You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘social media’ tag.
Most of us who are involved with social media at some point find ourselves on information overload. Links from Twitter and Facebook, Google Alerts, e-mail, RSS feed readers provide so much data that it’s tempting to close ourselves off and hide for at least a week.
However, even the most introverted of us are social creatures. The reason we came online to begin with was to find other people to relate to, build our own communities. We seek validation, security even. (Arguably, the familiarity we find is what leads us to post too much information.) We seek comfort.
What happens when we’re comfortable? The information becomes easier to manage. Just as our grandparents forged brand loyalty to a newspaper or TV news network, we associate with people who filter news in a way that resonates with us, with our own life circumstances—whose outlook based on experience mirrors ours.
With awareness comes cynicism
That’s why information isn’t just information. Just as importantly, it’s also opinions about the information. If TV brought new levels of awareness to previous generations, then social media brings new layers to those awareness levels. We now know not just a message; we also know what our friends think of the message from moment to moment.
The more people close ranks into comfortable, self-contained communities, then, the harder it is to get their attention. This is where master advertisers come in. They know how to manipulate emotion, play off people’s fears to inspire action.
They’d just better know which fears to get to, though, because all those messages have made the public more cynical than ever. Witness reaction to Hillary Clinton’s “3 a.m.” campaign ad: the return to Cold War-style paranoia did not win points.
We know which messages sound the same, which are designed to make us feel a certain way, especially when we don’t feel that way. We want to trust official messages less and less; for trustworthiness, we turn to each other. (This, incidentally, is how things “go viral.”)
How do communicators communicate?
This is the reason why so many organizations are jumping on Twitter and Facebook. It’s not just about finding another broadcast point; it’s about gaining access to people’s trusted networks, becoming part of their filtered information stream.
Yet communicators have a double-edged challenge: cut through the noise and cut through the comfort zone. Because not only does the sheer amount of information coming at us mean there’s no time to think critically; learning to build community to help us filter it means, in effect, we’re trusting other people to do our thinking for us.
And if we’re doing that, then your message about teen drinking and driving, domestic violence, or child pornography won’t get through. At this point, communication becomes an intricate dance:
- You must interact with the people whose stream you’re part of, provide consistently good information.
- Become trusted and trustworthy; people tune out shock value, but will tune into serious information once they trust you’re trying to help them solve problems, not just manipulating their fears. (Whether you can follow through should never even be a question.)
- Accepting that there will always be skeptics, you learn to work with the believers, trusting them to carry your message through to others.
Inspiring action
People operate under their own worldview within their own communities, both online and off. They attach stigma to domestic violence, child pornography, drug abuse, anything “other.”
And so when it comes to educating people about crime, law enforcement might succeed in some quarters; but getting people to do anything about it is quite another matter. The “call to action” involves asking them to think about what they are willing to do. And so perhaps social media’s true promise is in making it easier to change minds and hearts.
Social change happens when people face each other with uncomfortable truths and refuse to back down, not to manipulate, but because it’s about humans looking out for other humans. When a cop who’s entrenched in a cause s/he feels deeply about, it shows. In Toronto (Ontario), Sgt. Tim Burrows is passionate about traffic safety. Now-retired Sgt. Paul Gillespie is passionate about taking down child pornographers.
Look around your agency. Who’s passionate about gang violence? Domestic violence? Mental health intervention? Identity theft? What if they were able to take those passions online, get the public’s attention, get them to filter out all the noise and start thinking about how they could help each other?
You just might start to get some problems solved in your community.
Christa M. Miller is founder and co-author of Cops 2.0, http://cops2point0.com. As a freelance trade journalist turned public relations professional, she has specialized in public safety issues for the past eight years. She resides in Greenville, SC and can be reached at christammiller@gmail.com.
Get on the crime map at CrimeReports.com
Although law enforcement agencies across the nation are creating Facebook and Twitter accounts and signing up with Nixle, there are still many agencies who are resistant to the idea of adopting social media for community policing. Some are intimidated by creating a social media strategy from scratch; others are still skeptical of the “open” communication that social media creates and are afraid of losing control of their message and information.
Current Media
I recently had a conversation with a traditional—print—media journalist who informed me that social media still doesn’t have as large a reach as newspapers and broadcast news. In his mind, traditional forms of media are more effective law enforcement communication tools partly because they have a greater reach. Understandably, many law enforcement agencies look at circulation and traditional media’s reach and see no need to venture into the untested social media waters when only a fraction of their citizens are using the latest technologies.
