Friday, 12 December 2014
Saturday, 1 November 2014
Jimeoin apologises for Alzheimer's gag saying it was 'ignorant' | Daily Mail Online
Jimeoin apologises for Alzheimer's gag saying it was 'ignorant' | Daily Mail Online: "
'It was a joke!' Comedian Jimeoin apologises for the Alzheimer's gag insisting he didn't mean to upset anyone and admits it was 'ignorant' and 'flippant'
It was a cheap quip that sparked a barrage of criticism from charities and viewers and that even prompted broadcaster ITV to apologise.
And now comedian Jimeoin admits he no longer sees the funny side of the joke he made mocking people battling the degenerative brain disease Alzheimer’s telling Daily Mail Australia at Derby Day on Saturday: 'It was a joke and some people do find it offensive...I would say sorry to those people, absolutely.'
Talking about the sketch on variety show Sunday Night at the Palladium earlier this month, he added: 'We all have people who have got Alzheimer's, I’ve got people who have Alzheimer's, so that was my way of dealing with it.’
Apologetic: Comedian Jimeoin, at the Victoria Derby Day in 2005, told Daily Mail Australia at this year's Derby Day on Saturday that he was 'sorry' for offending anyone with his Alzheimer's sketch
The father of four, who lives in Melbourne with wife Catherine Arena and their four children, said in future he 'would try not to be that flippant about it.'
British comedian Jameoin, who rose to prominence in Australia with his own show in the 1990s, sparked fury when he opened his sketch on the UK family show by making light of the illness.
- The 48-year-old quipped: 'I think I am losing my memory. Do you ever think you have Alzheimer’s?
- 'Do you do that thing when you walk into a room and go "what did I come into this room for?" Open up a fridge, and go into soft focus. And close the fridge and go "what did I open the fridge for?"'
- He went on: 'Driving my car and thinking where am I going. I was looking for something in the fridge.'
- The then paused before adding: 'Have I done the Alzheimer’s joke?'
While some people in the audience found the punchline amusing, many took offence and jammed the switchboard of ITV, which aired the show, with complaints.
George McNamara, head of Policy and public affairs at Alzheimer’s Society told the Mirror: 'It’s hard to imagine that a comedian would find it acceptable to make jokes about having cancer or heart disease so it’s incredibly disappointing to see Alzheimer’s disease get this kind of treatment.
'While we’ve come a long way in terms of raising awareness this shows that there’s still a stubborn core of stigma about dementia.'
ITV executives were quick to release a statement, with a spokesperson saying: 'We apologise for any offence caused.'
Friday, 19 September 2014
Jon Stewart cursed me out: I dared question a “Daily Show” warm-up comic’s racist jokes - Salon.com
Jon Stewart cursed me out: I dared question a “Daily Show” warm-up comic’s racist jokes - Salon.com
furor about #CancelColbert revives a memory for me: the time that Jon
Stewart publicly cussed me out at “The Daily Show.” Ever since then,
I’ve wondered who gets to decide what’s funny — and who needs to get a
sense of humor.
This happened in April 2008, when I sat in the
studio audience of “The Daily Show.” I was a big fan of the way the show
used comedy to expose injustice; I was psyched to see Stewart in person
for the first time. But before the taping began, a comedian came out to
warm up the crowd.
To me, he seemed like a curious choice: This
white man told racist and misogynist jokes. He joked about greedy Jews,
and Caribbean women spitting before they cross the street. He singled
out people in the audience as his target: a married African-American
couple, and even a white lesbian in a wheelchair. It was their blackness
itself that he found funny, her lesbianism, her disability. (He
also picked on a white New Jersey family, but I’m originally from
Jersey, and we’re fair game — also, he didn’t pick on their whiteness.)
This
kind of humor warms me up in the wrong way. Since I was 6, I’ve dealt
with people telling jokes at my expense and expecting me to laugh: “Oh,
you know I’m just kidding!” At one job interview, they told me I was a
shoo-in, because one of the bosses had a thing for Asian women, ha-ha! I
know all about acting tolerant, friendly and forgiving, because it’s
social suicide to come off as humorless. I’ve given the benefit of the
doubt to all kinds of people who were clueless, or well intentioned,
whatever that means, or downright racist, so that I won’t sound like a
joyless harridan.
