover, their opinions when broadcasted through media will be somehow “inauthentic”, which means messages will be delivered in a certain way to satisfy certain purposes or needs, so what the audience receives may be different from the speaker’s original intention to a certain degree. Carol (2007) warned the fine line between facts and fictions when the news is something else in disguise. The politicians’ and celebrities’ opinions, after delivered by media, have different interpretations in the audience’s mind, which can be dangerous to the mentally ill. They are incapable of differentiating dreams and reality; as a result, they could be affected by the somehow inauthentic news and take violent action to it.
In my mind, social computing is a behavior of engaging in online activities for purposes. Among a variety of purposes, maintaining the relationship between an individual and people who he knows is essential. It can be a good tool for people to release their emotions and get feedback from their friends and to easily get together and discuss some important social issues. Nonetheless, it can be harmful if someone manipulates the tool to spread destructive opinions and unfortunately some fragile minds get screwed.
References:
1. Shootings prompt debate on tenor of political discourse http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/10/arizona.shooting.views/index.html?iref=allsearch
2. Guns, anger, politics: A dangerous mix? http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/01/14/mann.giffords/index.html?iref=allsearch
I think you really make a good point by saying the celebrities, politicians and other famous people should be more responsible about how they express themselves. This has become even more important since everyone can make their thoughts know without the filter of the media, by simply posting on Twitter of Facebook. Of course everyone who posts in a blog or social forum should apply some kind of responsibility to what they say, but it's even more important that those who might be read or hear by a large number of people do so.
ReplyDeleteThe case of Sarah Palin's aggressive rhetoric is a good example of how the uncontrolled openness of social media can go wrong. While she is not responsible for anything her readers do, she should be aware that there are people out there, mentally disturbed or not, who could take her word in a very literal and serious way.
Your entry brings up a lot of good points. It is true that simply one psych evaluation would not be enough to protect other students from such acts of violence, it's extremely difficult to predict these kinds of things. It seems he was desperately trying to seek feedback for his views on these SNSs, but whatever he wrote made absolutely no sense. This country could definitely use stricter gun laws, especially since guns seem to be used for more aggressive means anyway, as opposed to self-defense.
ReplyDeleteSeveral good points here, including how some media messages are "inauthentic" depending on their source, but one phrase I keep coming back to is at the end of your post: "spread destructive opinions." In many countries and at many times, this basic statement has been used to rationalize everything from state media censorship to the persecution of political enemies, and much worse.
ReplyDeleteI like you're bringing out the question why no action was taken to stopped the tragedy from happening. Your assumption of people are not interested of strangers online does make sense, and this can also reflect another problem, which is when people are disseminating messages online, they might not provide real information of themselves. This situation will probably cause a state of distrust in the virtual world, and compares to a state of blind faith, is no good as well.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, I dont think this incident will be the last one in which a violent offender or victim's calls her help or actions will be posted on line.. I imagine this is just the beginning of SNSs and its role in people's lives.
ReplyDeleteHi Julia,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that everyone should be responsible for their opinions expressed online. Although we appreciate freedom of speech, it doesn’t mean we can post any incendiary opinions in the public area, such as SNSs. Celebrities should be very careful about what they said and did. Their behaviors, through social media, are delivered far and quick to many people. Even if they regret saying or doing something, it is often too late to apologize. Those behaviors will be likely affect radical people and immature teenagers to do something wrongly.
Hi Nan,
ReplyDeleteYes, it seems that distrust grows between people as the society progresses and culture advances. The easiness of giving false information in SNSs deteriorates the existing problem. I have watched a comic, in which an old lady was chatting with a kid via the computer. The old lady said, ”I’m 20 years old, studying in a school.” The kid said, “I’m a professor teaching literature in a well-established university.” The comic is a satire, mocking at how fake the cyber world is. Sometimes, we give false information online is because we’ve heard of many victims of phishing and we want to protect ourselves. Again, distrust is like a snowball, which becomes bigger and bigger. A lot of people are affected and react to it, which as a result, boosts distrust and affects others.