Would Social Media Have Made Life Worse For Richard Jewell? (mcall.com) 81
Long-time Slashdot reader theodp writes: Clint Eastwood's new movie Richard Jewell recounts the incredible tale of the security guard. Jewell was later [erroneously] considered a suspect after being hailed by the media for saving many from injury or death by discovering a backpack containing three pipe bombs in Atlanta's Centennial Park during the 1996 Summer Olympics and helping to evacuate the area before the bomb exploded. Despite never being charged, he was subjected to an intense "trial by media" before receiving an apology from Attorney General Janet Reno and ultimately being completely exonerated.
The movie prompted Henry Schuster, an investigative producer for CNN at the time of the bombing, to offer an overdue apology in the Washington Post for his and the press's role in turning Jewell from a hero to a villain by serving as "the FBI's megaphone...."
Schuster warns, "Think how much worse it would have been for Jewell in 2019."
The article mostly shares the thought processes of that investigative producer. (He remembers that in 2005, "I sat at the computer and started my letter of apology, got frustrated and hit save. A year after that, Jewell died at 44, after months of failing health; my letter remained unfinished and unsent.")
But the CNN producer also writes that in the 23 years since the incident, social media has "made the rush to judgment instantaneous -- as quick as machine trading on Wall Street, but without any circuit-breakers." Would that have changed the way things played out if the incident happened in 2019? It's an interesting thought exercise -- so share your own thoughts in the comments.
Would social media have made life worse for Richard Jewell?
The movie prompted Henry Schuster, an investigative producer for CNN at the time of the bombing, to offer an overdue apology in the Washington Post for his and the press's role in turning Jewell from a hero to a villain by serving as "the FBI's megaphone...."
Schuster warns, "Think how much worse it would have been for Jewell in 2019."
The article mostly shares the thought processes of that investigative producer. (He remembers that in 2005, "I sat at the computer and started my letter of apology, got frustrated and hit save. A year after that, Jewell died at 44, after months of failing health; my letter remained unfinished and unsent.")
But the CNN producer also writes that in the 23 years since the incident, social media has "made the rush to judgment instantaneous -- as quick as machine trading on Wall Street, but without any circuit-breakers." Would that have changed the way things played out if the incident happened in 2019? It's an interesting thought exercise -- so share your own thoughts in the comments.
Would social media have made life worse for Richard Jewell?
Absolutely it would have (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Absolutely it would have (Score:4, Interesting)
That is not true, it is entirely dependent upon the nature of the social media, so avatar based social media is entirely different to real name social media, not even the slightest bit alike in outcome, real name social media is extremely destructive and decisive as has been amply demonstrated. Avatar or pseudonym based social has gone on for decades without much problem at all and mostly fun and games, as avatar not your real identity.
The reality about the claim is entirely opposite. In corporate main stream media where they all toe the same line, the corporations decide who is villian and who is hero based upon WHAT WILL SELL THE FUCKING BEST, get the most eyeballs, fuck the truth there are advertising dollars to be generated.
In social media, there would have been defenders, he would have been heard, his family would have supported him. Corporate main stream media actively silenced him so they could attack him. On social media, he would have had a defence and probably, yeah pretty rough in the first week but after independent analysis, there would have been a kick back.
Now the apology is being forced by social media because normally the corporate main stream media would say nothing or twist it around to still make him look guilty if it was more profitable to do so.
Misdirection and hand waving... (Score:1, Insightful)
Is anyone else laughing at how this article misses the actual story here? This story shows that CNN has been feeding people lies and nonsense for much longer than just the TRUMP presidential campaign (anybody remember that ridiculous pee-pee dossier?).
No, CNN has been telling us lies and nonsense ever since at least 1996 when they turned Jewell from hero to villain without any actual proof. CNN is Fake News.
Re: Absolutely it would have (Score:3)
One could argue that the ties to real identity are exactly what make it social media: certainly your "avatar based social media" has not had the same kind of destructive effects, but one could argue that the fact of its basis in avatars disqualifies it as "social media" in the first place.
This isn't just snobbery. The reason you can't count avatars as social media is, in fact, the very same reason avatars don't have the same destructive effects as social media: it's all just pretend, and everyone knows it.
Re: (Score:2)
The people today who would aggressively demand to be treated "innocent until proved guilty" have no problem denying others the same rights for anyone who disagrees with their particular world view. Various segments of the US government and law enforcement agencies use social media to make an end around on the rights they are sworn to support and defend.