The mostly white audience laughed. Maybe they
found the routine agreeable and compelling; maybe they were trying to be
nice. They weren’t laughing because the jokes were witty, original or
successful at doing what “The Daily Show” (and “Colbert Report”) is
famous for: skewering and satirizing bigotry, to turn the joke on the
bigots. And the scapegoats also laughed. Maybe they were more tolerant,
friendly and forgiving than I was. But nobody should have to be that
tolerant. Nobody should have to make that judgment call, while the
straight white guy with the mic is disparaging you, and hundreds of
straight white people are laughing at you, expecting you to be a good
sport. Nobody should have to go home afterward, wondering if you had
truly been amused, or if you had felt pressured to behave that way, or
if you had felt too humiliated, too little, to mount your own
self-defense.
Topics:
Jon Stewart,
daily show,
Stephen Colbert,
#cancelcolbert,
Comedy,
TV,
Television,
Editor's Picks,
Jon Stewart cursed me out, Entertainment News
Jon Stewart,
daily show,
Stephen Colbert,
#cancelcolbert,
Comedy,
TV,
Television,
Editor's Picks,
Jon Stewart cursed me out, Entertainment News
Jon Stewart (Credit: AP/John Minchillo)
The furor about #CancelColbert revives a memory for me: the time that Jon
Stewart publicly cussed me out at “The Daily Show.” Ever since then,
I’ve wondered who gets to decide what’s funny — and who needs to get a
sense of humor.
This happened in April 2008, when I sat in the
studio audience of “The Daily Show.” I was a big fan of the way the show
used comedy to expose injustice; I was psyched to see Stewart in person
for the first time. But before the taping began, a comedian came out to
warm up the crowd.
To me, he seemed like a curious choice: This
white man told racist and misogynist jokes. He joked about greedy Jews,
and Caribbean women spitting before they cross the street. He singled
out people in the audience as his target: a married African-American
couple, and even a white lesbian in a wheelchair. It was their blackness
itself that he found funny, her lesbianism, her disability. (He
also picked on a white New Jersey family, but I’m originally from
Jersey, and we’re fair game — also, he didn’t pick on their whiteness.)
This
kind of humor warms me up in the wrong way. Since I was 6, I’ve dealt
with people telling jokes at my expense and expecting me to laugh: “Oh,
you know I’m just kidding!” At one job interview, they told me I was a
shoo-in, because one of the bosses had a thing for Asian women, ha-ha! I
know all about acting tolerant, friendly and forgiving, because it’s
social suicide to come off as humorless. I’ve given the benefit of the
doubt to all kinds of people who were clueless, or well intentioned,
whatever that means, or downright racist, so that I won’t sound like a
joyless harridan.
The mostly white audience laughed. Maybe they
found the routine agreeable and compelling; maybe they were trying to be
nice. They weren’t laughing because the jokes were witty, original or
successful at doing what “The Daily Show” (and “Colbert Report”) is
famous for: skewering and satirizing bigotry, to turn the joke on the
bigots. And the scapegoats also laughed. Maybe they were more tolerant,
friendly and forgiving than I was. But nobody should have to be that
tolerant. Nobody should have to make that judgment call, while the
straight white guy with the mic is disparaging you, and hundreds of
straight white people are laughing at you, expecting you to be a good
sport. Nobody should have to go home afterward, wondering if you had
truly been amused, or if you had felt pressured to behave that way, or
if you had felt too humiliated, too little, to mount your own
self-defense.
Tuesday, 16 September 2014
Death Row Dinners Apologises for 'Last Meal' Themed Hoxton Restaurant
Death Row Dinners Apologises for 'Last Meal' Themed Hoxton Restaurant
A Death row themed pop-up restaurant has apologised and said it is
considering its next steps following complaints for offering the
"ultimate last meal experience".
The restaurant's 'last meal' theme was criticised for being in
"shockingly bad taste". Photographs of criminals who were executed with
examples of the menu options around their neck were also taken down from
the website following the outcry.
The restaurant has since apologised for any offence cause but said it is "shocked and saddened" by the response.
A Death Row Dinners spokesperson added: "The pop up is intended to
explore the concept of last meals; anyone who has ever been to a dinner
party has probably had this conversation – what would they love their
last meal to be.
"In light of the response to the idea we are considering our next steps and will update everyone with our decision."
It is not known whether the restaurant will be pulling the idea for
good. The event is advertised to run from 24 October to 29 November.
