Jonathan MacDonald.com - Latest Comments in Understanding The Power Of Social Media

Re: Understanding The Power Of Social Media

nicolo Passy — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 13:02:05 -0000

You may care to see a film on youtube called
Boris Johnson The Investigation.

which is at

Re: Understanding The Power Of Social Media

Tuesdaydvd — Fri, 08 Oct 2010 05:18:36 -0000

The interesting point here is that, whichever party was wielding the power, be that the guard or the blogger, acted as judge, jury and executioner. Herein lies the danger inherent in the internet's power, as is evident in the vile content you often find there.

Re: Understanding The Power Of Social Media

brendanphipps — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 14:27:01 -0000

Yawn.... old News! Bloody students. Always moaning!

Re: Understanding The Power Of Social Media

Student — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 12:06:24 -0000

Jonathan, from the way it looks, you appear to of wanted all this attention for yourself. I saw both your interviews on BBC and ITV, and you didn't appear to strike me as somebody that had 'genuine concerns' for a passenger..but somebody who was more out on a revenge mission!

The story that was going around amoungst staff regarding that particular passenger is that he had been regularly intimidating the female member of staff on previous occasions, hence Ian's intevention.
You see, I don't know what happened before, we only have your word on this,
As somebody that works on the railway Part Time, I know all to well that some passengers are generally unpleasant, rude and obnoxious.
I don't blame Ian for losing it....because I know how we get treated when we put up and shut up!

Re: Understanding The Power Of Social Media

Guest — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:46:23 -0000

Yes, he *could* have expressed all of his disgust privately and given the video to TFL, but he blogged it. That's what bloggers do. Hell, that's what people do in this hyper-connected world. They share their experiences on the web, and why not? And you know what? When public servants are treating the public badly in a public place, you're damn right that I as a member of the public want to know about it. Thank you Jonathan.

If any devastation has been caused, then the fault lies with the man who committed the wrongdoing. We are all responsible for our own actions and he (like all of us) had a choice not to behave atrociously that day. If you believe media exaggeration is responsible, then take that up with the media. They decide which stories they're going to run with and sensationalize. Not the blogger here. The blame certainly doesn't lie at the feet of the man who decided to blog his experiences of that day.

As for the threatening messages being left around the internet, they are hardly the fault of the blogger either. Seriously, which parallel universe does this kind of logic and thought process emerge from because it's completely alien to me? Are we now to conceal our every criticism for fear of being held responsible for the actions of others? Others in this case being the people who behave with remarkable bravado when granted the anonymity provided by an internet connection. Others like you, who are so quick to stick the knife in but don't even provide a valid name, never mind a link back to a home page, a blog, or *something* that provides an in-cling of who they are or what they are about. Seriously, your little rant just reeks with irony.

Re: Understanding The Power Of Social Media

itwillallbefine — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:28:39 -0000

As a passenger on the tube on an irregular basis, I have to say it's the business men who have indulged a little too much at the liquid lunch and knocked off early on a Friday that are more a problem for me. Tube staff have at best been helpful and kind, and at worst grumpy, but never rude, foulmouthed or lecherous, something I have experienced from the suited brigade.

Blowing up the issue does allow public scrutiny, I cannot deny you that Mr McSquirter, but doing with human sacrifice is, I feel, more of a publicity stunt than anything else.

There is only one beneficiary from all this. It isn't the public, it isn't TFL, and it isn't Ian, or even the gentleman involved. It's Jonathan MacDonald's ego.

How inflating that further will aid the common man, I have no idea. Perhaps he could enlighten us?

Re: Understanding The Power Of Social Media

Norris McSquirter — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 09:44:12 -0000

>> Ian lost his temper and was bang out of order, and should have been dealt with through the system.

No he shouldn't. The system is half-arsed, and will engage to cover-up the incident as they see fit. Tube workers are renowned for getting away with blue murder under the protection of unions.

Blowing the issue up allows public scrutiny of the incident and also what TFL does about this and subsequent incidents. That scrutiny would not occur in any other way. TFL will have to pick up their game with regards to station staff - and THAT has been a long time coming. All the time I see scruffy, disinterested, arrogant, rude staff lounging around stations. This will hopefully start the process of a good kick up the arse for them and more importantly the management behind them. That has been a long time coming.

