The Battle For Public Opinion

The battle for public opinion is something that precedes social media and the internet by centuries. However, the use of networking to gain opinions from people is stronger because of social media, and is much more prevalent in our day-to-day lives. A key factor that contributes to this is our naivety. Studies show that people tend to believe things they read online, despite telling ourselves not to believe everything we see online. For example,  In the article by the National Institutes of Health, Social Media Effects: Hijacking Democracy and Civility in Civic Engagement, the issue of battling for public opinion has taken a darker turn. Democracy is fundamental to this country and how it runs, and now that we’re seeing a rise in state-controlled media and content. This also means that platforms, like Twitter, are being used to spread misinformation, propaganda, and even just to spread hate. The reason why this happens is because social networks don’t have to follow the same rules as journalists and news sources. This is a troubling issue for us as a society, because it creates so much tension on the internet. Groups of people are able to spread their agenda, hurtful or not, and have it seen by millions who take it at face value. This is also a detriment to Interpersonal relationships, as this kind of connection relies on the communication between people, and not the programs that are being pushed by state-controlled groups.

An interesting online campaign that has always stuck with me was the 2019 The Best A Man Can Be commercial. This campaign was very controversial when it came out, even though the message itself is something understandable and reasonable. According to Startups Magazine, the commercial raked in 4 million views on YouTube, 203k retweets on Twitter, 513.3k likes on Twitter, 11,752 likes on Instagram, and 2.1k likes on Facebook. The commercial was created during the #MeToo movement and addresses toxic masculinity, misogyny, and sexual harassment. The point of the campaign was to encourage positive male behavior and challenge stereotypes. This commercial sparked a lot of online debate, with many people claiming that Gillette was “attacking men”. Opinions were very split, with (mostly women) appreciating the sentiment coming from a brand that makes men’s products. Then there were others, like Piers Morgan who said that the ”signaling guff may drive me away to a company less eager to fuel the current pathetic global assault on masculinity.” Despite the split opinion, the campaign went viral nonetheless, and spread a lot of awareness about how men can treat women better, and also about how men need to change their approach to masculinity. There is no doubt an underlying communication tactic, I would even say it’s clear what Gillette was trying to say. The thing to consider is whether or not this brand has the authority to speak on such topics.

Both individuals and organizations are responsible for what they say online, and what conversations they choose to participate in. Individuals should be considering their life outside of their profile, and how engaging with a harmful topic could harm their relationships with friends, family, and even your career. Organizations are a bit different, as they have a lot to fall back on. In most cases, it's agreed that corporations shouldn’t speak up on something that doesn't concern their product or service. I do think that there is room for organizations to be inclusive and thoughtful about what the associate with their brand. In my opinion, when it comes to social media, ethics have already gone out the window. However, we should all be kind on the internet, and not engage in conversations that are meant to be inflammatory and cause rifts between us.