Mainstream media scapegoating social media has seemingly been a time honoured tradition these days. Human smuggling was the latest thing today.
It’s no secret that mainstream media has been trying to blame social media for all of societal ills. Whether it is mental health issues, body image issues, people doing stupid things, terrorism, or a host of other societal issues, mainstream media has a tendency so say it’s all social media’s fault. This despite the fact that such issues have existed long before the advent of social media – and the internet for that matter.
These efforts to try and paint social media in the worst possible light isn’t just for funsies, either. All over the world, there has been a well documented trend of people shifting their news consumption habits from traditional TV broadcasters to the online world. In the UK, the internet recently overtook television as the biggest source people get their news from. In the US, this has been a well established fact for some time.
So, to counter this trend of a continued loss in viewers, mainstream media doesn’t improve their product, nor do they try and adapt too much to the online world. Instead, they regularly run hit pieces, attacking social media as this big monolithic threat and the source of all societal ills. This despite the general lack of evidence to support many of these notions. These efforts have become one of many reasons why there has also been a continued erosion of trust on top of it all. Apparently, running shoddy hit pieces doesn’t necessarily mean people trust you more. Who knew?
So, you can imagine my surprise when the CBC broadcasted a story on television saying that social media is to blame for human smuggling. In the story that aired today, the anchor reported that human smugglers have been so brazen on social media, that they are taking out advertising to try and sell their illegal smuggling operations. This, the anchor noted, was the result of reporting done by CBC Radio Canada.
For me, this premise already raises a number of red flags. For one, social media companies generally employ a report feature. If an ad appears that is breaking the law, users can click on a report ad feature. From there, the ad would get reviewed. If it is found to be illegal, not only will the ad get taken down, but the account will also probably be reported to authorities. For another, I’ve personally never seen such an ad which raises questions on how wide spread such advertising really is in the first place. It is worth noting that at no point in the report did they say they even reported the ad to the social media network in question.
Another red flag, in my mind at the time, was that there are a number of factors that go into the problem of human smuggling. This includes economic problems, war, crime, and the way laws and agreements are currently in place. Suggesting that this is all the fault of social media is a pretty significant stretch if you ask me.
So, while the story was already off to a pretty questionable start, I, along with the news anchor, had no clue as to where that story was going to end up next. They brought in an expert to discuss the issues. The white haired woman joined the news broadcast to offer her thoughts on the situation.
The anchor kicked off the interview by repeating some of the claims of how human smugglers are using social media advertising networks to advertise their smuggling services and asked what her thoughts are on this. She responded by offering some pretty well researched analysis of the problems of human smuggling. This included mentioning Canada’s safe third country agreement, the creation of such a market through the increased militarization of the border, and a number of other elements that really had nothing to do with social media.
This was clearly not the direction the anchor was hoping the interview was going to take. So, in response, he steered it back to social media. He asked how smugglers are advertising on social media and how brazen all of this is. He asked what her thoughts are on how brazen they were getting. The woman responded by point blank telling the anchor that this really isn’t the story here before reverting back to well known issues of why human smuggling is occurring.
Somewhat sheepishly, the anchor then asked a few generic questions about human smuggling before quickly ending the interview and moving on.
The events that unfolded were actually pretty hilarious. The people behind the story had hastily put together a conspiracy theory and tried to work their way to a conclusion which was that we can blame social media for human smuggling now. Then, they inadvertently got a real expert on the subject and their whole story backfired spectacularly live on the air.
This is the problem of starting with a conclusion then trying to work your way backwards to get the evidence to support that conclusion. Sooner or later, it bites you. It’s why I never do stuff like that. It’s always starting with the evidence and doing everything possible to try and build a clear picture. Then, it’s a matter of presenting that evidence to the public as a way of informing the audience. This as opposed to making a conclusion, working your way back to try and find evidence to support that conclusion, then telling the audience what to think afterwards – right or wrong. I mean, we’re pretty close to the basic fundamentals of journalism, here.
As for the story that failed spectacularly for the CBC, I think, at minimum, a better approach would’ve been to report the ad to the social media network in question. If, after a few weeks, you don’t hear back and the ads are still appearing, report the accounts to law enforcement so they can look into it. If the network still refuses to do something about it after authorities get involved, then you might have a story. The way things stand now, though, the CBC clearly jumped the gun and tried jumping to conclusions that satisfied their own personal biases. Not a great look to say the least.