Re: Understanding The Power Of Social Media

Volker Hirsch — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 21:54:12 -0000

Language, dear Sir, language.

A plague, huh? Here's an easy one for you: don't use it. A small but noteworthy difference to other plagues (don't try it with cholera!).

As to "them" and their all-encompassing spy society: they were unable to control even a couple of 100m people (as the Austrian decorator eventually realised). They could not do this with 6.5bn. Iran couldn't do it (and they are fairly strictly organised, I believe). China is struggling with it even with an army of people to prevent (sic!) the use of social media. No, your argument cannot win here.

The power of social media lies in open access. Everyone has access. Poor Ian would have had access: he could have launched a counter-attack if he was so unduly exposed; Twitter, blogs, YouTube, all open. The Twitter addresses of the country's leading journalists are easily available within, say, 10 minutes on Google. Well, he didn't. Is this Jonathan's fault?

Social media is not good for people who prefer to hide; behind superiors in case something goes wrong (this argument was also heard - and dismissed - in Nurnberg), behind drawn curtains, behind generic avatars and names so they can post comments without having to "fear" they would need to stand up for it.

Social media is great for people who value open discourse and discussion and are ready to stand up for their own actions.

I prefer a society made up of the latter.

The power of social media per se has nothing to do with privacy (that comes only into the game once you participate in it).

If your - public (!) - acts are fair, you will be judged accordingly. If not, well... But does the wrongdoer really deserve pity? Or not rather the abused gentleman? No word on him from you, is there? What about HIS dignity and HIS right not to be abused?

Without the power of social media there would have been no real remedy for the abused man: filing police reports, pressing charges, all the "traditional" means of pursuit have a terrible downside: the transaction costs often outstrip a) the affected person's budget and b) are not easily available for many people. Social media democratises this. And that is good!

Privacy comes into play whenever you cannot react (e.g. being filmed on CCTV on Trafalgar Square and then perhaps put into dubious data bases). No redress possible, no access, no control, nothing. Social media is the opposite. It gives you all of that: access, transparency, the ability to react: you as well as all your fellow citizens are available to leap to your defence because it is all out in the open (for instance in this comment function; Jonathan did not switch it off; really poor spin doctor he is then, huh?).

Oh, and lastly: if the tag "idiot" puts me in the company of Jonathan and - for that matter - people like Clay Shirky (who you included by inference), I feel quite at home. Good day, dear Sir!

Re: Understanding The Power Of Social Media

mathewbirkin — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:42:04 -0000

your an idiot, you cant see that social media is part of the cancer that is plaguing each citizens civil rights on a daily basis.

Secondly if they did have computerised social media back then, it would have only helped with that particular regime, which was a society, scared of non-conformity because they never knew who was spying on them and when. As I have just learned, it is dis-respectful to use comparisons to this for argumentitive purposes, So rather from an Orwellian perspective, Jonathan may aswell open a telescreen shop.

If Privacy had a tombstone, it would read, "Remember, This is for your own good".

Re: Understanding The Power Of Social Media

michael — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 06:52:25 -0000

i was disappointed by JM's propagation of the story - simply blogging and sending to TFL would have been enough - the story would have spread among people interested in the tube - sending it out to high profile twitterers etc seems too much, especially before waiting for an official response.

Re: Understanding The Power Of Social Media

michael — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 06:45:15 -0000

surely the threat to take him to see the BTP was part of the insults and aggression? the man had done nothing to deserve police investigation (assuming of course that the events reported before the film starts are correct), just complained to Ian that he'd shut the doors on the carriage of the faulty train before everyone was off

Re: Understanding The Power Of Social Media

Jonathan MacDonald — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 04:56:39 -0000

That is one of the most insightful replies we have had - thank you (and all others) for your collective time within this conversation.

Reason is a great balance.

