Social media and the problem with the court of public opinion

Artwork of people holding up their phones in front of a judge's gavel. CREDIT: CALEIGH REID
Cases like Justin Baldoni vs. Blake Lively highlight the ways in which the Internet is quick to pick sides, without even realizing they might be being manipulated.

Social media has never been a place where people have shied away from sharing their opinions.

Perhaps it’s the ability to remain anonymous or simply the hub of content with places to comment, but either way, the creation of social media has taken the weight of the court of public opinion to a whole other level.

The recent Justin Baldoni vs. Blake Lively public relations (PR) mess has really brought to light social media’s ability to create sides. The case has been flip-flopping back and forth, with both teams accusing the other of defamation and slander. With every new piece of “evidence” that comes out, the public is quick to change their opinion on who’s in the wrong and who’s in the right.

Navigator. Londons student lifestyles magazine.

 

I think what many people are losing sight of in all of this is that we don’t have to have an opinion right now, or ever. Keeping up and talking about celebrity scandals and such is a means of socialization in this generation, however, many people seem to feel that they need to take a side to be involved in the discussion, and I just don’t think that is true. It is OK to wait it out and see how the case develops through trial before you jump to a side like you’re clinging to a life raft. It is also important to understand that the PR teams celebrities hire have one sole purpose: to make them look good. And sometimes that can mean making someone else look bad. These people dedicate their lives to painting an image that is appealing to the public. Releasing certain videos and images, old conversations or interviews, and having people consume that content is a delicate form of manipulation, and the public isn’t even aware they’re being deceived.

Sometimes there isn’t even a superhero and a villain; it is entirely possible that both people have done callous things, and are using the others’ mistakes to hide their own through the meticulous work of their PR agents. This case isn’t the first one where we have seen this sort of thing, as this comes after the case of Amber Heard and Johnny Depp.

These cases are simply just two flawed individuals airing each other’s dirty laundry in hopes of protecting their own. The problem is, when one is seen as “worse,” the public casts that person as the villain, rectifying the other individual leaving them unpunished in the public eye for their alleged crimes.

At the end of the day, these cases should be considered from all angles before the public jumps in, because as a famous saying goes, things aren’t always as they seem. Perhaps the content you’re consuming was intentionally placed there and you are consuming it exactly as someone intended. This generation’s obsession with Cancel Culture is fueled by this “good guy vs. bad guy” narrative, when quite frankly it is entirely likely that both individuals are flawed, because they are human, and nobody is perfect. These individuals just happen to have their lives watched under a microscope that is observed in the ever- so-irrelevant court of public opinion.


Editorial opinions or comments expressed in this online edition of Interrobang newspaper reflect the views of the writer and are not those of the Interrobang or the Fanshawe Student Union. The Interrobang is published weekly by the Fanshawe Student Union at 1001 Fanshawe College Blvd., P.O. Box 7005, London, Ontario, N5Y 5R6 and distributed through the Fanshawe College community. Letters to the editor are welcome. All letters are subject to editing and should be emailed. All letters must be accompanied by contact information. Letters can also be submitted online by clicking here.