September 16, 2014 13:38 BST
The restaurant apologised for offering a 'Death Row' dining experience(Death Row Diners)
considering its next steps following complaints for offering the
"ultimate last meal experience".
The restaurant's 'last meal' theme was criticised for being in
"shockingly bad taste". Photographs of criminals who were executed with
examples of the menu options around their neck were also taken down from
the website following the outcry.
The restaurant has since apologised for any offence cause but said it is "shocked and saddened" by the response.
A Death Row Dinners spokesperson added: "The pop up is intended to
explore the concept of last meals; anyone who has ever been to a dinner
party has probably had this conversation – what would they love their
last meal to be.
"In light of the response to the idea we are considering our next steps and will update everyone with our decision."
It is not known whether the restaurant will be pulling the idea for
good. The event is advertised to run from 24 October to 29 November.
Sunday, 14 September 2014
Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’ | Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project
Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’ | Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project:
Summary of Findings
A major insight into human behavior from pre-internet era studies of communication is the tendency of people not to speak up about policy issues in public—or among their family, friends, and work colleagues—when they believe their own point of view is not widely shared. This tendency is called the “spiral of silence.”1
Some social media creators and supporters have hoped that social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter might produce different enough discussion venues that those with minority views might feel freer to express their opinions, thus broadening public discourse and adding new perspectives to everyday discussion of political issues.
We set out to study this by conducting a survey of 1,801 adults.2 It focused on one important public issue: Edward Snowden’s 2013 revelations of widespread government surveillance of Americans’ phone and email records. We selected this issue because other surveys by the Pew Research Center at the time we were fielding this poll showed thatAmericans were divided over whether the NSA contractor’s leaks about surveillance were justified and whether the surveillance policy itself was a good or bad idea. For instance, Pew Research found in one survey that 44% say the release of classified information harms the public interest while 49% said it serves the public interest.
Summary of Findings
A major insight into human behavior from pre-internet era studies of communication is the tendency of people not to speak up about policy issues in public—or among their family, friends, and work colleagues—when they believe their own point of view is not widely shared. This tendency is called the “spiral of silence.”1
Some social media creators and supporters have hoped that social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter might produce different enough discussion venues that those with minority views might feel freer to express their opinions, thus broadening public discourse and adding new perspectives to everyday discussion of political issues.
We set out to study this by conducting a survey of 1,801 adults.2 It focused on one important public issue: Edward Snowden’s 2013 revelations of widespread government surveillance of Americans’ phone and email records. We selected this issue because other surveys by the Pew Research Center at the time we were fielding this poll showed thatAmericans were divided over whether the NSA contractor’s leaks about surveillance were justified and whether the surveillance policy itself was a good or bad idea. For instance, Pew Research found in one survey that 44% say the release of classified information harms the public interest while 49% said it serves the public interest.
The survey reported in this report sought people’s opinions about the Snowden leaks, their willingness to talk about the revelations in various in-person and online settings, and their perceptions of the views of those around them in a variety of online and off-line contexts.
This survey’s findings produced several major insights:
- 86% of Americans were willing to have an in-person conversation about the surveillance program, but just 42% of Facebook and Twitter users were willing to post about it on those platforms.
- Of the 14% of Americans unwilling to discuss the Snowden-NSA story in person with others, only 0.3% were willing to post about it on social media.
- For instance, at work, those who felt their coworkers agreed with their opinion were about three times more likely to say they would join a workplace conversation about the Snowden-NSA situation.
- Previous ‘spiral of silence’ findings as to people’s willingness to speak up in various settings also apply to social media users. Those who use Facebook were more willing to share their views if they thought their followers agreed with them.
- This was especially true if they did not feel that their Facebook friends or Twitter followers agreed with their point of view. For instance, the average Facebook user (someone who uses the site a few times per day) was half as likely as other people to say they would be willing to voice their opinion with friends at a restaurant. If they felt that their online Facebook network agreed with their views on this issue, their willingness to speak out in a face-to-face discussion with friends was higher, although they were still only 0.74 times as likely to voice their opinion as other people.
Overall, the findings indicate that in the Snowden case, social media did not provide new forums for those who might otherwise remain silent to express their opinions and debate issues. Further, if people thought their friends and followers in social media disagreed with them, they were less likely to say they would state their views on the Snowden-NSA story online and in other contexts, such as gatherings of friends, neighbors, or co-workers. This suggests a spiral of silence might spill over from online contexts to in-person contexts, though our data cannot definitively demonstrate this causation. It also might mean that the broad awareness social media users have of their networks might make them more hesitant to speak up because they are especially tuned into the opinions of those around them.