Re: Understanding The Power Of Social Media

subotaibahadur — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 23:20:49 -0000

I'm looking at this from the US, so I admit that my understanding of the situation may not be clear. First, I understand that the LU is either government owned or a government guaranteed monopoly. As such, its employees are backed by the coercive powers of the State. Further, British subjects are constantly under surveillance by State cameras, pretty much everywhere. Thus, the State has the advantage, one that from our point of view over here is not conducive to liberty. The existence of social networks, the ability of the individual to return the favor online, is a great equalizer of political power and a long overdue check on the arrogance of the State's agents. From family who have lived in Britain, and Brits of my acquaintance, I am under the impression that both arrogance and petty oppressions by the government are the norm. Your own media are constantly full of instances of administrative incompetence, quango bullying, and indifference to reality in favor of political correctness as far as dealing with the common citizen/subject is concerned. At the same time, the upper levels of your government preach civic virtue, and are constantly being caught engaged in the most venal crimes. If Mr. MacDonald would have done as suggested, and quietly approached the management; there is no indication or assurance that anything beyond a complete cover up would have occurred. If justice cannot be depended on from within the system, you get it wherever you can. If the system will not guarantee a measured justice, then it will be ad hoc.

The viral nature of the response would indicate that enough of your public is being what some have referred to as a "lynch mob", possibly because they have received or have seen abuse by those in petty positions of power, and this may be the first time they have seen anything done about it. The answer is to reduce the abuse.

Oh, just for the record, in the criticism of the British government and its various entities above, please don't take it that I am claiming any excess of virtue for the US government and society, or even the presence of it. We have the same generic disease and symptoms here, including a corrupt and hypocritical government [of BOTH political parties]. Our case just has not gone as far as yours, not for lack of trying by our political class. Fortunately, we have a somewhat different set of checks and balances, and it is in the hands of the people. We may end up in worse shape than you, or we may barely save ourselves. The issue is very much in doubt.

Re: Understanding The Power Of Social Media

1smallstep — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:23:03 -0000

He's a bully who's been caught out (read what others, who know him, say of him) however i do agree that he's been most unfortunate in the tsunami of attention that he has attracted. That's the 'net for you; nothing the blogger here could do about it, when a story goes viral it's a site to behold. Witness the guardian injunction story a few days ago.

As to the LU employees defending him on this site, what are you thinking about? This is the guy that is letting YOU down, not the blogger, this is the guy that is giving you a bad name.

Re: Understanding The Power Of Social Media

icemaker — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:59:12 -0000

From what I can gather, Ian tried to get the customer to come upstairs to wait for the British Transport Police, but out of arrogance and indifference the 'elderly' customer got back on the train, fired his last salvo and Ian, his, and the rest is history. An assault is an assault- the degree to which it has been inflicted isn't the point, although the worse the assault, the higher the possible penalties. Ian might not have had any lasting damage from the elbow in the ribs, but it's still unacceptable.

Like I pointed out, the elderly customer thought some Tube worker was fair game and didn't care about the consequences of his actions. It seems the train pulled out before Ian had much of a chance to make a sterner attempt to send him up to the Supervisors office to wait for the BTP- in the chaos and crowd, the train needed to leave the platform, hence why there was no further attempt made to detain the customer-

I don't expect for one moment that the police turn up quick in a flash for an incident like this, but they probably would have, given some time. Time Ian didn't have on his side, nor his colleague. If you (Ismallstep) worked in that environment for a day or a week and see what staff have to endure (from low-level sneering to assaults, spitting, gross personal insults, threats, being spoken down to... the list goes on) add very odd hours, a unique environment in all weathers and it's not an easy ask for staff to always be consistently professional. Just think about how you'd react in a bar or in another social or public setting and you were elbowed in the ribs deliberately or were belittled... it's not always easy to turn the other cheek and remain calm.

I have friends who work for the Underground- they're good people, but i can see after a day or a week or month of the kind of ill mannered, poorly-formed rudeness from customers that it would get to you. And unlike a lot of customer service jobs, it's uniqueness brings its own set of challenges. Customers must behave as much as staff members do. Otherwise were all as bad as each other.

Yob culture is a customer issue, as well as a staff one, and whilst two wrongs don't make a right, this whole affair could have been handled so much differently than those of a self-aggrandizing and manipulative chancer, who knew exactly what he was doing.

It isn't obvious to most people that he's a yob- only people that either haven't found themselves in that situation or haven't worked in that environment, which could be the knee-jerkers I mentioned who have no respect for Tube workers because of the reasons I've already made.

Hearing people interact with others, I'm reminded time and time again that in so many cases people don't know how to talk to others.... and people are still supposed to stand there, smiling through gritted teeth?

We're the most filmed nation on the planet... and you're OK to have more
'concerned citizens' as judge and jury about the ugly side of human behaviour? That said, the film was one-sided and I hope that you're not subjected to that kind of scrutiny on one of your off days.