Re:Absolutely it would have (Score:5, Interesting)
I concur.
I have an uncommon but not unique name. It's uncommon enough that if you search you only come up with a couple people in my area, and more than one has similar demographics to me.
I've often wondered what I'd do if one of them made the news for some unsavory reason. It's not even how do I convince a potential new employer that that wasn't me, it's if I even would get the chance. If they google the name and find someone unsavory with the same name and about the same demographics, do they even bother checking further?
If I had a unique name I wouldn't worry, because it would either be me or it wouldn't be. If I had a common name, they'd get buried in results and realize that there were a ton to pick from.
It's the uncommonness that worries me. If there are only 3 results and two are about a felon, do I really trust HR to get it right? All my experience says, "Fuck No."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Absolutely it would have (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
True story: My former boss knew a Jamaican guy whose real name was John Smith. He got put through the ringer at any and every kind of security checkpoint in existence. When he got married, he took his wife's last name.
Re: (Score:2)
Social media makes life worse for all lifeforms.
Re: Absolutely it would have (Score:1)
How exactly does me sharing a picture of my son with family affect your fscking life in any way? Troll.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a much greater variety of sources and ways to cross-reference everything the press says. The press isn't as much of an authority as it used to be. They don't have the megaphone because everyone has a megaphone.
Not just the press, anybody with a platform, anything people read in some piece of dribble posted to their Facebook page. Everybody having a megaphone is one of the problems. That's how bullshit like the anti-vaxxer movement stays alive. POTUS claims wind-turbines give you cancer, how many people bother to fact-check that? Not all that many judging by the number of people I've run into who regurgitate it as fact. We've got people on this forum who've apparently never heard of high and ultra high voltage pow
...which aren't used (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a much greater variety of sources and ways to cross-reference everything the press says
Reference the Covington Kids incident earlier this year.
Firstly, you are saying that there are ways to check things the *press* says, but isn't the press supposed to be doing this checking in the first place?
Secondly, the availability of fact-checking orgs didn't seem to work for the Covington kids.
Isn't the press supposed to be the fact checking org?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: ...which aren't used (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only if they support the opposition. Just look at reporting of the current administration.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm... sorry. Didn't you just prove my point by voiced a rebuttal backed up by an opinion piece about bias in the media?
You missed the bigger picture. This is Slashdot so the situation is skewed towards commonsense by the fact we have a moderation system. However were this any normal media situation a hierarchy of truth applies. That would imply that your post is taken as truth with +5 insightful and all subsequent criticism of it sits down at 1 or 2 at best.
Having snopes or other people fact check the media is quite pointless when the media are the ones promoted and only the occasional critical thinker bothers to fact check
Re: ...which aren't used (Score:2)
Re:Snopes and fact-checking (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's what the current medium does. In the past, in order to get wide distribution, you at least had to get hired by somebody, and were open to a libel/slander lawsuit. Jewell did in fact sue a bunch of newspapers.
With the current medium, any dipshit can say anything they want, anonymously, and be heard all over the world.
Re: Snopes and fact-checking (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Who got Trump the nomination? He wasn't running against Hillary in the primaries.
I am among those who voted for Trump because Hillary is terrible, but I know many people who thought Trump was wonderful from the beginning. I thought Trump was all bombast, but I have been proven wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
At the end of the day it seems like 21st century Democracy is starting to live up to the kinds of awful things the aristocratic elites warned us about.
What I can't decide is if they're actually right, and at some point the great unwashed masses really need their voices and choices limited to options pre-selected for them by their betters.
Or if somehow this is all the byproduct of Putin 4D-chess disinformation schemes to sow chaos and make liberal democracy just seem worse than it really is. Like if without
Re:Snopes and fact-checking (Score:4, Interesting)
> barely know about Snopes,
At the same time, some people hold Snopes up as an unmitigated source of truth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Only anecdotal, but I have come across some. As I've had no great crusade against them, I've not bookmarked or otherwise held record of the offending articles. I'd say Snopes is better than no Snopes (as it's more accurate than the general media), but isn't infallible and isn't without bias.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch... [snopes.com]
They used interpretation to come to a conclusion, rather than the facts speaking for themselves.
This is not the only instance, but it's a straightforward example.
