Following the verdict in the recent Michael Dunn trial, CNN’s Ashleigh Banfield and her family received numerous death threats over her comments that the jury’s deadlock over whether Dunn was guilty of first-degree murder possibly could have been influenced by the factor of race, according to Mediaite.com.
Banfield responded by stating that death threats in the form of tweets should be taken back, condemning the fleeting venue which they have taken: “Stop threatening to kill people on Twitter because you don’t like what they are saying! That’s the problem: If we can’t communicate, we are never going to know what the problem is. And this is a case that outlines it.”
I don’t always agree with Ashleigh Banfield, and she and CNN have often taken stances that I have disagreed with, but I respect the hell out of that statement. We should try to figure out where the breakdown in communication is happening so that we can better discover what our problems with these kinds of issues really are. Some people are just content to hide behind 140 characters of cowardice, I suppose.
Call me old-fashioned, but I’ve never really warmed up to Twitter as a “thing” — no matter how much I might want to share my deepest thoughts in 140 characters or less to as many strangers as are following me, I’ve never really understood it from a personal standpoint. It’s always struck me as a YouTube comment thread without videos, where people can yell, scream, bitch and moan without fear of reprisal for the dumb — and oftentimes hateful — commentary that they provide.
Before you call me out for bagging on social media as a whole, I should clarify that I only take particular umbrage with Twitter: Facebook at least provides some semblance of a filtering system of who views your comments and who can comment on your wall, Tumblr and WordPress can become more specific in their content, which is oftentimes far more substantive than 140 characters, and a site like Instagram at least uses pictures to prompt dialogue, no matter how brief it may be.
If used “properly” — which is to say fleetingly and without too much emotion or vitriol — Twitter does have its uses, such as sharing links, commenting on media events with your friends in real time, sharing brief and light commentary according to what your interests are, and sometimes voicing your disagreement or disapproval of issues or events that you might be bothered by.
However, as soon as you start threatening murder or violence against another person after they said something that set you off because you can’t examine your own moral compass, maybe you should step away from the damn keyboard.
When things like this happen with Twitter and other venues of social media, I tend to think about what we would have done with Twitter after the verdict in the OJ Simpson trial, or Rodney King and the ensuing riots, or any of the myriad conflicts and injustices that have happened globally since the Internet really took off just over 10 years ago.
Would we have really threatened each other because we were filled with hateful impotence? Or would we try to ask questions of each other in attempts to open up dialogue outside of Twitter and outside of the Internet?
I can see why some people want to hide behind a computer screen — they get to have a mask to conceal their identities while simultaneously having a soapbox to preach whatever venom they feel like. You don’t have to think about if you’re being politically correct, or even correct. Your comments will bring other like-minded people to your cause! Hooray!
Here’s the problem with all that bullshit.
The Internet is a lot like television — there are those who use it as a venue to take a strong moral stance against hatred and ignorance, in an effort to reach people outside their own towns and communities. However, they are often afraid that their efforts will be swallowed up by that same ignorance and hatred populating the Internet itself.
The Internet is often touted as something that can connect people to each other and new ideas, without the obstacles of distance, language and different culture. This is true, for the most part, but it also allows so many people with questionable moral ideals and manners to connect in ways previously unavailable to them.
Movements like the Tea Party are able to say whatever they feel like because media like Twitter allow them to surround themselves with people just like them, while simultaneously insulating themselves from outside inspection of what their motivations and values truly are. In these echo chambers, everyone agrees with each other to the expense of moving forward by being called out on their mistakes in their one-note “discourses.”
Aaron Smale studies English. He can be reached at sself@sagebrush.unr.edu.