The peak of the television and radio industries revolutionized how information was shared. People around the globe accessed news and updates simultaneously, creating a sense of connectedness and shared reality. However, this media boom fostered unity and maintained societal divisions. Though information was technically available to everyone, only those who could afford televisions, radios, and newspapers could participate fully in the new media age.
Despite the class divide, communication during that time was prestigious and respected. The information that flowed through these channels came from well-educated and trusted sources, which people were eager to believe. Media personalities, often seen as pillars of truth, were reliable conduits for facts and opinions. Even when their views diverged from the majority, their perspectives were respected not only because of their education and training but also due to the gravity of the platforms they represented.
Take, for instance, Walter Cronkite, whose views on the Vietnam War diverged from the dominant narrative of the time. When Cronkite famously declared that the Vietnam War was unwinnable, it was a significant moment. President Lyndon B. Johnson reportedly remarked, « If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America. » Though different from the mainstream, Cronkite’s opinion was respected and seriously considered.
Fast forward to today, and the media landscape has shifted dramatically with the rise of social networks. Platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter have torn down the barriers that once limited communication. The class divide in the age of traditional media is seemingly broken, allowing anyone with internet access to post and comment on global conversations. Individuals who may never have interacted in real life can now engage online, forming virtual communities and exchanging ideas across the globe.
However, with this democratization of communication comes a disturbing trend. While it may seem like a win for freedom of expression, social media has created a breeding ground for inflammatory and disrespectful comments. In many cases, those who contribute the least to the conversation speak the loudest—and their comments often take the form of personal attacks.
Unlike the media personalities of the past, today’s posters—whether journalists, creators, or everyday individuals—are frequently met with disrespectful and tasteless comments. These comments often come not from people who genuinely disagree with the content but from individuals who either don’t understand the posts or are jealous of the engagement they generate. Their goal isn’t to contribute to the conversation but to seek attention by attacking the posters.
What makes this situation worse is that these trolls often hide behind anonymity. By creating fake profiles or using pseudonyms, they disrupt conversations without fear of repercussions. The internet’s anonymity encourages them to say things they would never say in person, turning social media platforms into battlegrounds where disrespect flourishes unchecked.
It’s not uncommon for a well-crafted article or post to be met with a barrage of hateful or dismissive comments despite the effort that went into its creation. An article published simultaneously in a newspaper and on a social network will not generate the same level of engagement, even though it’s accessible to the same audience. This discrepancy arises because many people today don’t read newspapers—and even when they see a long post online, they often skim only the headline or the first sentence before deciding they’re equipped to comment. In many cases, they’ll leave negative or dismissive remarks, not because they have a well-formed opinion but because they didn’t fully understand the content.
This phenomenon reveals a troubling shift in how we consume and respond to information. Social media’s immediacy encourages knee-jerk reactions, often driven by ignorance or a desire for attention rather than thoughtful discourse. Those who take the time to craft content carefully or present new ideas find their work overshadowed by trolls who seem more interested in derailing the conversation than in participating constructively.
Consequently, some individuals who once identified as reporters or media members have chosen to leave social media altogether to escape the rampant disrespect and hostility. The toxic environment has driven them away from platforms that were initially seen as spaces for open dialogue and professional engagement. At the same time, many others remain but adapt their approach, shifting their content to cater to negativity and controversy to generate profits and attract more followers. In doing so, they abandon journalistic integrity in favor of sensationalism, knowing that inflammatory posts and clickbait often yield more engagement and, consequently, more revenue. This compromise has led to a decline in the quality of shared information, as the focus has shifted from truth and insight to profit-driven conflict.
As social media continues to dominate how we share and consume information, this issue raises important questions about the future of public discourse. Can we return to a space where differing opinions are met with respect and understanding rather than hostility and personal attacks? Or will the loudest, most inflammatory voices continue to dominate the conversation, drowning out meaningful dialogue?
The shift from prestige and respect to anonymity and chaos is evident, and unless platforms and users alike take responsibility for fostering healthier communication, the quality of online discussions will continue to deteriorate.
_________________________
Apostrophe Business Coaching
Bobb Rousseau
Policy and KM Consultant
618-823-8701
800-484-5731