A rundown of the key survey findings:
People reported being less willing to discuss the Snowden-NSA story in social media than they were in person—and social media did not provide an alternative outlet for those reluctant to discuss the issues in person.
Fully —at a public meeting, at a family dinner, at a restaurant with friends, or at work. Yet, only 42% of those who use Facebook or Twitter were willing to discuss these same issues through social media.
Of the 14% of Americans who were not willing to discuss this issue in person, almost none (0.3%) said they were willing to have a conversation about this issue through social media. This challenges the notion that social media spaces might be considered useful venues for people sharing views they would not otherwise express when they are in the physical presence of others.
Not only were social media sites not an alternative forum for discussion, social media users were less willing to share their opinions in face-to-face settings.
We also did statistical modeling allowing us to more fully understand the findings by controlling for such things as gender, age, education levels, race, and marital status—all of which are related to whether people use social media and how they use it. That modeling allowed us to calculate how likely people were to be willing to express their views in these differing settings holding other things constant.3
The results of our analyses show that, even holding other factors such as age constant, social media users are less likely than others to say they would join a discussion about the Snowden-NSA revelations.
In both offline and online settings, people said they were more willing to share their views on the Snowden-NSA revelations if they thought their audience agreed with them.
Previous research has shown that when people decide whether to speak out about an issue, they rely on reference groups—friendships and community ties—to weigh their opinion relative to their peers. In the survey, we asked respondents about their sense of whether different groups of people in their lives agreed or disagreed with their positions on the Snowden leaks. There was some notable variance between those who feel they know the views of their peers and those who do not know what others think. Generally, the more socially close people were—e.g. spouses or family members—the more likely it was that the respondents felt their views matched.
We again calculated how likely it was that someone would be willing to share their views in different settings, depending on their sense of whether their audience agreed with them.
- At a family dinner, those who felt that family members agreed with their opinion were 1.90 times more likely to be willing to discuss the Snowden-NSA issue.
- At a restaurant with friends, if their close friends agreed with their opinion people were 1.42 times more likely to be willing to discuss the Snowden-NSA matter.
- On Facebook, if a person felt that people in their Facebook network agreed with their position on that issue, they were 1.91 times more likely to be willing to join a conversation on the topic of Snowden-NSA.
Those who do not feel that their Facebook friends or Twitter followers agree with their opinion are more likely to self-censor their views on the Snowden-NSA story in many circumstances—in social media and in face-to-face encounters.
In this survey on the Snowden-NSA matter, we found that . This was true not only in social media spaces, but also in the physical presence of others.
- The average Facebook user (someone who uses the site a few times per day) was half as likely as other people to say they would be willing to voice their opinion with friends at a restaurant. If they felt that their online Facebook network agreed with their views on this issue, their willingness to speak out in a face-to-face discussion with friends was higher, although they were still only 0.74 times as likely to voice their opinion.
- The typical Twitter user (who uses the site a few times per day) is 0.24 times as likely to share their opinions with colleagues at work as an internet user who does not use Twitter. However, Twitter users who felt that their online Twitter followers shared their opinion were less reserved: They were only 0.66 times less likely to speak up than other internet users.
The survey did not directly explore why people might remain silent if they felt that their opinions were in the minority. The traditional view of the spiral of silence is that people choose not to speak out for fear of isolation. Other Pew Research studies have found that it is common for social media users to be mistaken about their friends’ beliefs and to be surprised once they discover their friends’ actual views via social media. Thus, it might be the case that people do not want to disclose their minority views for fear of disappointing their friends, getting into fruitless arguments, or losing them entirely. Some people may prefer not to share their views on social media because their posts persist and can be found later—perhaps by prospective employers or others with high status. As to why the absence of agreement on social media platforms spills over into a spiral of silence in physical settings, we speculate that social media users may have witnessed those with minority opinions experiencing ostracism, ridicule or bullying online, and that this might increase the perceived risk of opinion sharing in other settings.
People also say they would speak up, or stay silent, under specific conditions.