The facts are self-referential, which avoids most of the arguments that serve as cover, when arguing about sources of truth.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, I think it would have been worse. I remember the incident. We didn't get much news coverage of it, just that the security guard who found the bomb was under investigation. Everyone pretty much assumed he was guilty based on that.
People love scandal, so that's the way the majority will jump.
Re: (Score:2)
'The internet makes us all reporters and part of the conversation, for better or worse"
It's pretty much more worse than better. Jewell would have been doubly crucified today and even an apology by the FBI would not stop people from persecuting him on social media.
Re: (Score:2)
At some point, one of those "sources and ways to cross-reference everything the press says" is going to need to be authoritative enough for people to, y'know, believe it. More likely, the authoritative sources will get lost in the jumble, and people will either believe nothing - or everything. Which pretty much describes the political climate today...
from what i seen of social media (Score:3)
Re: from what i seen of social media (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It it were really a troll fest, it would be kinda fun in a rude fashion. Most of these so-called trolls are just rabble-rousers with an agenda. How would "social media" deal with some of the aimless, mindless, shock-fest trolling that Slashdot has seen over the years? We'll never know.
Re: (Score:1)
Nah ... (Score:2)
... social media has shot its wad. The 2016 election showed how ephemeral and banal the bubble has become and all of us are aware of that.
Re: (Score:2)
If that was the case than the coverage of everything from Kavanaugh confirmation hearings to the impeachment proceedings wouldn't have happened... Social media and media in general is still just a shitshow of propagandist pandering to the lowest common denominators who can't handle assimilating facts and forming conclusions for themselves. Wouldn't have been any different for Jewel... a middle aged single white guy in law enforcement, he'd have been crucified by the 90% of media that toes the line for the left and celebrated by the 10% that plays to the right, and mainstream social media would've given him a similar treatment. Poor bastard would've been destroyed and probably killed himself before his health could've caught up with him.
That's a negative.
Otherwise, Trump would be dead by now, right?
Re: Nah ... (Score:2)
Re: Nah ... (Score:1)
Show us on the doll where the mean orange man hurt you...
It already happened (Score:5, Interesting)
Law enforcement in that case keep the investigation secret, releasing minimal information to the press, and eventually released video of the correct suspects. Iin 1996 law enforcement was convinced Jewel was the correct suspect. Add wild speculation on social media on top of that, and he probably would've been driven to suicide.
Re: (Score:1)
I think people have learned from that debacle. Nowadays they are more likely to by cynical and doubt any claims being made, or even benefit from people trying to debunk Mainstream Media reports.
We have gone from one extreme to the other.
Re: It already happened (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:3)
You mean the one written by Mueller? The one full of extensive evidence and which came from an investigation that sent many people close to Trump to jail? That dossier or some other one?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
You just proved his point. The Mueller report specifically, explicitly stated there was no collusion or conspiracy, none, nada. But you have your world-view, and it will not change it because you have your social media/tainted-media streams to reinforce your beliefs.
I think you may have proved the point. The Mueller report did not say there was no collusion - you didn't even have to go far in to find the statement about it. From the report (searchable version via the Washington Post) - "In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." In short, they weren't looking for anything called "collusion".
I get why people wouldn't download and read the
Re: (Score:1)
the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities
Maybe the very words of the Mueller report itself will convince you that Mueller didn't find any conspiracy or collusion. If that still does not convince you - you're beyond all reason.
Re: (Score:3)
No collusion, just enough criminality to put his friends behind bars and to go after Trump himself if it wasn't for the fact that he is POTUS.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit on that one. I've only got to pick a news site and I can find 'cancel culture' everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
I think people have learned from that debacle.
Have you ever met another person? There is absolutely nothing at all in the modern world that could possibly back up that statement. People are desperate to burn witches whenever possible and will happily support any story that fits their world view.
See Covington Kids as an example of how we have learnt nothing.
I disagree with the premise... (Score:5, Insightful)
The issue is whether or not social media makes life worse for people in general.
And my answer is a resounding YES.
Re: (Score:2)
Stop caring what other people think of you.
You will generally be happier, and be able to weather such a negative report.
Re: I disagree with the premise... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Social Media gives bullies a huge platform and let's them basically follow you everywhere. Once upon a time, once you left the neighborhood (or town/state), you were almost guaranteed the bully was out of your life for good. Now, they can basically attack you anywhere on the planet.
