Are you unkind in Social Media?

 The Internet can be both a god and a demon. It serves to link us to people all over the world, to information, networks and social media sites. Unless you've been in a coma for 10 years you know just how vile un-moderated forum or website comments can be. Behind the veil of anonymity the most appalling behaviour takes hold of (I continue to hope it's a minority) disproportionately vocal and vicious people on the Internet.

As we regularly use social media, it's easy to forget that what we post or tweet is instantly and pretty much irretrievably in the public domain. It affects, sometimes immediately - and at other time incrementally, our reputation. Freudian slips, bad jokes, racist overtones, discriminatory comments, injudicious posts or tweets can come back to haunt us. They're there for future clients, customers, employers, friends and others to see. Image is not created only by advertising, marketing and PR. It's very much a result of the direct experience one has of a person or organisation. Yesterday was a reminder for me of just that.

Tanya Kovarsky, (@TanyaKovarsky on twitter) the editor of CLEO magazine in South Africa tweeted the following : 'Yay – Castor (sic) Semenya won. Good for him!' This was re-tweeted almost immediately by Nechama Brodie (@brodiegal). It elicited a series of nudge-nudge, wink-wink little jibes on Kovarsky's public timeline.

I replied on twitter by saying: 'Utterly disgusted by CLEO mag editor @TanyaKovarsky referring 2 Caster Semenya as 'he' and getting name spelling wrong.' As a magazine editor she cannot possibly be unaware of the deep embarrassment and emotional pain that Caster Semenya's had to endure over the last year as a result of her gender status being under international scrutiny. So for someone in the publishing industry and an editor to boot to make a statement like this is simply beyond the pale. For Brodie to re-tweet it when she's a business woman and regularly published feature and article writer is equally unacceptable. When people have access to media, they wield power. That power must I believe be exercised judiciously and with respect. Both Kovarsky and Brodie are involved with publications and businesses. There's no dividing line between what a brand-custodian says and the reputation of the organisation they own or represent. They're like Siamese twins.

Kovarsky claimed 'it was a typo', and implied I was taking her too seriously (the 'joke' cop-out). Yes, 'Castor' may have been a typo. But 'him' instead of 'her' ain't a typo. It was an inexcusable cheap shot in a public forum. My opinion is vindicated in that despite Kovarsky's posturing, bluster and bravado she went to the considerable trouble of deleting the tweet from her public timeline.

If it had in fact been a genuine error, a simple, 'Oops, sorry' and a correction would have let the matter go away. But Kovarsky and Brodie then bandied about a series of tweets with Kovarsky using the word 'test' (on spelling Caster's name) and having a personal go at me. A further demonstration of juvenile, socially unskilled, emotionally unintelligent, insensitive behaviour.

My final point is this. Both of these women are evidently Jewish. Coming from a tradition and a history in which their forebears might have been killed simply for being 'different' I would expect a higher level of sensitivity on matters like this. Yes, the anti-Semitic card will be played as it always is (it already has been obliquely used on twitter). I'm cool with that. The issue of using the 'Jewish' word and being vilified for it really doesn't trouble me.

Storm in a teacup? I don't think so. I believe it flags the dangers of thoughtless and painful jibes, jeers and discriminatory comments on the Internet. I also wonder if either woman would be proud to use this behaviour as an example for children?

 

Comments

[jacki janse van rensburg]

i often see people being very mean, personal and vindictive about people in the public eye. people like paris hilton, britney spears, julius malema,jeremy mansfield etc. even you and i. the same person would never talk that way about people they know, or even about that person if they were to meet face to face.

if we were to know caster semenya personally, we would never say the things about her that we would tweet/say about her now.

i think it is because we think we know that person. they share their lives with us, after all. but we don't see their pain, their struggle, their insecurities. i know if i am mean to my mother or brother or child, it would hurt, because i can see that. but i can joke about someone public, and i don't see the hurt, so that makes it ok.

the internet is especially open for that, because it is easy to write mean things when we don't see the hurt it causes. because it is written, it is worse, because it doesn't go away.

[Carl]

"...it is easy to write mean things when we don't see the hurt it causes. because it is written, it is worse, because it doesn't go away."

And that's precisely what you're guilty of here. There was an error of judgement and you react in a completely disproportionate manner in this mean-spirited blog posting with the intention of humiliating these two women. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Clive Simpkins]

Hey Carl. Intention not 'to humiliate these two women' as you put it but to invite them and others like them to think before humiliating those who can't fight back. They didn't make an 'error of judgement'. Stop with the euphemisms already. These are seasoned wordsmiths and experienced business women.

[Roy Blumenthal]

Hiya Clive...

Yup. I agree with you.

And at the same time as agreeing with you, I have to admit to my own cheap Caster jokes.

I think it's EASY to take cheap shots for the immediate laugh.

A sharp mind finds it easy to find jokes in all sorts of terrible areas. A sharp STUPID mind commits those jokes to the public arena.

Having said these things... there are other factors at play. Caster is a public figure. Caster KNOWS who Caster is. She knows about her own hermaphroditic issues. It's not as though she's some innocent who just HAPPENS to have been outed without her even knowing there was anything different.

So when people make Caster jokes, there's a chance that a greater good might be in the process of being served. MAYBE an inherent penchant for South African corruption is being revealed? Maybe it's an expression of discontent for a status quo that allows our politicians and sportspeople to lie and steal and cheat?

It's true that cheap shots at Caster Semenya are below the belt. And it's true that they're shameful. And it's true that media-savvy types SHOULD exercise better judgement.

In my case, I most often take on the role of jester, the shamanic coyote. And it's the job of the jester to expose the uncomfortable things in a rotten society.

Where I'm seeing a difference between my own Caster jokes and the incident you've written about is this: I'm not pretending I made a mistake. I'm not apologising and trying to hide my shameful jokes from view.

For me, it would be a terrible mistake to simply will these things away. They're said. And they're etched into the public record.

Does it matter if people think ill of me? Yes. It polarises things for me. But it also means I have a voice.

I'm really glad you've written this piece. Cos it made me really examine why my Caster jokes made me uncomfortable when I wrote them. And also why I chose to go ahead and press the 'send' button anyway.

[Clive Simpkins]

Wonderful article from www.salon.com about Internet trolls, anonymity and what it does to people. The last paragraph is the killer insight.
http://mobile.salon.com/life/feature/2010/08/03/in_defense_of_anonymous_commenting