chennaicentral

The "moral" of the story is...

I find it amusing that I am writing yet another post on things "moral". This is again based on a current raging controversy. This time a blogger has taken a moral stand on an issue which has rallied hundreds of Indibloggers like never before. In case you were hiding in a cave for the last few days, I am referring to an institute in India that the bloggers are up against (hereinafter referred to as the said institute :-)) . Certain things have come out owing to this incident and I am amazed at them. For example, I could never imagine that with the sheer weight of just the Indian blogosphere alone, a search term could rapidly rise thru the Technorati ranks at warp speed. This shows that either Indians (or people connected with India in some way) are more wired than we would have given them credit for. Also you can count on desis for equipping themselves with technological arsenal to fight their cyber battles, for example, the Wiki reference on the said institute and someone suggesting that everyone can Google bomb the term with results of what the bloggers have to say about the said institute coming up first.

But I am also concerned about the broader aspects of this case since it is perhaps the first of its kind to get the attention of many cyber users. The Mediaah episode did not generate this kind of a response and dissipated soon enough but did provide some pointers as to what kind of clout the Indian blogosphere really had. In that incident, a MSM (MainStreamMedia) publication flexed its muscles and got away with it. In the current scenario, we have an institute with deep pockets and wide connections but probably with limited experience on how to handle a PR disaster. They could have played this differently but they did not and there is a lesson for every one of the participants in this game, bloggers included.

Many blogger posts that I have seen over the last few days have been the "ranting and raving" variety. While it feels good to let off steam, bloggers have to realize that they don't score brownie points with their opponent because of that. Rather they play into the "us vs. them" card and weaken their position, since in the real world, when it comes to formal dispute resolution, logic rules over emotion. What is needed are factual arguments to buttress one's position. Calling someone names at the heat of the moment may feel good, but they don't tend to contribute in any meaningful manner to the matter on hand and may likely worsen the situation. I am sure everyone here realizes that this is not the online equivalent of some holy war between Indian bloggers and the people running the said institute, even though it is a war - of words, of ideas, of the concept of freedom of speech, of the fundamental right to express an opinion.

What started this issue here is a matter of "truth in advertising" and the fact-finding mission of a magazine reportedly coming up with information that was found inconsistent with those stated in the ad(s) that the said institute ran on other publications. The said institute could have dealt with this in a manner that such disputes with the press are handled - by logically refuting the report with *proof* of whatever they have stated in the ad(s). If they had felt that they would fall short of proving their credentials, they could have sent a letter to the editor acknowledging that some gaps did exist and that they are working on those. But by choosing a more difficult route of intimidation thru legal notices not only to the blogger who edits that magazine but to other bloggers also (who chose to support this blogger with some information that they had about the dean of the said institute that showed him in an unfavorable light), the said institute set itself on a confrontationist path that it may now be thinking it could have well avoided, if not for anything, that it has alienated an entire class of people who are accomplished, web-savvy and influential within their peer-group. This is what I referred to as the PR disaster. Corporate history has shown many a time that PR fires have to be contained or doused, not allowed to be a conflagration as has happened in this case.

Allowing minor problems to snowball into major crises are good learning grounds for what to avoid in the future. One hopes better sense will prevail and the belligerent mood will abate thus paving the way for a more harmonious relationship in the future since many bloggers had implied that they had no animosity towards the students of the said institute and that their actions were not intended to spoil their careers. I am sure bloggers are not out to cause unwarranted embarassment to anybody or any body. As watchdogs, they could be overzealous on an issue but never overbearing. Can fight but cannot falsify. Can magnify but cannot manipulate. The internal checks and balances in the blogosphere take care of that since this is grassroots democracy unlike any other. But they can't be wished away. Or ignored. Or bullied. Or bought. And definitely not suppressed.

If anything, many of the future constituencies are going to have an active online presence and they have to be nurtured, respected and co-opted if an organization wants to truly harness the power of the web and the viral nature of online social networks. Because online social networks are both dynamic and dynamite - when handled right, they can help someone with explosive growth; when handled wrong, they can explode right on their face.

posted by thennavan @ 9:44 PM