Re: Understanding The Power Of Social Media

1smallstep — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:42:07 -0000

Icemaker you can write as much as you like for as long as you like, it's pretty obvious to most people that the guy is a yob, a yob with a uniform but a yob nevertheless.

The idea that he was elbowed, numerous times, in the ribs is laughable, you know as well as I that had that been the case then the BTP would have been called - not just threatened. Read some of the other people who have actually come in contact with this customer service champion.

We are videod everyone, i like the idea that that we can also use video ourselves

Re: Understanding The Power Of Social Media

icemaker — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 12:52:47 -0000

The 'threats' that Jonathan is experience is also the flipside of his citizen journalism crusade - he must of anticipated some of the fall out. Judging by his CV, he's an intelligent man, but to suggest that you couldn't have seen this coming (and enjoyed the adulation and the fuss this all created), is folly. It's interesting that, once again, the arguments for and against are about class- it's mainly those in professions who are pouring scorn on Ian's behaviour and it's mainly working people who work in front-line, customer serving roles, or at least have some empathy of the customer service role.

What is also clear is that the full story hasn't emerged and whilst a camera doesn't lie- the editing and the choice of segments can and does distort- Jonathan knew and knows this. But it was totally his choice to make some grandstanding social experiment and tell the media (he also must of known things such as bias). He could have spoken to the Station Supervisor, spoke to the member of staff, tactfully intervened or sent the footage to TfL privately, but he didn't. So, he has to accept the consequences of his actions, as Ian has to. But if Jonathan has threats against him, it seems only fair that the working people rally around Ian and take care of their own. Not everyone is lucky, talented or bright enough to be in positions of responsibility and social standing. It's therefore not fair nor intelligent to pour scorn on a guy who lost his rag in an incident that it is rumoured to have started by an elbow to the ribs of Ian by the elderly gentlemen

Why is the passenger's age a factor? If he assaulted Ian then he needs to apologise himself- from the footage he seems belligerent, arrogant and couldn't care less. Perhaps because he has this middle-class attitude and presumption about people who work in a 'lesser' job of low social standing. Jonathan called Ian a 'guard'- like someone pointed out before, guards on the Underground died out years ago. So, Jonathan couldn't have been that bothered to research Ian's actual title, possible proving that he couldn't care less because he works in a "crap" job and anyone who does is probably thick and didn't do well at school. Jonathan's happy to work in a middle-class environment, that usually pours scorn on people working in blue-collar environments- simply because there's an presumption that they're just cannon fodder.

Look at the body language of the 'elderly' gentleman-completely ignorant of what he has done and couldn't care less, even when the other member of staff is taking to him calmly. Perhaps this is consequence of presumptive behaviour about people working for the Underground- an authority the elderly gentlemen doesn't recognise and possibly has contempt for- another possible case of class bias.

Not that Jonathan seems to believe that the elderly man should have respected the authority of the staff who needed to speak to him about the earlier and unfilmed incident and been co-operative, which probably provoked the frustrated reaction from Ian. It doesn't matter if you clean toilets in a public space, everyone needs to be treated with respect. It's the minimum any human should expect.

Given that Jonathan got more of the incident than was shown and failed to get the story from the staff members, this is grossly irresponsible journalism (If you can call it journalism.) To then pretend that Jonathan wouldn't know (even in a small way) the impact of what might happen is just a disgrace. He happily told the media of the negative aspects of this story- to suit the sensationalistic agenda (otherwise there would be no story) but doesn't bother or the media outlet doesn't have time for any hint of mitigation or explantation from the other side. Hence why so many comments have been knee-jerky, sneering, pompous and indignated- in the main from people who have no respect for people who are perceived as lesser beings because the job they do is mundane and, at times, I assume, robotic, therefore not requiring intelligence, tact, emotional maturity and skill. That attitude doesn't seem far from the stubborn ignorance of the 'elderly' customer on the platform. It seems that people have trouble or not of confronting or expressing their own prejudices. It says a lot about the British class struggle- which, should have by now, been replaced by more informed thinking. I wonder if Ian had been of a different race, been fat, been ugly, had glasses, was scruffily dressed....what then?