In addition to exploring the impact of agreement/disagreement on whether people were willing to discuss the Snowden-NSA revelations, we asked about other factors that might shape whether people would speak out, even if they suspected they held minority views. This survey shows how the social and political climate in which people share opinions depends on several other things:
- Their confidence in how much they know. Those who felt they knew a lot about the issues were more likely than others to say they would join conversations.
- The intensity of their opinions. Those who said they had strong feelings about the Snowden-NSA matter were more willing than those with less intense feelings to talk about the subject.
- Their level of interest.
People’s use of social media did little to increase their access to information about the Snowden-NSA revelations.
We asked respondents where they were getting information about the debates swirling around the Snowden revelations, and found that social media was not a common source of news for most Americans. Traditional broadcast news sources were by far the most common sources. In contrast, social media sources like Facebook and Twitter were the least commonly identified sources for news on this issue.
- 34% got at least some information from online sources other than social media.4
- 31% got at least some information from friends and family.
- 19% got at least some information from a print newspaper.
There are limits to what this snapshot can tell us about how social media use is related to the ways Americans discuss important political issues. This study focuses on one specific public affairs issue that was of interest to most Americans: the Snowden-NSA revelations. It is not an exhaustive review of all public policy issues and the way they are discussed in social media.
The context of the Snowden-NSA story may also have made it somewhat different from other kinds of public debates. At the time of this study, the material leaked by Edward Snowden related to NSA monitoring of communications dealt specifically with “meta-data” collected on people’s phone and internet communications. For a phone call, the meta-data collected by the NSA was described as including the duration of the call, when it happened, the numbers the call was between, but not a recording of the call. For email, meta-data would have included the sender and recipient’s email addresses and when it was sent, but not the subject or text of the email.
Additional information leaked by Snowden after our study was completed suggests thatWestern intelligence agencies monitored and manipulated the content of online discussions and the NSA recorded the content of foreign phone calls. In reaction to these additional revelations, people may have adjusted their use of social media and their willingness to discuss a range of topics, including public issues such as government surveillance. However, given the limited extent of the information leaked by Snowden at the time the survey was fielded, it seems unlikely that the average American had extensively altered their willingness to discuss political issues. Future research may provide insight into whether Americans have become more or less willing to discuss specific issues on-and offline as a result of government surveillance programs. While this study focused on the Snowden-NSA revelations, we suspect that Americans use social media in similar ways to discuss and get news about other political issues.
About this Report
An informed citizenry depends on people’s exposure to information on important political issues and on their willingness to discuss these issues with those around them. The rise of social media, such as Facebook and Twitter, has introduced new spaces where political discussion and debate can take place. This report explores the degree to which social media affects a long-established human attribute—that those who think they hold minority opinions often self-censor, failing to speak out for fear of ostracism or ridicule. It is called the “spiral of silence.”
This report is a collaborative effort based on the input and analysis of the following individuals:5
Keith N. Hampton, Associate Professor, Rutgers UniversityLee Rainie, Director, Internet ProjectWeixu Lu, PhD student, Rutgers UniversityMaria Dwyer, PhD student, Rutgers UniversityInyoung Shin, PhD student, Rutgers UniversityKristen Purcell, Associate Director for Research, Internet Project
Other major reports from the Pew Research Center Internet Project on the social and political impact of social networking sites on social and political activity can be found at:
http://www.pewinternet.org/2012/10/19/social-media-and-political-engagement/http://www.pewinternet.org/2012/09/04/politics-on-social-networking-sites/http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/04/25/civic-engagement-in-the-digital-age/http://www.pewinternet.org/2012/02/03/why-most-facebook-users-get-more-than-they-give/http://www.pewinternet.org/2011/06/16/social-networking-sites-and-our-lives/http://www.pewinternet.org/2009/11/04/social-isolation-and-new-technology/http://www.pewinternet.org/2004/10/27/the-internet-and-democratic-debate/
Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’ | Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project
Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’ | Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project:
Summary of Findings
A major insight into human behavior from pre-internet era studies of communication is the tendency of people not to speak up about policy issues in public—or among their family, friends, and work colleagues—when they believe their own point of view is not widely shared. This tendency is called the “spiral of silence.”1
Some social media creators and supporters have hoped that social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter might produce different enough discussion venues that those with minority views might feel freer to express their opinions, thus broadening public discourse and adding new perspectives to everyday discussion of political issues.