However, only looking at current usage and reach leaves us blinded as to what will happen in the future. At a recent IACP 2009 presentation, Dr. Donald J. Loree, Center for Criminal Intelligence Research and Innovation, RCMP, pointed out that law enforcement agencies cannot remain static. In order to better anticipate the needs of the community, law enforcement agencies need to pay attention to shifting populations and demographics.
A Changing Demographic
Today, I read an interesting article on social media addiction. But my interest in the article has less to do with addiction, per se, and more to do with the age groups that are using social media on a regular basis. For example:
- 56% of those under 35 check Facebook 1-10 times a day, and 27% check it more than 10 times a day.
- 65% of those under 35 check Facebook at work, while only 29% of those over 35 checked it at work.
- 54% of those under 35 check Facebook on a desktop or laptop computer, but 81% of those over 35 did so.
- 46% of those under 35 checked Facebook on their phone, but only 19% of those over 35 did.
- Of those under 35 with a Twitter account, almost 40% checked it more than 10 times a day.
These statistics point to a large generational divide between “younger” and “older” social media users. Not only are younger users checking their social media accounts more often, but they are increasingly doing so on their phones and other mobile devices. Sure, the 45+ group might be the fastest growing demographic on Facebook, but they’re not using the site nearly as much as their younger counterparts.
Social Media is not a Fad
Some may say that Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms are just a fad. In fact, back in 2000, I talked with the owner of a local internet provider in south Texas who was of the opinion that the internet was just a fad and that it would soon “go the way of the ham radio” (true story!). But social media is not a fad. It is quickly becoming the main communication and information gathering tool for many people under 35. As that population ages, they will take these platforms and channels of communication with them.
Is your department simply providing what they need to provide at the moment, or is it looking to the future and beginning to use the media channels that your future citizens are already using?
Get on the crime map at CrimeReports.com
Just recently, LAwS Communications, web solutions for law enforcement, announced the first Social Media in Law Enforcement (SMILE) Conference. Now the official SMILE conference website is up and running with more details about the upcoming conference.
The conference will be held in Washington, DC, April 7-9, 2010 at the Washington Court Hotel on Capitol Hill. The conference will include workshops, plenary sessions, and a town hall-like meeting to discuss issues concerning social media and law enforcement.
Get information for submitting a presentation proposal, registration information, and an early conference schedule here: http://cooloftheweek.typepad.com/social_media_in_law_enfor/
Get on the crime map at CrimeReports.com
In a recent post titled, “Traditional Media Loses Grip on Local Crime Information,” I hypothesized that with the increase in law enforcement agencies providing citizens with direct access to crime data through Facebook, Twitter, CrimeReports, and other web tools the public may not need traditional media as a crime-reporting source anymore.
But I believe that the issue of direct data vs. traditional crime reporting is more complex than my simple conclusion seemed to express. The core of the debate is this:
If I (as a citizen) already have a direct feed of official crime data pertinent to my neighborhood through Twitter, CrimeReports, Facebook, etc., what would make me tune in to the nightly news or read the daily crime blotter in my local newspaper for crime information?
My first response is—nothing.
If I receive daily crime alerts from CrimeReports, and religiously check my local police department’s Facebook page, I would feel relatively informed about the crime situation in my neighborhood. But this does not mean that traditional media does not hold any value.
Context
First of all, print and broadcast media provide context to the data that law enforcement provides to citizens through these new web tools. As a citizen, I can track the handful of crimes that may happen in my neighborhood on a weekly basis, but I don’t know how my neighborhood fits into the bigger picture of crime across the city or the state. Traditional media has the time and resources to do the analysis and paint the bigger picture.
In addition, although many law enforcement agencies provide basic data through crime mapping and social media tools (i.e., Breaking and Entering, 9/5/09, 10:04pm). Traditional media has the ability to elaborate on those incidents (i.e., “Resident called 911 after hearing glass break. Neighbors report seeing a young woman in late teens or early twenties, fleeing the scene through the victim’s backyard,” etc.).
Contrast
Besides providing complex analysis that most citizens cannot or will not do on their own, traditional media can serve as a counter balance to the direct data coming from a law enforcement agency. Granted, most law enforcement agencies are more concerned with informing citizens than they are about providing a positive spin on the information they release, but traditional media can provide a different perspective on crime than one would get from just following the local PD on Twitter. And although newspapers and broadcast news are supported by advertising and have an incentive to increase readership/ratings, the perspective they provide can shed a different light on the data given out by local law enforcement agencies.
