An NPR story on moms gone wild - er, mothers Twittering offers an interesting slice of mild internet anxiety.
The article smacks at cyberculture with passages like this:
Who is telling the truth and what can you believe in the echo chamber that is the Internet?
First, notice the shocked sense of discovery, the avoidance of any sense that anyone else has ever worried about this. This appears as a noteworthy observation. Second, observe the total condemnation of the net: "the echo chamber that is the Internet." It's a blithe assessment bereft of nuance, much less realism. Imagine an alternative phrasing, "the internet's tendency to sometimes act like a series of echo chambers." Or describing another medium: "the echo chamber that is tv news," "the echo chamber that is political book publishing."
Linton Weeks' condescension then descends to specific technologies:
Twitter lives up to its tree-full-of-sparrows name. There's a ditzy quality to the microblogging, a sort of say-whatever-pops-in-your-head capability that is the application's draw and its drawback. It is like thinking aloud in front of strangers. It is a marketing tool and a me-me-me medium.
Ditsy quality, marketing, egotism - Twitter is just lame, isn't it? And that's what Twitterers like about it. Weeks doesn't leave a lot a lot of room for positive uses beyond marketing (it's hard to say if the author's mention of marketing is a condemnation or just neutral description). That entire world, well-documented, accessible, and easily grasped, is absent from this article.
If we read further, the piece carries on with microblogging, narrowing from the Twittersphere entire to the mothering part in particular.
Such is the attention-deficit nature of online mommy blog chatter that, mixed in with the expressions of anguish over Thordora's tweet and suggestions on how to respond on Feelslikehome, are comments about cats, Foodsavers and a nest of baby rabbits.
Mothers who Twitter are not just ditsy, but ADHD-enabled, and a bit obsessed with animals. Is Weeks complaining that Twitter is too cute? And one wonders about the link between ADHD and Foodsavers (is the latter bad, here?). Perhaps it's not a surprise that "Thordora... declined a request by NPR for an interview." Did this cyberphobic, sexist approach come across in the request?
Carrying on, Weeks moves back out to the general Web, riffing on the echo chamber idea, to see the whole thing as exacerbating political badness:
Because social media allow for public commentary, like a town hall debate or a city council meeting, "it fosters increasingly extreme opinions the longer it goes on," says Evans [Psychster Inc.], an effect "which has long been known to make people express radical views."The Web can exacerbate that effect, he says. "The Internet can bring people who post radical actions as much global attention as rare talents or accomplishments, which creates a strong motivator for them to do so." Is this generalization supported by social science? Town hall meetings, at least in Vermont, tend to be mainstreaming rather than radicalizing platforms. We spend most of our time on budgets and details - kinda like what most people use the internet for, actually.
The article concludes by explaining responses to Thordora's tweet in terms of protecting children. To Weeks' credit, he doesn't follow up on that in the classic cyberfear direction.
Overall, why do we still publish this kind of stuff in 2009? Is fearing the internet so deeply ingrained that casual dismissals of it from a first-rank journalism source are to be expected?
(thanks to Ed Webb)
Recent Comments