"
Summary of Findings
A major insight into human behavior from pre-internet era studies of communication is the tendency of people not to speak up about policy issues in public—or among their family, friends, and work colleagues—when they believe their own point of view is not widely shared. This tendency is called the “spiral of silence.”1
Some social media creators and supporters have hoped that social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter might produce different enough discussion venues that those with minority views might feel freer to express their opinions, thus broadening public discourse and adding new perspectives to everyday discussion of political issues.
"
We set out to study this by conducting a survey of 1,801 adults.2 It focused on one important public issue: Edward Snowden’s 2013 revelations of widespread government surveillance of Americans’ phone and email records. We selected this issue because other surveys by the Pew Research Center at the time we were fielding this poll showed thatAmericans were divided over whether the NSA contractor’s leaks about surveillance were justified and whether the surveillance policy itself was a good or bad idea. For instance, Pew Research found in one survey that 44% say the release of classified information harms the public interest while 49% said it serves the public interest.
The survey reported in this report sought people’s opinions about the Snowden leaks, their willingness to talk about the revelations in various in-person and online settings, and their perceptions of the views of those around them in a variety of online and off-line contexts.
This survey’s findings produced several major insights:
- 86% of Americans were willing to have an in-person conversation about the surveillance program, but just 42% of Facebook and Twitter users were willing to post about it on those platforms.
- Of the 14% of Americans unwilling to discuss the Snowden-NSA story in person with others, only 0.3% were willing to post about it on social media.
- For instance, at work, those who felt their coworkers agreed with their opinion were about three times more likely to say they would join a workplace conversation about the Snowden-NSA situation.
- Previous ‘spiral of silence’ findings as to people’s willingness to speak up in various settings also apply to social media users. Those who use Facebook were more willing to share their views if they thought their followers agreed with them.
- This was especially true if they did not feel that their Facebook friends or Twitter followers agreed with their point of view. For instance, the average Facebook user (someone who uses the site a few times per day) was half as likely as other people to say they would be willing to voice their opinion with friends at a restaurant. If they felt that their online Facebook network agreed with their views on this issue, their willingness to speak out in a face-to-face discussion with friends was higher, although they were still only 0.74 times as likely to voice their opinion as other people.
Overall, the findings indicate that in the Snowden case, social media did not provide new forums for those who might otherwise remain silent to express their opinions and debate issues. Further, if people thought their friends and followers in social media disagreed with them, they were less likely to say they would state their views on the Snowden-NSA story online and in other contexts, such as gatherings of friends, neighbors, or co-workers. This suggests a spiral of silence might spill over from online contexts to in-person contexts, though our data cannot definitively demonstrate this causation. It also might mean that the broad awareness social media users have of their networks might make them more hesitant to speak up because they are especially tuned into the opinions of those around them.
A rundown of the key survey findings:
People reported being less willing to discuss the Snowden-NSA story in social media than they were in person—and social media did not provide an alternative outlet for those reluctant to discuss the issues in person.
Fully —at a public meeting, at a family dinner, at a restaurant with friends, or at work. Yet, only 42% of those who use Facebook or Twitter were willing to discuss these same issues through social media.
Of the 14% of Americans who were not willing to discuss this issue in person, almost none (0.3%) said they were willing to have a conversation about this issue through social media. This challenges the notion that social media spaces might be considered useful venues for people sharing views they would not otherwise express when they are in the physical presence of others.
Not only were social media sites not an alternative forum for discussion, social media users were less willing to share their opinions in face-to-face settings.
We also did statistical modeling allowing us to more fully understand the findings by controlling for such things as gender, age, education levels, race, and marital status—all of which are related to whether people use social media and how they use it. That modeling allowed us to calculate how likely people were to be willing to express their views in these differing settings holding other things constant.3
The results of our analyses show that, even holding other factors such as age constant, social media users are less likely than others to say they would join a discussion about the Snowden-NSA revelations.
In both offline and online settings, people said they were more willing to share their views on the Snowden-NSA revelations if they thought their audience agreed with them.
Previous research has shown that when people decide whether to speak out about an issue, they rely on reference groups—friendships and community ties—to weigh their opinion relative to their peers. In the survey, we asked respondents about their sense of whether different groups of people in their lives agreed or disagreed with their positions on the Snowden leaks. There was some notable variance between those who feel they know the views of their peers and those who do not know what others think. Generally, the more socially close people were—e.g. spouses or family members—the more likely it was that the respondents felt their views matched.
We again calculated how likely it was that someone would be willing to share their views in different settings, depending on their sense of whether their audience agreed with them.
