By Jason Lim
(0)(0)(0).jpg/dims/resize/740/optimize) |
The authorities, when releasing initial findings into the cause of the explosion, announced that the fire was caused by a sky lantern that fell in the grassy area near the fuel tanks, causing a fire. Sparks from the grass fire ignited the gas vapors emanating from the tanks. What was disturbing but entirely unsurprising was that the authorities mentioned that the person who launched the culprit sky lantern was a Sri Lankan migrant worker who was working at a tunnel construction site about 300 meters away.
Needless to say, the suspected arsonist's nationality made it into the press headlines. Somehow, the suspect's nationality was one of key facts of the case. It didn't matter that his nationality had nothing to do with the nature of the accident. It was the assumption behind the mentioning of the nationality that's the issue.
The underlying narrative that defined this story was now that this Third World migrant worker, who was so generously let into this country to make a living and provide for his family back home out of the grand largess of the Korean people, grossly betrayed his benefactors through his actions. It was all about eliciting an emotional "How dare he?" reaction from the audience, followed by "Kick them all out!" and "Korea is for Koreans!" vitriol typically and recently seen in the public debate about Yemeni asylum seekers.
What if the culprit was a Korean? This is would have been a non-story, except that it was a horrible accident. What if the original school ceremony lanterns had started the fire? The story would probably be about catering to the children who could have been emotionally injured by the totally unintended consequences. What about an American soldier? Perhaps another Mi-son and Hyo-sun brouhaha. What if a bunch of Korea-Chinese having a picnic on the grassy knolls had carelessly flicked a burning cigarette butt? Don't even want to imagine the public venom.
All this to say that the mainstream press grabbed at the identity of the perpetrator to spin the story in ways designed to cater to the loudest and often basest emotional reactions of the target audience. And more article views or higher TV ratings.
But then something happened that surprised me.
The target audience didn't buy the spin and pushed back. Of course, there were the expected, hyperbolic reactions calling for the expulsion of all migrant workers as a plague on the harmonious and homogeneous Korean society. But the vast majority of the reactions seemed to be a condemnation over the authorities and mainstream media's release of the nationality of the accidental arsonist. This didn't happen after a few days either. This happened almost immediately.
This was actually the first time I witnessed an organic self-correcting feedback loop that shifted a story's spin away from the one intended by the authorities and/or the press; soon, there were articles parroting the public sentiment and refocusing the story on the lack of safety measures in the fuel storage depot rather than on the nationality of the alleged arsonist.
For a brief moment, the top trending story on Daum was titled, "Don't scapegoat the Sri Lankan." The article was about multiple petitions that were posted on Cheong Wa Dae's petition page decrying the scapegoating of the suspect by nationality and requesting the suspect not to be arrested.
During the Arab Spring, social media was a force for good, democratizing influence and informing the people to speak truth against power. Now, social media is the new tobacco, addicting us by using our own emotional weaknesses and creating discordant echo chambers that accentuate our differences rather than bringing us together. Worse, it's a platform for political propaganda for the gullible who swallow fake news whole that speaks to their ingrained prejudices.
But can social media also be a spin doctor for news stories? I find this intriguing. I am sure the mainstream press constantly monitors how people react to their digital news stories and adjusts accordingly. Can dedicated social media spin doctors affect the narrative arch of a live news story in real time by leveraging the immediacy of social media?
Questioning the official company line was always an integral part of social media. However, they were usually limited to their own echo chambers. Now, we see social media skepticism translate itself into the editorial direction of a developing news story.
Perhaps this is just a one-time phenomenon. Or can this be an online extension of the candlelit revolution that brought the current administration to power and empowered the Korean public as an agent for change?
Is social media the good guys again?
Jason Lim (jasonlim@msn.com) is a Washington, D.C.-based expert on innovation, leadership and organizational culture.
![[INTERVIEW] Leandro Erlich's questioning of our perception of reality carries new meaning in pandemic](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/4e0bfee487254348a54493b1502067fa.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
