Last week social media was very busy, thanks to a Facebook post by a local journalist who promised readers dirt on opposition leaders. The post by the journalist read: “For the longest time we have exposed the BDP and its leaders.
We are now going to expose opposition leaders. Batswana are going to be shocked and disappointed. I want to weep for my people. I want to weep for my country. Perhaps I should add to answer those who question the timing: For the longest time sources have been forthcoming with BDP rot. Now sources are coming out with opposition rot. We rely on sources and their timing”.
The statement received many likes, shares, and started an interesting and eye opening debate. Some felt the journalist was in the wrong, while others did not see anything wrong with the post. In short those who felt that the journalist was wrong, basically, said it was unethical for him to share the post, and viewed his post as a threat, while those who did not find anything wrong with the post, felt it was a promise.
While social media has been around for quite sometime now, there seem to be a lot of confusion surrounding the use of social media, or how print media should utilise social media to
Social media marketing encourages online interaction between customers and businesses. This interaction, will not only promote the product, and tease potential buyers into waiting for the next edition with baited breath, it will also start a debate, which can help the media house to improve their services.
It is common knowledge, that some of the Facebook commentators, are just there for likes, and never really, offer constructive criticism, but there are some whose comments can assist media houses in taking stock.
We all know the importance of balancing stories, and verifying information we get from our sources, and one of the biggest challenges with social media, is the pressure to break a story before anybody else, which in some cases may lead to people peddling unfounded allegations about certain individuals.