BLOG 4 Being Public Without Being Reckless

Photo by Alicia Steels on Unsplash

Risks & benefits of engaging a public audience

This week made me realize that making it public online is actually a transaction. We can quickly connect with people, establish communities, and learn in public places; Progress can also be made through feedback. At the same time, risks also exist. For different audiences, a post can have multiple interpretations. MediaSmarts videos constantly return to the concept that media literacy is not passive – before participating, you must actively evaluate and verify the information (MediaSmarts, n.d.). In the field of public media, reputation becomes a part of your ‘public identity’, so even small mistakes can have a huge impact.

Extra risks for public figures/positions of trust

If I imagine myself as an educator, lawyer, or government official, then the risk is more like occupational injury. Because these professional halos lead to higher expectations, people believe that your words represent professional knowledge or authority, and sometimes they also believe that your words represent your employer. Hirst described how the online attention economy rewards speed and emotional response, even in situations where accuracy takes time, leading to pressure for quick reactions (Hirst, 2018). For public figures, a hasty comment may damage trust, trigger misinformation, or become a permanent screenshot.

Staying Calm, Staying Professional

I used to think that the response to criticism was either to defend oneself or to ignore everything. Now I believe the best response depends on values and boundaries. If the criticism is fair, I will acknowledge it and state my intention. If I am wrong, I must correct it. If the response is bait or a personal attack, I will avoid escalation and disengage. Of course, the difficulty lies in identification. This is where the importance of employer policies lies: it encourages you to maintain a professional tone, avoid public arguments, and protect confidentiality. Trilling and Fadel discussed the ethical and responsible use of information as part of media literacy (Trilling&Fadel, 2009). For me, respond slowly, cite sources when making statements, and never post when emotionally charged.

Different Views, Same Evidence

We usually watch in the third person, but occasionally we also immerse ourselves in the first-person perspective of the parties involved. When information seriously contradicts their cognition, it can make people feel like an attack on their identity and professional status, so people will instinctively resort to defense and counterattack rather than rational analysis. Hirst’s discussion helps to explain that misinformation is not just a matter of content; it is related to incentives, ideology, and platform rewards (Hirst, 2018). So having a PLN that values media literacy can make some changes. People will tolerate uncertainty and care about evidence rather than public opinion. It will not eliminate differences, but it will make them more effective. The internet can shift towards “different perspectives, but common standards of credibility” rather than an atmosphere of debate (MediaSmarts, n.d.; Trilling&Fadel, 2009).

References (APA)

Hirst, M. (2018). Navigating social journalism: A handbook for media literacy and citizen journalism (Chapter 4: The political economy of fake news). Routledge.
MediaSmarts. (n.d.). Facts matter: Media literacy [Video]. Course YouTube Channel.
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times (p. 66). Jossey-Bass.