- At a family dinner, those who felt that family members agreed with their opinion were 1.90 times more likely to be willing to discuss the Snowden-NSA issue.
- At a restaurant with friends, if their close friends agreed with their opinion people were 1.42 times more likely to be willing to discuss the Snowden-NSA matter.
- On Facebook, if a person felt that people in their Facebook network agreed with their position on that issue, they were 1.91 times more likely to be willing to join a conversation on the topic of Snowden-NSA.
Those who do not feel that their Facebook friends or Twitter followers agree with their opinion are more likely to self-censor their views on the Snowden-NSA story in many circumstances—in social media and in face-to-face encounters.
In this survey on the Snowden-NSA matter, we found that . This was true not only in social media spaces, but also in the physical presence of others.
- The average Facebook user (someone who uses the site a few times per day) was half as likely as other people to say they would be willing to voice their opinion with friends at a restaurant. If they felt that their online Facebook network agreed with their views on this issue, their willingness to speak out in a face-to-face discussion with friends was higher, although they were still only 0.74 times as likely to voice their opinion.
- The typical Twitter user (who uses the site a few times per day) is 0.24 times as likely to share their opinions with colleagues at work as an internet user who does not use Twitter. However, Twitter users who felt that their online Twitter followers shared their opinion were less reserved: They were only 0.66 times less likely to speak up than other internet users.
The survey did not directly explore why people might remain silent if they felt that their opinions were in the minority. The traditional view of the spiral of silence is that people choose not to speak out for fear of isolation. Other Pew Research studies have found that it is common for social media users to be mistaken about their friends’ beliefs and to be surprised once they discover their friends’ actual views via social media. Thus, it might be the case that people do not want to disclose their minority views for fear of disappointing their friends, getting into fruitless arguments, or losing them entirely. Some people may prefer not to share their views on social media because their posts persist and can be found later—perhaps by prospective employers or others with high status. As to why the absence of agreement on social media platforms spills over into a spiral of silence in physical settings, we speculate that social media users may have witnessed those with minority opinions experiencing ostracism, ridicule or bullying online, and that this might increase the perceived risk of opinion sharing in other settings.
People also say they would speak up, or stay silent, under specific conditions.
In addition to exploring the impact of agreement/disagreement on whether people were willing to discuss the Snowden-NSA revelations, we asked about other factors that might shape whether people would speak out, even if they suspected they held minority views. This survey shows how the social and political climate in which people share opinions depends on several other things:
- Their confidence in how much they know. Those who felt they knew a lot about the issues were more likely than others to say they would join conversations.
- The intensity of their opinions. Those who said they had strong feelings about the Snowden-NSA matter were more willing than those with less intense feelings to talk about the subject.
- Their level of interest.
People’s use of social media did little to increase their access to information about the Snowden-NSA revelations.
We asked respondents where they were getting information about the debates swirling around the Snowden revelations, and found that social media was not a common source of news for most Americans. Traditional broadcast news sources were by far the most common sources. In contrast, social media sources like Facebook and Twitter were the least commonly identified sources for news on this issue.
- 34% got at least some information from online sources other than social media.4
- 31% got at least some information from friends and family.
- 19% got at least some information from a print newspaper.
There are limits to what this snapshot can tell us about how social media use is related to the ways Americans discuss important political issues. This study focuses on one specific public affairs issue that was of interest to most Americans: the Snowden-NSA revelations. It is not an exhaustive review of all public policy issues and the way they are discussed in social media.
The context of the Snowden-NSA story may also have made it somewhat different from other kinds of public debates. At the time of this study, the material leaked by Edward Snowden related to NSA monitoring of communications dealt specifically with “meta-data” collected on people’s phone and internet communications. For a phone call, the meta-data collected by the NSA was described as including the duration of the call, when it happened, the numbers the call was between, but not a recording of the call. For email, meta-data would have included the sender and recipient’s email addresses and when it was sent, but not the subject or text of the email.
Additional information leaked by Snowden after our study was completed suggests thatWestern intelligence agencies monitored and manipulated the content of online discussions and the NSA recorded the content of foreign phone calls. In reaction to these additional revelations, people may have adjusted their use of social media and their willingness to discuss a range of topics, including public issues such as government surveillance. However, given the limited extent of the information leaked by Snowden at the time the survey was fielded, it seems unlikely that the average American had extensively altered their willingness to discuss political issues. Future research may provide insight into whether Americans have become more or less willing to discuss specific issues on-and offline as a result of government surveillance programs. While this study focused on the Snowden-NSA revelations, we suspect that Americans use social media in similar ways to discuss and get news about other political issues.
