The good, the bad and the ugly of come social media "conversation" is on display now in a series of posts and comments linked to, and dancing around, David Jones' Pr Works blog. It all started with a lengthy post by Jeremy Pepper about public relations losing "social media to advertising because of sex". After Jones praised the post, two social media experts -- Tamera Kremer and Doug Walker -- weighed in with comments that questioned Pepper's premise.
After a couple of these comments, I jumped tenderly into the fray opining that the writing in Pepper's post was disjointed (and in parts "illiterate", although that comment may have been intemperate brought about by characterizing occasionally infelicitous constructions as lack of clear thinking) and Kramer's comments somewhat "over-the-top" in their passion. It struck me that the whole discussion seemed over intense.
Well, was I smacked down by both Pepper and Kremer, accused by the one of cowardice because I hadn't commented in the original post and by the other as, well, I am not exactly sure although it felt like a smack down. But I think something in the comment: "The Internet is a rose garden with many thorns. It’s best to not start a battle without the proper armour." was maybe directed at me, or Jones or Pepper?
So, what's the good: the fact that there is a really strenuous debate about the constituent elements of social media and the skills which make for expert practice in the space. The bad: the fact that we still think of social media from within the box of various old line disciplines such as interactive, advertising, marketing, public relations, and community relations when it is actually a new discipline requiring a different sensibility that is the province of new experts in true, transparent and honest 'connectedness'. And the ugly: well, really, cowardice (?) because I chose to comment within another post rather than the original one? The conversation takes place in many places.