Correcting social misinformation
By Molly FlattFew things are more frustrating than seeing untruths spread about your company online. Everyone has the right to express a negative opinion, and people often and understandably resent brands jumping in to argue with their subjective thoughts or experiences. But when the comments are factually incorrect, it’s important that brands have appropriate ways of answering back.
In his new book ‘On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done’, Cass Sunstein, director of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, argues for some pretty strict regulation of social media - fuelled by his anger at the smears on Obama spread by “right-wing websites”. Asserting that bloggers often embrace rumours to support their own partisan worldview and attract likeminded readers, Sustein says that “freedom usually works, but in some contexts, it is an incomplete corrective”. Correctives he suggests include a “right to notice and take down” in which “those who runs websites would be obliged to take down falsehoods upon notice”, a “right to demand a retraction after a clear demonstration that a statement is both false and damaging” and making it easier to bring libel cases based on rumours online.
Whether such measures will or could ever take hold, it’s more important than ever that brands have a way of putting their case. In the best case scenario other independent advocates will defend you out in the venues where the misinformation is spread, as staff getting involved in the conversation has a tendency to backfire. However, you can’t always rely on someone to jump to your defence, and this is where having strong brand social presences can be essential as a forum to broadcast your point of view.
The US Transport Security Administration have been showing how it’s done well.
When a mum blogger claimed that the TSA had separated her from her baby, they posted a denial on their blog that very same day. Simply and clearly worded, authored by a single named staff member with an empathetic yet authoritative tone, the rebuttal was accompanied by a detailed breakdown of CCTV footage allowing ‘full transparency’ about what really happened. The TSA didn’t give the woman credibility by going and arguing in her space, but made their own case with graphic clarity. Although some of the 400-plus commenters use the post as a place to vent their other complaints, the vast majority reflect the view of this guy:
‘Well done, Bob! Prompt, relevant posting. None of this “unavailable to comment” or “I know you are but what am I” garbage. Well done, sir.’
