I recently read Glen Cochrane’s blog post regarding a book he read about Jian Ghomeshi.  I haven’t read the book, but I appreciated reading Glen’s thoughts.  One paragraph in particular on his post had me pondering a good while,

I can’t help notice the role of technology here (texting), that enabled Ghomeshi to maintain a presence and a dialog that ultimately signified consent (in a legal and public opinion sense), without actually getting consent. Technology provides an easy way to maintain presence, yet also provides a way to remain ambiguous – this isn’t good nor bad in itself, except that courts and legal matters need to take such new forms of communication and relationship status into account. As does public opinion.”

write and think a lot (probably too much) about the impact of communication technologies on many things.  It can be both interesting and disturbing to me how new forms of communication are being “used” by individuals.  I often think about how technology can help maintain a presence in a “distant” way.  It comes with convenience, but I think it can still be “emotional work”.   But, as Glen referred to, Ghomeshi did what manipulators do… which encompassed how he communicated through texting.  With new communication technologies and changing norms with each, there is a lot to consider — context, relationship, skills, individual intent and purpose, etc.  I often think about cases and situations like this:  How would the situation and/or outcomes been different without texting (or.. insert other form of communication)?  I doubt there is any “one step ahead” in this for society.  We seem to continue to learn, teach, and be impacted “two steps behind”.  It this okay?  Is it always okay?

Just my jumble of thoughts amidst a confusing world of politics and communications today…

 

 

Advertisements