So there’s an interesting debate about the tastefulness of using Twitter at a child’s funeral, with some suggesting that it is (Valleywag, living in glasshouses, apparently), others suggesting that its merely pushing the envelope of new media usage.
I think this debate is really one of media versus message: I think it might be tempting to merely say that Twitter is just another way of communicating — surely, there’s nothing wrong with reporting at a funeral because it happens in other ways.
The problem is that there is already an association of what Twittering means, or is all about. I think its probably true of every single medium, in fact, from what we all perceive the role of news papers (even though its changing), television (also changing), blogging and pretty much everything.
For better or worse, the association with Twitter is that its something that isn’t meant to communicate things that are of any seriousness or gravitas; although we all really mean to Twitter meaningfully, we still see Twitters twitting about the crushingly banal. Cat food. What I had for breakfast. The fact that you might love bran. Things like that.
While *using* Twitter over time might mean different things, there are certain associations that it just can’t shake in 2008. So, what does this mean? It means that when you’re twittering at a child’s funeral, yes, its BOTH pushing the new media envelope to be Twittering at a child’s funeral AND tasteless at the same time.
September 14th, 2008 at 9:01 am | Permalink
While I agree with what you’re saying here in principle, I don’t think it’s the actual Twitter posts that are bothering people in this case. <a href=”http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/09/12/twittering-a-funeral-why-not/#comment-2324876″The first commenter on Matthew’s post captures what I see to be there real issue. It’s the mere act of pulling out your mobile device and using it during a funeral, which is a deeply personal and private event for the intended audience. If it had been someone who actually was connected to the child, I think it’d be seen more as inappropriate and less comment worthy. That it is a reporter is what makes it tasteless and deeply disrespectful to those around him.
Even when using new media to communicate, we are still be bound by societal rules of decent behavior and should show respect to the situation and those around us. A phone is a means to communicate too but if you called someone and were talking to them during a funeral ceremony, I think most would agree it’d be rude and out of line. Why should the new media equivalent be any different?
I wonder if anyone would have had the same reaction to this situation if the reporter had just waited until he was in the privacy of his car to send his Twitters about the funeral? I suppose that’s when the focus could have been more on whether Twitter is a frivolous communication tool or not and why it can’t be used to convey serious thought rather than merely the inconsequential.
September 14th, 2008 at 9:13 am | Permalink
@Rae — well, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head, actually.
The act of pulling out your cell or data phone to twitter, is *part* of that medium, specifically, that is, the way you interact or initiate the message.
If they were to have Twittered it from the privacy of their own car it wouldn’t have been “live” as most Twitters are.
The way we engage in new media is part of new media, and, perhaps, as trite as it is to say, is part of the message — that it pushes the boundaries of societal norms is, I think, part of the point
Cheers
t @ dji