I am not intending to make this post very profound because the answer isn't very profound and can best me summarised as 'why not?'.
It was not inspired by Humphreys' Grumpy Old Man hissy fit on Today although that has influenced my decision to post now rather than some time in the indeterminate future.
The simple answer is that it's fun and entertaining. Not particularly in any profound way.
I would have thought that Humphreys, who has made his living from TV and radio, albeit mostly (exclusively?) the serious side, should be able to understand the purpose of media as entertainment. Although, I have noticed that journalists hate the idea of amateurs doing what they do, but for free.
Just about every profession and occupation is mirrored by a large and enthusiastic band of amateurs, so I really don't see what sets journalists apart from footballers and singers, decorators and drivers, book-keepers and psychologists. Especially considering that writing is one of the few skills that is taught to everybody, with barely any exceptions, from an early age, and the only skill that a large number of people are expected to master before adulthood.
I do think it's a bit silly when pompous fools claim with disdain that 'social networking' is no substitute for face-to-face contact or that those who indulge should 'get a life'.
Social networking is really beneficial to people who are wholly or partly housebound - the ill and disabled, those with childcare responsibilities, those whose paid work is largely homebased. It's also a great way to connect with people with shared interests. Sometimes you can make a more lasting emotional connection, too, but there are many people who like to indulge in a chat about a specific topic without compromising their privacy.
I happen to be writing this while watching on a Prom on the TV. It's nice to be able to read what other people are thinking about the same performance, as it happens, or, for ones I have attended, to contribute my impressions to the discussion. It would be pretty stupid to walk down to my local pub after the broadcast and try to engage random strangers and casual acquaintances in a discussion about something they haven't seen.
Actually, I had forgotten it was on until I read some Tweets, and as a result, I managed to catch a decent performance of Brahms's First Symphony, which I really rather like.
I think sometimes people who don't blog or use social networking websites think that those of us who do do so as a replacement activity. To some extent, it is.
Sometimes it just helps with procrastination - who hasn't watched TV instead of doing the housework or cleaned the kitchen floor rather than finish that audit report? But I have never known anyone say "I can't go out tonight because I've got to catch up with blogs" whereas loads of people cancel nights out for TV programmes, even now when they could record them (because that doesn't work for live events, especially sport).
I rarely Twitter as an alternative to doing something of interest. I often send messages while I am on a short bus journey and can't be bothered to read. Or when I'm taking a short cigarette break eg on a bike ride. Or in an interval of a concert or opera when I haven't managed to meet up with any of the numerous fellow opera-lovers I have become acquainted with via the internet.
I have found that the casual conversations on Twitter/Facebook often reflect closely the conversations one has with workmates. Short sound bites about holidays or days out; post mortems into football; moans about the weather; discussions on using fresh garden and wild produce.
I suppose the mystery to people is that it happens on the internet. I guess they are still in the frame of mind that the internet is a novel means of communication which isn't sufficiently well established.
There was a time when large numbers of people used to say "I don't see the point of mobile phones - I will call someone at their home." I know several people who don't have mobiles, but they choose not to (or, rather have not chosen to) rather than questioning the very concept.
I used to be a bit resistant to texts, and even these days, I probably text less than most women my age. Decades ago people took time to adjust to the existence of telephones and radio, or an aeroplane flying overhead was a noteworthy event. I accept that as we get older we are more resistant to change - or more cynical about innovation for innovation's sake.
I don't think that Twitter is here to stay,and I think that ultimately Facebook is doomed. They currently rule supreme because they are, to all intents and purposes, monopoly suppliers.
General websites and email are more stable because they are de-centralised and have diverse suppliers. When sending an email it really doesn't matter who the recipient's internet provider is; this site happens to have hosting and content management provided by Typepad, but you can still read it if you have a Google/blogspot provided blog or no blog at all, and you can read it without signing up to anything or me knowing.
Ultimately, it's really no big deal. Up and down the land, people watch television or take part in creative and sporting hobbies that mix entertainment with some sort of striving for improvement. I don't see much difference between them and social networking.
I know there are people who use the internet because they lack the social skills to form relationships otherwise, but anybody who has ever been in a local community or hobby group will have encountered those who get involved because they are lonely and want to meet people, or simply want to meet people with shared interests. It's really no big deal.
I think the mistake Humphreys and his sort make is that they concentrate on the medium, and ignore the fact that is a basic human instinct to reach out to others. I would agree that there are a lot of idiots who use Twitter, but you don't have to engage with them any more than you're obliged to engage with the idiots you overhear on the bus.
Comments