I didn't follow this story as it was developing (I caught the initial breaking news, then got sidetracked and didn't follow up on it), so I missed out on all of the real-time discussion that took place as details about the event slowly made their way out to the public. By the time I started researching about the details of what happened, I had to sort through dozens of news stories presenting incomplete facets or abbreviated descriptions of the story, as, like with all news, the information had progressed enough to be treated as common knowledge, but had yet to grow old enough for only the most relevant news articles to survive. As such, after reading a few articles that gave incomplete or abbreviated pictures of the event, I mulled over my options on how to proceed, then decided to use everyone's favorite (un)reliable source, Wikipedia, to get a baseline view on the events that transpired.
While reading the Wikipedia article about Jared Loughner (in addition to the related pages about Gabrielle Giffords and the shooting event), I couldn't help but think about how the information I was currently viewing was exactly the type that Tenopir had expressed concern about in her article, Online Databases-Web 2.0: Our Cultural Downfall? While it is generally known that Wikipedia is editable by anyone and can often contain false information, people still refer to it as a convenient amalgamated source for personal research (as I did). As such, her concern about people growing to rely upon the unreliable products of the social media over traditional expert sources is a legitimate one. In addition, one of the byproducts of the rise of social media is that news reporters are not just competing with one another, but also with dozens, perhaps hundreds or even thousands of amateur reporters, to be the first one with the latest information. This can lead to embarrassing miscues in the race to be first, such as the early report by National Public Radio (and others) that stated that Gabrielle Giffords was dead, when she wasn't. While there can be advantages to allowing anyone to be a source of news, as more information is never bad, it is never a good thing when false information is treated as truth.
While reading all of the information about Loughner (cross-referencing Wikipedia links with more reliable sources), they all paint a unified picture of a steady descent from normalcy into psychosis. (The New York Times portrays a fairly detailed timeline of the events in his life, found here.) Throughout the information, it is evident that he was clearly disturbed, as many of his ideas could be described as inhumane and outlandish. A question that can be asked is, why was nothing done about this obviously disturbed man beforehand? By reading Dibble's article, A Rape in Cyberspace, a possible explanation can be found. In this story, several people are harassed by a user who performs actions which, if they occurred in the real world, would be met with public disproval and harsh punishment. However, in the virtual world, people see things differently. While some people felt that the virtual crime should be treated as harshly as it would be in the real world, others felt that a person's actions online were of minor significance and people should regard such crimes with indifference, as the person obviously was doing it simply to gain attention. In the article, Blogging as Social Activity, or, Would You Let 900 Million People Read Your Diary? by Gumbrecht, Nardi, and Schiano, they interview bloggers that specifically state that they write for the attention, and some further elaborated by stating that, if their writings weren't being read, then it wasn't worth writing at all. In our current society, it seems as if it is hard to distinguish between someone doing something in order to gain attention, and someone who truly is disturbed and needs help.
Social computing is the area in which people interact with one another in a personal way. Referring to Beer and Burrows article, Sociology and, of and in Web 2.0: Some Initial Considerations, they can do this through social networking (Facebook), wikis (Wikipedia), blogs (Blogger), and tagging (short descriptions of photos, posts, etc.). As is the case with anything, people reveal themselves through their actions and words. As the structure of actions in social computing mirror actions in real life, the same positive and negative consequences that result from real life actions can occur in similar magnitude from actions taken online. The primary difference between the two is the scale of interaction.
I figure I'll be the first one to comment on this, since, as you'll see when you read it, it's a bit rough. I don't have a regular blog, nor am I a regular poster on Facebook or anything similar, so I'm a bit out of practice when it comes to the natural flow of writing these.
ReplyDeleteAs I didn't follow this story as it was happening, all I could think about while writing this was about the similar shootings that took place in "recent" memory, specifically Columbine and VT. All involving a young, disturbed male (or males) who, for whatever reason, finally had enough and decided that they needed to carry out their version of justice. I'm not sure how similar the three cases are, if the only similarities they share are what I just said. I don't remember my original thoughts on the matter, as I was quite young at the time and it has been a few years since then. All I know is that I have a feeling of cynicism when thinking about related events, and it makes it hard to write about them.
In preparing for this session I also read the New York Times piece and other accounts of Loughner's life. You mention that his ideas were inhuman and outlandish and that something should have been done, but it's difficult to imagine what and when. If we as a society say it's not okay for young people to have dangerous antisocial ideas, who makes that determination? If we say the problem is posting such ideas publicly, who's to say whether people are posting what they truly believe, or just posting to gain attention?
ReplyDeleteI also echo the comment you posted about similar cases of young men committing murder and other crimes to attack what they feel are injustices. The extent to which having these 'role models,' and an audience via social and traditional media, encourages or discourages future crimes may be impossible to know.
Thanks for posting the NYT timeline link. In hindsight of course we can see that he was unstable, but even if a detailed article like that was given to his school or the police the day before the shooting I doubt they could have done anything. Unfortunately we can't follow up on every extremist with a troubled past and a gun.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious about the difference between posting what you believe and posting for attention. I have nothing to base this on but my own opinion, but if somebody is already desperate enough for attention to think that the only way they can get it is by posting potentially violent rants online, what happens if that doesn't work? What happens when they are ignored or rejected online? How far of a leap is it for them to realize that only actual, physical violence will get them the attention they need?
Obviously not everyone will take that step, but I think the line between attention-craving and dangerous is pretty fuzzy.
You mentioned the concern about the reliability of information posted on the internet on sites like the internet. I also was very concerned with this as there was a lot of false reports when the story was just breaking. I think a combination of the quick spread of the information and the "telephone game" nature of sharing the story with friends combined to cause a lot of the false reports. While everything we read from "non-experts" can not be taken as fact, I feel there is still a lot of value in the power of social networks in spreading information.
ReplyDelete