About this Report
An informed citizenry depends on people’s exposure to information on important political issues and on their willingness to discuss these issues with those around them. The rise of social media, such as Facebook and Twitter, has introduced new spaces where political discussion and debate can take place. This report explores the degree to which social media affects a long-established human attribute—that those who think they hold minority opinions often self-censor, failing to speak out for fear of ostracism or ridicule. It is called the “spiral of silence.”
This report is a collaborative effort based on the input and analysis of the following individuals:5
Keith N. Hampton, Associate Professor, Rutgers UniversityLee Rainie, Director, Internet ProjectWeixu Lu, PhD student, Rutgers UniversityMaria Dwyer, PhD student, Rutgers UniversityInyoung Shin, PhD student, Rutgers UniversityKristen Purcell, Associate Director for Research, Internet Project
Other major reports from the Pew Research Center Internet Project on the social and political impact of social networking sites on social and political activity can be found at:
http://www.pewinternet.org/2012/10/19/social-media-and-political-engagement/http://www.pewinternet.org/2012/09/04/politics-on-social-networking-sites/http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/04/25/civic-engagement-in-the-digital-age/http://www.pewinternet.org/2012/02/03/why-most-facebook-users-get-more-than-they-give/http://www.pewinternet.org/2011/06/16/social-networking-sites-and-our-lives/http://www.pewinternet.org/2009/11/04/social-isolation-and-new-technology/http://www.pewinternet.org/2004/10/27/the-internet-and-democratic-debate/
'Fat shaming' does not help people lose weight, experts say
"Fat shaming' does not help people lose weight", says expert
yeah sure, and ...
"fat-acceptance (apologetics) does not help the obesity / health crisis", says anyone with half a brain
• Fat acceptance movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• 6 Things I Don’t Understand About The Fat Acceptance Movement | Thought Catalog
• 6 Things I Understand About the Fat Acceptance Movement | Jes Baker (delusional, ignores the problem)
small minds and corrupt manipulators always frame a debate as:
“one dimensional extreme A > versus > one dimensional extreme B”
its the insidious use of the highly subjective / judgmental term "shaming" that is most interesting
adds zero to the informed debate
meanwhile in the west:
• public health costs skyrocket
• there is a massively profitable “private health industry” supported by the millions of fat unhealthy people
• expenditure on so called health “services” now out-strips solutions research by 500-600 %
so if there is any outrage and shaming over the topic of obesity - how about harnessing it to pursue massive class action litigation against those who should really bear bear the responsibility ( ? ), ie:
• insidious, money-grabbing, cynical food companies
• corrupt and incompetent health authorities and health sector professionals
Obesity rates soar in Australia, a global survey reveals
Obesity rates in Australia and New Zealand have soared by more than 80 per cent in the past 33 years, the biggest increase in a groundbreaking survey of almost 200 countries.
yeah sure, and ...
"fat-acceptance (apologetics) does not help the obesity / health crisis", says anyone with half a brain
• Fat acceptance movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• 6 Things I Don’t Understand About The Fat Acceptance Movement | Thought Catalog
• 6 Things I Understand About the Fat Acceptance Movement | Jes Baker (delusional, ignores the problem)
small minds and corrupt manipulators always frame a debate as:
“one dimensional extreme A > versus > one dimensional extreme B”
its the insidious use of the highly subjective / judgmental term "shaming" that is most interesting
adds zero to the informed debate
meanwhile in the west:
• public health costs skyrocket
• there is a massively profitable “private health industry” supported by the millions of fat unhealthy people
• expenditure on so called health “services” now out-strips solutions research by 500-600 %
so if there is any outrage and shaming over the topic of obesity - how about harnessing it to pursue massive class action litigation against those who should really bear bear the responsibility ( ? ), ie:
• insidious, money-grabbing, cynical food companies
• corrupt and incompetent health authorities and health sector professionals
Obesity rates soar in Australia, a global survey reveals
Obesity rates in Australia and New Zealand have soared by more than 80 per cent in the past 33 years, the biggest increase in a groundbreaking survey of almost 200 countries.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)