Time to treat social media like a cancer-causing industrial chemical

Answer me this (a simple yes or no will suffice): If there was a product that had the potential to cause your child serious and demonstrable harm, would you expect the Government to place controls on it?

The logical answer is yes. And there are many such products that the Government does control to prevent harm to children. Age restrictions on the sale of alcohol and tobacco are the most obvious examples.

Three news items I saw in the past week convinced me that the Government – and society as a whole – is falling tragically short in the control of one product that does more harm to young people than liquor and cigarettes combined. It is social media.

No parent could have read the lead story in the Weekend Herald without feeling enormous empathy for Cambridge Middle School principal Daryl Gibbs. The headline on that story was ‘I put to tool in her hand’: Principal shares daughter’s online ordeal. It told of how within three weeks of giving his 13-year-old a smartphone, she had downloaded Snapchat and received her first ‘You should kill yourself’ message.

He shared his feelings of guilt and admitted he was naïve to think that placing limits on her connections would keep her safe. It did not. She suffered anxiety, depression, and absenteeism from school as a result of what she saw on her phone. What was most disturbing was the fact that her contacts were being monitored by her parents. The harm was coming through people she knew. Continue reading “Time to treat social media like a cancer-causing industrial chemical”

Gen Z’s regrets could be our salvation

A week ago, I read a number of reports that gladdened my heart.

 Mt Albert Grammar School headmaster Patrick Drumm told news media that things have changed for the better since a ban on cell phones was introduced last year – lots of talking, movement, and sports games. Now all schools have a legal mandate to follow suit if they wish.

The same day Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced plans to introduce legislation by the end of the year to create a minimum age to access social media, joining South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria in deciding to impose restrictions as evidence mounts of detrimental effects on the young.

Then a couple of days ago a friend drew my attention to a piece in the New York Times commenting on a Harris poll of Gen Z users that indicated many of them wish certain types of social media…and even smartphones…had never been invented. Continue reading “Gen Z’s regrets could be our salvation”

TikTok…TikTok…it’s only a matter of time

Like death and taxes, the digital world has its certainties. One of them – alongside the inevitability of Apple launching yet another higher specification (and more expensive) iPhone – is the prospect that audience trends in other countries will wash up on our shores.

That is why the latest report from Britain’s telecommunications regulator, Ofcom, has excited the interest of more than a few media people in New Zealand.

It shows that, for the first time, online has overtaken television as the biggest source of news in the United Kingdom. Broadcast TV had been the leading source of news there since the 1960s, when it overtook newspapers and radio.

The Ofcom survey shows that online – social media, podcasts, messaging and other digital apps – is now narrowly ahead with 71 per cent of adults getting their news from those sources. Television, which a year ago sat at 75 per cent, is now down to 70 per cent. A little over half the adult population get their news from social media alone. Meta (Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp) now outperforms ITV, while Google is barking at the broadcaster’s heels. Continue reading “TikTok…TikTok…it’s only a matter of time”

Media employees’ right to voice personal opinions

The BBC’s suspension of Gary Lineker over a social media comment raises a question that is wider than the shambles it created: Do people in the media have a right to voice a personal opinion?

Last Tuesday Lineker, the BBC’s highest paid star and presenter of Match of the Day, posted a tweet about the UK Conservative government’s plan to stop refugees crossing the English Channel. He described it as “an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s.”

By Friday an extraordinary meltdown had occurred, with the corporation announcing Lineker would “step back” from Match of the Day. In plain English, the director-general Tim Davie had suspended him because ‘a red line has been crossed’ on BBC neutrality. Several colleagues walked out in support of the former professional footballer. There was no Match of the Day last weekend and football coverage on the BBC was reduced to a pallid 20-minute substitute.

The Times reported Davie taking the moral high ground on Friday: “(as) editor in chief of the BBC, I think one of our founding principles is impartiality and that’s what I’m delivering on.” However, over the weekend, support within the corporation rank-and-file seemed to move toward Lineker. Davie, who had been in Washington, flew back to London for crisis meetings to head off what was rapidly becoming an internal revolt. Continue reading “Media employees’ right to voice personal opinions”