I never actually saw it, but I was told last year that one of my opinion columns had garnered a Twitter mention. And not a good mention.
You might find this hard to believe, but I like negative criticism. At a certain point in life, you want to cut through people’s outer facade and find out how they really feel.
I don’t know if it’s fair to classify this particular tweet as “Twitter outrage,” a term we keep hearing in the news, but it nonetheless got me thinking.
Not to date myself (I’m still pretty young), but am I the only one who remembers when the emotion of outrage actually meant something?
Why, in my day, you knew someone was outraged when their face turned red and they proceeded to hurl expletives. Some folks threw things at walls or slammed down phone receivers. They were part of the experience!
And now? A few measly finger strokes on a smartphone and pushing a virtual POST button. Like really, can that even count as outrage?
Unfortunately, it’s impossible to gauge the tone of a tweet, so it’s easy to misinterpret statements as evidence of “outrage.”
If you weren’t happy with the steak your waiter brought you, you might tell him, “I’m never eating here again!” on your way out the door. You’re disappointed, and your tone is sharp, but you’re not exactly ready to punch a hole in a wall.
But when you tweet that same line – “I’m never eating here again!” – you portray yourself as a hot-headed bundle of nastiness. Lost are the nuances of voice, expression and physical posture that you had in person back at the restaurant.
A lot of people love Twitter because they be-lieve it puts power in the hands of the little guy to effect positive societal
change. And perhaps it does.
A Twitter campaign last month convinced the Loblaw grocery chain to back down from plans to stop carrying French’s ketchup, which uses Canadian tomatoes.
One envisions Loblaw executives in a wood-paneled boardroom somewhere, nervously smoking cigarettes as they react to “Twitter outrage” over their decision.
“Wegottadosome-thing!” one of them finally blurts out, his hands trembling as he adds to his pile of butts.
I’m glad for French’s and Canadian tomato farmers, and I do applaud this move. But I also think Loblaw could have done absolutely nothing and been fine.
I’m just not convinced that Twitter outrage is all that genuine. Too many times I’ve seen people tweet some seemingly serious opinion only to forget about it an hour later. It’s really less of an outrage thing and more of a boredom-avoidance technique.
Yet Twitter certainly has the appearance of technology that prompts people to get ticked off, write about it in 140 characters or less, and then repeat.
And the major media outlets only perpetuate the cycle. As the National Post’s Andrew Coyne writes: “First someone decides they are offended, and reports it online. Then a storm of the like-minded repeats the original grievance, and redoubles it. Then the media report: ‘There was outrage on Twitter today, when…’”
I’m not saying Twitter can’t be an important vehicle for conversation, opinion and advocacy. It’s just difficult to know when to take it seriously – and how seriously.
Local Angle is published on Fridays.