So, overall, I'd say that given its usefulness as tool for wrecking lives (and the number of people willing to use it that way), it makes life worse.
Back in the day (Score:2)
The term âoesocial mediaâ would have meant a lynch mob.
Facts and/or due process just do not matter in either case.
Re: Back in the day (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Not all of them merely write tweets. Some of them "dox" people by revealing personal details of accused people publicly. Others "swat" people they dislike. Others put on black masks and plan violent protests on social media.
"Toxic incel terrorist" in a heartbeat (Score:1)
Slashdot violates Betteridge's Law of Headlines (Score:2)
The obvious, and well thought out answer, is "yes". This is the opposite of Betteridge's Law of Headlines, which says:
"Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no".
Well done to the Slashdot editors.
The media was pretty bad, how could it be worse? (Score:2)
Jewell got royally fucked by the media. Could it have gotten worse? Sure. But in that context worse is the difference between "let's hang you" and "let's hang you then let people rip your body parts off."
Trick question (Score:2)
That's a trick question, it makes life worse for everyone
Anti-social media (Score:1)
Anti-social media.
That is how I usually refer to it in conversations about it.
I would encourage others to do likewise.
At first, it might sound funny or tongue-in-cheek.
But, the more people say it, the more other people might start to appreciate it or get insight into its perfidious nature and its effects on sane society.
Anti-social media.
Also:
anti-polite
anti-politic
anti-sensible
anti-thoughtful
anti-considerate
anti-considered
anti-cooperative
anti-compassionate
anti-measured
anti-reasonable
anti-empathetic
anti-rat
Rush to judgement (Score:2)
I'd agree that social media has "made the rush to judgment instantaneous". The internet can also be the source of equally speedy corrections. I expect it will be far easier to promote the latter than prevent the former.
Re:Rush to judgement (Score:4, Informative)
The problem being that almost nobody bothers with the corrections. That's already been established in research. Those that do read the corrections don't hold it in the same regard as the original sensationalist headline, so the tarnish will always remain when mud has been slung. That's why it's such an overused trope. It doesn't matter if you're guilty or innocent, throw enough mud and your target is done.
The majority of people will rush from one sensationalist "clickbait" article to the next. That spreads rapidly due to its "compelling" nature (it's been designed to do this by people that very much knew what they were doing), with each person exposed acting as a megaphone to amplify the message (often distorting it slightly, and adding their own disinformation to the original).
A correction to this hits the cognitive dissonance area; most people do not like to be exposed to being fallible (especially in this day and age when many have been brought up to be "protected" from failing, and be taught that their view is tantamount to being true), so most of those that see a correction will resolve that by forgetting or ignoring the correction.
One of the interesting attempts to find ways to combat disinformation is "Bad News" ( https://getbadnews.com/#intro [getbadnews.com] ). These days, I think this should be baked into a curriculum; people need to be educated to spot the signs of disinformation, and develop the meta cognition sufficient to be able to have a chance at spotting manipulations of their instincts. If you inoculate a swathe of the population this way, they gain resistance to manipulation in the same way that vaccines affect diseases (well, that's the theory). There will always be the vulnerable, but it could go a long way to stopping the spread of this cognitive "disease".
Stuff like this can happen anytime, to anyone. (Score:2)
You don't even need soviel media for this.
Someone starts a bad rumor, others carry it once step further without checking for facts and your life as you know it is over.
Is good to mentally prepare for such a situation from time to time.
I would change my name and move my life to an entirely different place. After leaving statements and assessments of the actual facts somewhere where people can find them if they are looking a few years later.
This is how lynch mobs happened, and they only don't happen today any
For sure (Score:1)
His life and all of his past comments would have been picked through and posted about. People would have been saying he just wanted to get 15 minutes of fame by being the hero and more people would have believed that. And when the real culprit was found, people would still be posting old information and opinions. Or even thinking it was a conspiracy to pass the blame.
I actually could have been a suspect in this case too. As I was at the Atlanta Olympics and left the morning the bomb went off. I was 16
Or (Score:2)
OT: Slashdot's SPAM-handling (Score:1)
Bizarrely, the original submission by theodp is (still) labeled as "SPAM" [slashdot.org]... I noticed, because I upvoted it on the "Firehose", which placed it into my own "stream"...
Short answer: Yes (Score:2)