I've been bullied most of my life and work in a customer serving role- mainly because bullies made me diffident and miserable. I wouldn't call Ian a bully. What he said was wrong, but I understand why he may of acted that way. Customers have just as much responsibility to be civil to everyone they come into contact with in public and private life- it's not just the responsibility of the customer service employee. As far as I'm aware, a ticket on the Underground entitles you to a journey from A to B, not a pass to patronise and sneer at people trying to get on in life, who, are, let's not forget, only human. If Ian had resolved the incident on the platform with a handshake there would be no story, no need to get wound up. People on the tube do a difficult job, work long, very anti-social hours and they do keep London moving. We should be proud of the job that they do. Jonathan, who should have and must know better, must also accept the good and the bad of the baby he's birthed. Besides, the ideas behind his agenda seem fairly pompous in their intention.

As far as I'm also aware his mock-up of a Tube ad that asks customers to treat staff with respect is breaking copyright laws and I've also been informed that filming on the Tube without a permit isn't permitted either-one reason, might be, is to stop these media/social experiments from reaching their conclusion.

Ian isn't a specimen on a petrie dish- he's a real human being. It would have been nice if a little thought had been applied to the process, rather than the opportunistic agenda setting of someone who seems to want to right a few wrongs because of personal experiences. Ian didn't bully anyone- he lost his professional placidity, which for most people can be forgotten about and shaken off at the end of the day- unfortunately, now he's gone to ground. The bullied has become the bully. Plain and simple. It's a pity Jonathan hid behind his camera to prove a point. It would have been far more courageous for him to have intervened and allow his behaviour to be filmed by someone else, pulled apart for the chattering classes and the Twitter generation. No guts... no glory

Re: Understanding The Power Of Social Media

Disgusted — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 12:48:24 -0000

You felt the need to blog it.....fair enough. You could have expressed all your disgust in writing and given the video to TFL so they could take the appropriate steps to deal with the situation. Ian would be disciplined, something put on his file and found it harder to get promoted. Maybe sent to anger management courses. There was no need to put the video online. He would have been disciplined, but fairly. There is no way he will be treated fairly now with the public and mayor involved.

By posting the video, you have ruined his life. Boris has got involved so TFL are more likely to sack him, he will find it incredibly hard to get work elsewhere and may need to leave london, his mother is being harassed by press on her doorstep.....and all so you can get a hard on and make yourself look good.

Before you start whining that you didn't do it for selfish reasons, maybe you can explain why you felt the need to allow yourself to be interviewed for the news. The video speaks volumes and you could have fleshed it out on your blog. It appears you were just promoting yourself for your own selfish reasons. You could have just given them a statement over the phone.

I was also bullied at school and abhor it when I see it done to others. Why didn't you speak up at the time? If you were worried about him turning on you, you could have pointed out the conversation was being video'd. Why didn't you speak to the female member of staff and asked her to either intervene or to call her supervisor down?
Have you read the comments left on youtube? People are threatening this man.....bullying him. Talking about causing him physical harm or paying to watch videos of other people hurting him. He won't feel safe walking the streets.....I'm sure, since you were bullied, that you realise how horrible that feels.

Ok. He shouldn't have shouted at the guy, or called him what he did, but the reaction is way over the top.

I hope you enjoy your brief moment of glory.....and it will be brief.......I also hope that one day you realise what you have done to this man's life and his family. I hope you are disgusted also when you realise you have become a bully and enabled other bullies.

People like you disgust me.

Re: Understanding The Power Of Social Media

peter33 — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:52:57 -0000

But he did remain quiet - he just hit record!

Re: Understanding The Power Of Social Media

Volker Hirsch — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:20:19 -0000

You may want to read up on this before you descend to the crudest of all comparisons, buddy!

Something like this has happened before (see here for an early example: http://bit.ly/2KLvSN) and it will happen again. And, in fact, it will happen again more and more often. Not because of Jonathan's vanity (as far as I can tell, he probably has as much and as little of this as most of us) but because people now have the power to respond!

It may have been particularly unfortunate for Ian that Jonathan was standing there because he does - as he stated - understand the power of social media (and arguably as well as few others do) BUT that is not the point.

In a world where communication and publishing tools have no cost, citizens can respond and "go public" - with all the great or horrible consequences this may have, depending if you have been doing good or bad. It puts a new accountability on all of us, which is, as far as I am concerned, a really good thing: you do good, people notice and act accordingly; you do bad, the same thing happens.