The Bigger Picture
Lastly, traditional media can offer a broader picture of crime than basic-level crime information. Although it has been my experience that most people are more directly concerned with crime on their block than they are with crime in the neighboring town, getting a broader picture of crime can also help raise awareness of trends in crime both locally and nationally. And awareness of broader crime trends is, as well, helpful in keeping citizens vigilant and safe.
A Difference in Scale
All-in-all, the main difference between using social media to get crime data and following traditional media for crime information is scale. CrimeReports and other crime mapping resources are very good at giving citizens a picture of crime in their neighborhood. Twitter and Facebook are excellent tools for local law enforcement to use to disseminate information and interact with a city, county, or town. But traditional media is probably the most useful for large-scale crime reporting.
Only one question remains: If citizens have a direct line to crime data on their street, will they still tune in to or read traditional forms of crime reporting to get the bigger picture? Since social media is only being used by a relatively small number of law enforcement agencies currently (although more are joining everyday), it’s too early to predict citizen’s reactions to these new information streams. My only hope is that citizens will access crime information on whatever level they feel comfortable so that they can stay informed and keep their neighborhoods safe through the greater vigilance that comes from increased access to crime information.
[Special thanks to an unnamed journalist for helping me tease out these ideas]
Get on the crime map at CrimeReports.com
Apparently in the Tampa, Fla., area, police are now doing more than letting people know about sex offenders in the area, now they are going house-to-house telling residents about felons in the neighborhood. You can read the full story and watch the news cast here.
This news story seems to skew opinion in favor of the notifications, but it makes me wonder if punishing these offenders after they have served their time is really accomplishing anything. First of all, these people have already paid their debt to society, and punishing them socially like this, would seem to only aggravate their efforts to try and make a normal, crime-free life for themselves. You could go as far as to say that the police department, in this instance, is actually encouraging discrimination based on past criminal history. As well, as the ACLU lawyer points out, door-to-door notification like this could encourage vigilantism or make the ex-offender a target of ridicule or attack.
The real question here is, what does the local police department want to achieve with such a tactic? If their real goal is to make neighborhoods safer, then why not encourage more participation in neighborhood watch, publish online crime maps, or create social media tools for public outreach? Simply warning neighbors about a single individual in their neighborhood with a criminal past would not seem to actually help citizens protect themselves from a multitude of crimes from people in and outside of their neighborhood.
What do you think? Does warning neighbors about a individual with a criminal past help prevent crime?
Get on the map at CrimeReports.com
Over the weekend, Cops 2.0 posted some great thoughts about the future of social media in law enforcement by Mike Vallez, a police officer and contributor at DailySplice.
Vallez predicts a day when law enforcement agencies hire officers specifically as social media officers. Especially as the use of web 2.0 technology and social media spreads through law enforcement, citizens will be able to report crimes and give tips to police through social media interfaces, and there will need to be an officer on the other end, monitoring and dispatching officers.
Also, as news coverage and commentary increasingly move to Twitter, Facebook, RSS feeds, Blogs, and other streaming/social tools, police department will need to monitor these information streams, both to track down criminals and to disseminate information to the community.
Read the full story here: http://cops2point0.com/2009/08/29/guest-post-the-social-media-officer/
Get on the crime map at CrimeReports.com
Yesterday we just passed 500 fans on Facebook. We’ve only had the Facebook page up for a about 8 weeks, so we’re overjoyed that so many people are enthusiastic about their local crime prevention efforts and are using CrimeReports.com.
We want to thank every one of our law enforcement partners across the US and Canada and all the fans that have made our website the #1 crime-mapping website in the world.
Keep up your continued efforts to spread the word about CrimeReports.com, neighborhood watch efforts, and effective law enforcement/citizen communication and partnerships. And, as always, keep coming back here for more information on crime mapping and law enforcement news, as well as the occasional stupid criminal story.
If you aren’t already a fan, become a fan here.
Get on the crime map at CrimeReports.com
Cops 2.0, a blog dedicated to exploring social media in law enforcement, posted an interesting piece recently on why more officers are not using social media. The post contains responses (via social media) to the question, “Do you think more law enforcement officers don’t get on board with social media because they fear the inability to size people up as they would in person?”
The answers actually vary from the original question to discussions about a divide between younger officers, who are comfortable with the technology, and older officers, who are not, as well as a social barrier that officers place between themselves and the general citizenry. The responses are insightful and highlight some hurdles that law enforcement may need to overcome before it wholeheartedly embraces social media as a new and effective way to engage the community.
Read the full post here: http://cops2point0.com/2009/08/10/why-arent-more-cops-implementing-social-media/
Get on the crime map at CrimeReports.com
Stumble It!
The Crime Map 