Social media stardom
Discerning truth in an age of misinformation and fame.
Although I consider myself reasonably knowledgeable about the world around me, I have too often initially heard the name of a prominent person on the occasion of his or her death. Somehow I have managed to miss certain people’s fame or notoriety while they were still alive, probably because I travelled in different circles and followed other interests.
Such was the case with the recent murder of Charlie Kirk, the 31-year-old self-made public figure whose entrepreneurial and rhetorical skills catapulted him to stardom at an early age. I will leave others to assess Kirk’s life and work. Suffice it to say that he courted controversy, using it as a means of rallying millions of young people to the cause of a brand of conservatism currently in vogue in the United States.
The democratization of media
Kirk was one of a number of mostly younger men who have gained a following through astute use of social media. At one time fame and fortune generally came to those who were willing to be slotted into existing institutions and channels associated with the stage, cinema, print journalism, publishing, radio and television. Film stars, for example, were discovered by studio executives or their minions and found their lives circumscribed by the studio system.
Not anymore. The media of communication have been radically democratized in recent decades through the ubiquity of personal electronic devices and the associated internet technologies. Fifty years ago, when our family was following the ongoing crisis in my father’s native island of Cyprus, I would have loved to have access to raw information from that country rather than having to wait for an established media organization to decide whether it was still newsworthy.
Half a century later, my younger self has more than had his way. Today we are bombarded by tonnes of raw information, making it increasingly difficult to distinguish between truth and falsehood. More significant, fame itself is no longer the province of established institutions tasked with filtering gold from dross. A clever teenager can easily accumulate thousands of followers through persistence and an adroit use of means available (in principle) to everyone, quite irrespective of the message.
Discernment is still relevant
It was always questionable whether the old star systems produced quality in various fields of endeavour. Yet when fame is in principle available to anyone with the time and resources to attain it, we need to be even more discriminating to recognize truth and goodness. Following the crowd has never been sufficient, especially for the discerning Christian, who is bound by Jesus’ warning that “wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it” (Matt. 7:13, NIV). By contrast, “small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life,” a saying that is more relevant than ever in our social media age.
David, I wonder if things have changed so much. I speak of power. In the days of studio executives power determined to a large extent who got glory, fame, and public endorsement. Only a few people are effective in forming public perception, informing them, etc. Now it is those people who know how to manipulate power through what is called social media (I think it is more aptly termed ‘anti-social’ media) seemingly are effective in forming public perception, informing them, etc.
The key is, I think, that power divorced from accountability and stewardship are opposed to the model and teaching of Jesus Christ. (D.R. has an article about this in the current edition, too.)
Thanks, Curt. I agree with your observation.