Go and read Clay Shirky's "Here Comes Everybody" (http://bit.ly/3RjgaC). That should get you going.

And as to your misplaced attempt at historic wit: try and imagine what may have happened had there been camera phones, blogs and Twitter back in Germany's darkest age. I am sure the nazis would have had a hell of a job on their hands to keep people at bay. Might have saved a few lives, too. And why? Because someone who was doing bad would have been exposed...

Re: Understanding The Power Of Social Media

Zoolander — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:01:44 -0000

Having seen this article on the BBC News I was first appalled by the media coverage, the total one sidedness of the reporting, but that is what we expect of the BBC these days.

I do not know about what caused “Ian” to act in the way that he did, unfortunately none of the press coverage actually shows any information about the start of the incident. Whilst the TFL workers actions are not appropriate in any way, I do not think he should lose his job until the full details of the incident emerge and he is given a fair trial.

I currently work in a customer facing job in the mobile phone industry whilst setting up a new business of my own. One thing that is VERY apparent is the total lack of manners and respect that some ‘customers’ have, the incident being talked about is not quite a weekly occurrence but pretty close abuse wise if directed towards the employee rather than the customer. None of these incidents even get close to any kind of newsworthiness.

If nothing else this incident shows to me the sensationalist approach the some Broadcasting Corporations now think is appropriate rather than the unbiased reporting that was once seen as the gaol in the media.

What I think we should remember is that all people around us are equals, common courtesy and manners cost nothing and should be part of the fabric of our society. Part of this is that we are all treated fairly and justly by our pears, therefore due to the lack of full information give we are unable to judge the outcome of the situation. ‘Ian’ is entitled to a fair hearing in my opinion and I think his superiors have so far acted in everyone’s best interest. The media on the other hand has acted brutishly and with no courtesy at all in the coverage of this incident.

Re: Understanding The Power Of Social Media

brendanphipps — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 07:56:07 -0000

I find it disgusting the level of thinly veiled threats levelled at Jonathan now.

So, he has made an enemy of everyone on the tube has he?

You tube workers don't wear the uniform at the evening don't you?

Perhaps you would like to state exactly what you mean by that?

This cyber bullying is akin to 14 year old boys logging on to football hooligan forums and making out they are the big "I am" under cover of a computer.

Everything leaves a trail on the internet. I would suggest threatening remarks should be curtailed. Or are you going to sling everyone of us that agrees with Jonathan under a train just like your colleague, the "Jedi".

There are 2 sides to this. How come the tube workers side seems to be so much more agressive. Jonathan, whether you agree or not with his motives, reported a factual event - that is all. it is not right that people who were not there can give their opinions about what should be done to Ian, however they are allowed to comment on what they saw. In the same way, you Tube workers should be commenting on the piece of evidence presented. Not making threats in a return to the days of the union boot boys.

Re: Understanding The Power Of Social Media

itwillallbefine — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 00:55:15 -0000

And the arrogance of working in the media ripples through this entire situation. Jonathan has created this situation, deliberately, and then sat back and is trying to claim "I didn't know this would happen." However, his own 8 step plan to how you can repeat this exercise proves objective, intent, and thought process.

Ian lost his temper and was bang out of order, and should have been dealt with through the system.

Jonathan decided what he was going to do, in a calculated way, and he deliberately chose a course of action that would promote him, choosing to throw another person, his family, children, whatever, to the wolves on the way. If it was incidental that that happened, then Jonathan is at best thoughtless. However, he clearly says that his actions were done deliberately, posing to powerful twitterers, choosing to send the link to the newspapers, and so on. The only conclusion from that has to be that he doesn't mind who he steps on to promote himself, and that in fact, he is the biggest and most selfish bully in all of this.

Well done indeed Mr Macdonald. Oh hurrah for you.

Re: Understanding The Power Of Social Media

AsYouLikeIt — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 21:58:06 -0000

"LUL" is Dutch slang for cock

Re: Understanding The Power Of Social Media

peterrockcliffe — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 20:57:40 -0000

This is a fascinating debate! I am afraid for me there appear to be two areas of concern with this subject.

Over the last thirty years I have become more despondent about the media and its vitriolic destruction of people who are initially celerated and then systematically destroyed. The standard of reporting is neither balanced nor fair. It panders to the masses, the lynch mob mentality and the need for people to find scapegoats for all the ills of the world!

