The more things change, the more they stay the same. The verdict reached this week in the latest trial-of-the-century (seriously, haven’t we already had several of those since 2000) generated an incredible amount of online reaction. Like the O.J. Simpson verdict back in 1995—approximately 100 years ago in internet years—the Casey Anthony verdict handed down this week caused an immense outpouring of public shock and disbelief. One thing that certainly wasn’t available during the aftermath of the O.J. verdict was online social networking. OK, there were a few rudimentary elements of online social networking back then: chat rooms, IRC channels and such, along with a few technophile early adopters, but nothing like today. Did the widespread availability of social networks like Twitter and Facebook add any value to the socialization of the seeming outrage, did it influence people’s perception of the defendants during their trials one way or the other, or was it just another echo chamber for like-minded people to voice their opinions.
From a purely social aspect the two trials were very similar. Both received extensive coverage across all media channels. Radio and television news outlets covered both trials virtually gavel-to-gavel, as did the print media and even the internet (although in 1995 it certainly hadn’t yet achieved the ubiquity that it has now). Though both defendants were widely excoriated in the court of public opinion during their respective trials, both were eventually found not-guilty of the most heinous charges against them. (As people have repeatedly observed, being found “not guilty” is not the same as being found “innocent.”) I happened to be eating lunch at a food court mall back when the O. J. verdict was announced: people were standing several deep, intently watching the one or two television monitors for the news. Similarly, for the Casey Anthony verdict, several (ok, most) of my work colleagues wandered over to the corner of the office to watch the news on a cable news outlet. In both cases, the silence for the reading of the verdicts and the collective “gasp” afterwards was apparent.
Back in 1995 people expressed their outrage within their circle of friends and acquaintances: the topic dominated water cooler conversations, dinner conversations and conversations at social and business functions for weeks. Letters to newspaper editors were sent out and published by the thousands. And through online chat rooms a few people took to the internet to commiserate with others about their outrage at the O. J. verdict.
The only thing that seems different this time was the speed at which the outrage seemed to propagate. Almost instantly, Twitter was overrun with tweets of opinions on the news. Likewise, friends and family took to Facebook in droves (seriously, how many people constitute a “drove”?) to express their shock at the verdict. The water cooler conversations, dinner conversations, and social gathering conversations are ongoing just as in 1995, as are letters to newspaper editors (although now most people either comment on news websites or take to the blogosphere to state their opinions).
Did being a member of online social networks change anything about the social impact of the verdicts? Did the ability to vent via blog make anything different, for good or for bad? As far as I can tell, it did not: Online social networking made zero difference. Zero. Zip. Nada. The ability to fire off an opinion (and you know what they say about opinions) via an internet social networking site had no effect on the tone of people’s opinions or the degree to which their outrage was expressed. It is the same now in 2011 as it was then in 1995: only the communication medium is a bit different.
So while online social networks are useful for many things, influencing the court of public opinion isn’t one of them.
At least that’s my opinion.
No comments:
Post a Comment