Engaging with Public Audiences in Media Spaces: How do we assert our real identities in the media?

Is it genuine or low emotional intensity? If you’re a famous celebrity, do you rely on dramatic hotspots to generate increased attention or do you want to remain positive and active values? Why do we nowadays subconsciously speculate when we see official information in the media space? Why do public figures (i.e., hot celebrities, reality TV actors, internet celebrities, etc.) have a distinctly different impression from those in positions of trust (i.e., educators, lawyers, government officials, etc.)?

If you were given one minute to think critically about a current celebrity with a high level of popularity, who would it be? Personally, I can say Kim Kardashian without any hesitation. What if you were asked to think of the name of a reliable educator, lawyer, or government official? I guess the names that generally come to your mind are Trump, Obama, and all those people who are always in the news.

Why do members of the public subconsciously and habitually present themselves as stereotypes in media spaces?
People have to admit that today’s society is extremely entertaining, and of course, I know that some people will think that I’m going overboard with my comments. But when we look at the media industry today, what do we find? We see that our news is always focused on celebrity gossip, we see that many social events in our society continue to receive far less attention than reality TV, and we see that we can’t seem to live without entertainment.
The enormous financial pressure on everyone, the inverse of wages and high prices, the global bubble economy and the risk of inflation have long made people’s moods and states of mind as taut as a bow. Alternatively, people are not unaware of the fact that some media outlets are deliberately using puns or focusing on points that have no relevance to the original message in order to gain traffic and focus. I’m sure that every media outlet that is trying to get a boost for the sake of accuracy and truthfulness knows that they are doing it for the sake of a boost and not for the sake of their own morals and responsibilities, but in today’s pressurized world, who really keeps track of the information they’re reading and checking it for themselves?

What exactly are the risks and benefits of interacting with public audiences in media spaces? Why do public figures or people in positions of trust choose to engage in their behaviors even though they know the risks and benefits of interacting with public audiences in media spaces?

The risks of interacting with public audiences in the media space are mainly related to the influence that the media or the publishers and providers of information have on the public in combination with the communicative nature of the media. In other words, the media are so pervasive and embedded in the daily lives of some people that it is difficult for them to distinguish between public space and private life in social media, and they do not have a clear understanding of the order, scenarios, and norms of social media. When public figures or media publish targeted statements in the media space due to conflict of interest with other companies, personal reasons and even for the sake of justice, it can trigger the public to engage in human searches and cyber-violence. Regardless of whether the behavior and the process is really in the interest of the media and the publisher of the information or in the interest of the social group, these behaviors are essentially using public opinion to verbally abuse and threaten the public by posting targeted statements that drive the public to actually engage in cyber-violence under the pretext of searching for justice. In fact, this is so common that we can easily find it in the comments sections of blogs and news articles. Interests and conflicts are of course relative. I must admit that some coercive online behaviors are beneficial, as they do organize some of the disinformation people to continue posting their lies or to stop the spread of negative ideas. Certainly, these benefits include the reform of policies and laws as a result of public pressure, and the reduction of social inequalities and discrimination. But we must recognize that cyber violence and the blurring and deflation of the boundaries of order remain one of the main risks of interaction with public audiences in today’s media space.
It is difficult to distinguish between public space and private life in social media.

In an entertainment-driven society, should we be true to ourselves or should we sacrifice our positive values in order to gain traffic and attention?How to handle negative responses and criticism that reflect your personal values and employer’s social media policies?What are the benefits of having a PLN who values media literacy?

I’d like to end this post by saying to everyone, stay true to your own values and do whatever you think is right. Too often we are mesmerized by the materialism and desires of our society, and too often our endings unfold tragically. Secondly, I want everyone in front of the screen to know that personal values and negative comments on your employer’s social media policies can go hand in hand. There are always good voices and bad voices in the world. If we choose to make others agree with us, that’s true online authoritarianism. We need to listen to others, we need to be open to different information. When we get more information we can compare it with our values and think about whether our views need to be changed.

We are lucky, because not only do we have the technology, but we can also think about the distance between me and the media space. We are also unlucky that countless temptations have lured countless individuals to open the Pandora’s box of desires in the media space. Emphasizing media literacy, focusing on the ethics of PLN, and focusing on our true selves is the only way we can stay clean in this nasty entertainment supremacist society.