Human nature is very complex. We are often victims of our knee jerk emotional responses. In my experience some of us have great capacity for compassion and a deeply held desire for social justice and fair play. But our emotions are often toyed with in an attempt to derive a reaction often grossly out of proportion to the real events.

There are clearly forces at work here that are an abuse of power, however it is not entirely obvious how anyone could control them at an individual level.

TFL do have responsibility for safety and a duty of care to fare paying passengers. As a regular but infrequent traveller on the London Underground, happily I have witnessed few if any episodes of this nature although I am aware that these stories are not uncommon and there are times when individuals can lose their self-control.

Those of us who read these reports and felt the anger that an elderly gentleman should be abused in such a way, have a tendency to react by responding, RT-ing, spreading the word until there is a furore fueled by the media who see an opportunity to sell papers to bolster their flagging profits.

The social responsibility issue is a moot point. Do we have the 'right' to report and publish whatever we deem as an injustice? Well I would say "Yes" providied that we present the facts, all the facts in an unbiased, socially responsible and impartial way but how can we exercise constraint once the genie is out of the bottle? JM reported the issue and used the tools at his disposal to dissemminate the story. Whilst I may not agree with his motivations or his lack of even-handedness, I would uphold his right to speak out. The difference is could he have spoken out in such a way that was just and fair to all the parties concerned?

Whilst I do not condone the utterances of Ian the CSA, which went far beyond what would have been reasonable in the circumstances, I do appreciate that what he said and did in the heat of the moment could have been more restrained and I trust that TFL will deal with him proportionately, allow him to train to a better standard of self control so that he can manage his anger in what must be very stressful circumstances.

The foregoing perhaps makes me look more impassive and self-controlled than I actually am. When I first viewed the video and read the reports, I felt anger at the way this passenger was treated and felt that it was completely unnacceptable. Perhaps it is because at some time we have all been abused by an official who has exceeded their remit and acted reprehensibly. But here's the rub! Over the last twenty years of using the Internet from newsgroups to blogs and commenting, I have learnt self restraint. I no longer feel it is necessary to immediately react to something for which I may not be in possession of all the facts. In fact I go so far as to say that I refuse to be manipulated for someone else's agenda without undertaking a modicum of research to try and ensure that my perspective is objective.

I have become so cynical of media manipulation that I no longer accept at face value what I read in papers or see on TV and moreso what I find on the Internet. My point is this! We are all to blame for what we have allowed and even tacitly supported in our society. Individually we can say we are blameless but everyone of us who is franchised to vote in our electoral system is culpable for what our society has become.

As Terence Eden said we all have so much more 'power' at our fingertips than ever before. The problem is how do we exercise that power for good? As somone who experienced bullying in childhood it is easy to fall into the trap and believe in our divine right for vengeance against someone that we perceive to be in the wrong. But what if we are wrong? Are we willing to accept the consequences of actions and the reverberations that they can carry around the planet?

A few years ago I worked with a Chinese consultant on a big project. She was fiercely proud of her country and the way it dealt with some of it's social problems. I had reacted to the treament of the Falun Gong without having a complete understanding of the subject and to a Western mentallity it seemed that the Chinese stated was acting extremely harshly. Although initially angry and hurt that myself and colleagues thought negatively about China, she attempted to educate us and explain why the State took such a dim view of this quasi religious sect. She did not try and coerce us into taking her point of view. She just wanted us to see her Governments side of the story.

A short time later, I read a story in the UK press about a woman who was a Jehova's Witness who died in childbirth whilst refusing a blood transfusion. The medical staff wanted to save her life and that of the child. I felt mixed emotions about whether she had the right to refuse the blood or whether the NHS had the right to enforce their Hyppocratic Oath to save her life. The media of course made a big issue of the story.

Sadly there isn't always a right or a wrong answer to every trouble in society. We do not all have the capacity to take a balanced or mitigated view, therefore when we do speak out, we have to ask ourselves who are we actually serving and what deep seated motivations are we trying to respond to? If Ian is culpable and the elderly passenger also bears some responsibility for what led up to the incident, do we really have the right to set in train a chain of events without being responsible for the outcome?

For John's sake, I hope that the outcome is proportionate. For the rest of us, I hope that we can live with the consequences of our postings. Most of all I trust that we temper our virtual pens and swords with virtue and restraint.