Where social media and mainstream media can be complementary

“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”

–– John Stuart Mill

by Susantha Hewa

Politicians in power often tend to suppress people’s freedoms when they feel that they can no longer use rhetoric to persuade the disillusioned masses to trust them. And, throughout our history, they have used mass media, specially, TV after its advent in Sri Lanka in 1979, to manipulate people effectively. It’s not surprising that many people, who have been feeling frustrated being destined to be passive television audiences to politicians who have enjoyed the privilege of talking on TV to the citizens through who cannot fittingly respond to them in real time, avidly embraced social media to share their bottled-up views, feelings, praises or criticisms with their fellow citizens. If politicians and elites can use electronic media to reach vast swaths of society and engage in manipulative talk with no inhibitions or fear of punishment, it is natural that the citizens who have been reduced to be unwilling takers of all the rhetoric of the former for decades, treat social media as their best means of communicating with large numbers of fellow citizens and end their imposed muteness to some extent. We have little evidence to show that our strongmen have used TV all these years in all honesty to inform, elucidate or educate. One need not go far to find how politicians have spoken arrogantly, flippantly and dishonestly to people, which is a gross abuse of mass media.

Admittedly, the abuse of social media should be punished, and there doesn’t seem to be any reason why the same abuses in any other media including electronic media should go unheeded. Paradoxically, in mass media, it is the politicians who become actors and doers, the “masses” being largely passive. It is in social media that masses break their long silence and become active and interactive, which is more contributory to democracy; of course, with due checks and balances. One-way communication made possible by standard media, i.e. TV, can hardly satisfy the human urge for two-way natural communication, which is constructive and egalitarian. Thus, electronic media would hardly avoid the never-ending frustration of the subdued masses until there is another platform for them, which is social media.

Manipulation has been defined as “behaviour that controls or influences somebody/something, often in a dishonest way so that they do not realise it”. Although, this definition does not specify the nature of the manipulator and the manipulated, almost all the words, specially, “behaviour”, “controls”, “influences” and the last few words “often in a dishonest way so that they do not realise it” leave no room for any doubt about the relative positions of the influencer and the influenced. If the vast majority were the decision-makers of any system, such a system would be akin to what is universally known as direct democracy, where the people collectively decide how they should be ruled. Of course, such a system would need a lot of innovative thinking and sweeping changes. However, what is important is, such a system would depend much more on communication, education, discussion, debate and consensus than on propaganda. Therefore, it is clear that manipulation would fit more naturally in a system where the power is concentrated in the hands of a few powerful, who constantly feel the need to protect their power and privileges by any means, correctly or mistakenly accepted as democratic. Technically, a system of governance “of the people, by the people, for the people”, has the underlying feeling of a common bond, which implies that the individual destiny is the collective destiny and vice versa. In such a setting, manipulation, in its widely perceived derogatory sense emphasized in the above definition in the phrase, “often in a dishonest way so that they do not realize it” – would only amount to a sort of collective self-deceit.

Of course, the average person at times gets an opportunity to appear on TV screen at the discretion of the TV channel, not from a position of strength, but almost always as victim, to air his grievances or vent their anger at inept and insensitive rulers who can just ignore them or mock them with no fear of being opposed or retorted at. TV is, so to speak, more the official voice and the face of the ruler rather than the voice and the face of the ruled. Of course, the common people can show their faces on TV but not from the comfort of their home or office; electronic media don’t work that way. They have to come to the streets to earn their visibility on TV and ‘pay’ dearly for it. Paradoxically, mass media is at the service of the privileged few, not at the service of the unprivileged masses. If you like, it’s a speaker; not a telephone. If you want any brand of media to work both ways, it’s social media.

However, the whole world saw one striking example of “manipulation” for the good of the “one and all” during those dark days of the Covid pandemic. The persistent appeal for the people to wear a mask and keep a distance of one metre with others was a classic example of using propaganda for the safety of all. It was an instance where people were made to realise that nobody is safe until everybody else in society is safe. And, everybody in her desire to protect herself, inevitably ensured the safety of all. Thus, where propaganda is used for the good of all, rather than for the advantage of a few, propaganda will lose its derogatory sense and be aligned with positive acts such as education, discussion, clarification, communication, and enhancing of awareness and understanding.

In such a system of social organisation, it would hardly be necessary to bring in suppressive laws to curb social media. In the collective awareness that it is only by ensuring the wellbeing of all that each one of us can ensure our individual wellbeing, mass media – which is now patently used for safeguarding the power and the privileges of those who stand above the masses – that we would be able to look at social media without undue suspicion. In a truly democratic society where mass media is used to educate people instead of keeping them in the dark, there will be no need for anyone to look at social media with any more suspicion than they view electronic media. If our politicians had used mass media to inform and educate the masses rather than to manipulate them, there wouldn’t have been any need to look askance at social media. In a society which is constantly trying to learn from mistakes and promote the collective good, mass media and social media will only complement each other.