Writers have love affairs with words. As a writer, I am fascinated by the words’ ability to inspire to unite and to enlighten. At the same time, I am distressed by their ability to horrify, to divide, to wound, to belittle and incite.

Working with social media, all of us need to be extremely sensitive to the power and limitations of the written word. Words in a post, in an article or presented through any of the numerous channels today, can convey
persuasive, passionate messages or perform almost irreversible harm and disseminate devastating misinformation. Even more troublesome is the fact that those same words—in spite of their intent—can be misinterpreted and change the reader’s perception of the sender. This is true for an individual, a small business, or a large corporation. So, here’s a question: How do words impact on a screen or on a page and what about the effects of a video?

What happens to those squiggly lines we propel through social media and print?

A study many years ago purported that communication is only 7% verbal [for our purposes, this is the written word] and 93 percent non-verbal. This indicates that the written word itself is only a small part of the communication process. The results of the study also proposed that body language makes up 55% and the remaining 38% is conveyed through the tone of voice.

Although arguments since the study have pointed out that these percentages may not be totally accurate, there is a truth in the concept. One of the more recent arguments pointed out that this breakdown applies
only to emotional communication. Today, especially in social media messages, many which focus on the pandemic and racial inequality, most communications have strong emotional content. This is a result of
messages with heavy doses of opinion and selective information.

An important lesson here applies directly to all communication and particularly to social media, whether you take the percentages in that study as exact or approximations. When we read posts, look at memes and
consume other forms of digital communication, we are prone to misinterpret, especially in the current divisiveness of our culture. The same is true for the written word.

Another factor in misunderstanding is a lack of awareness about context. As we mature, we begin to learn that everyone has different perspectives. Although this becomes part of our self-awareness, the implications take longer to sink in. I am reminded of a quote attributed to Robert McCloskey, a U.S. State Department spokesperson.

“I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.”

When I came across this statement, I needed to read it again to understand its full meaning.

This pithy saying can help us contemplate what the effects of our communications may be. If you express something from your point of view and do not realize that I am hearing it from the sum of my experiences, you may think that you were clear in what you expressed. However, since my background is different than yours, your words may evoke an experience or memory that is contradictory to what you are saying. I may interpret your message in such a way as to reject it, hear it as confrontational or simply stop listening to you.

When we add the visual and auditory aspects of expression with our digital technology like Zoom™ and other tele-meeting platforms, these two factors—communication percentages and awareness of context—have a profound influence. I have seen and heard participants get caught up in contentious topics in online tele-meetings and become adversarial.

One recent example was a discussion about having a live event. The person organizing the event scoffed at the idea that there were significant risks. His viewpoint was motivated by the importance of keeping his
business thriving in the face of the extraordinary limitations all business people, especially those who rely on in-person events, are encountering. Another attendee sat quietly but others could see by the look on her face that this upset her. She had recently lost both parents to COVID-19 within a week. Even if the organizer had no intention of alienating other participants and may not have even recognized that he did, his connection was severed. This ended the other participant’s willingness to hear anything else he said both in that session and perhaps on future occasions. My empathy with her position changed my opinion of the person promoting the event and I will re-evaluate our future relationship.

I focused on him in the example, but this experience continues to be a vivid lesson for me. It reminds me of statements I have made that could have and probably did alienate people with views different from mine.
Fortunately, I have been more careful with my social media presence. I have shied away from expressing personal opinions on social platforms because I don’t believe that it is an effective way to change minds.

The original excitement for social media faded for me years ago with the politicization of posts. I have had to unfriend people on both sides of issues because, in their fervor, they have been rude and hateful. I’ve also
limited my consumption of social media and television news and opinion programs. Others around me have done the same. I decided not to participate and that saved countless hours of unproductive communications. This action also protects my social media clients. I prefer to use social media personally for more positive messages, specifically because of the second tenet of misunderstanding I described above.

These same challenges face our ability or inability to discuss racial inequalities. Many people express extreme views and are unwilling to listen to the other side. Some of the more radical expressions may have been necessary to bring this painful circumstance to our attention, however becoming entrenched in any perspective and refusing to consider anything contradictory prevents understanding. These entrenched views thwart any possibility of a compromise that might be acceptable to both sides.

During the protests in the 1960s, about Civil Rights, the Viet Nam War and other issues created a similar division. Only when more moderate views on both sides were expressed, did a path emerge where more people could work together. Only then did legislation and government action initiate the changes that followed.

I have heard the new generation of protesters argue that nothing came out of these previous actions, but the war ended, and minorities gained some rights (even though it did not bring about racial equality). Without the
understanding that ensued, there would not have been integrated schools, increased business opportunities and a greater awareness of minority contributions to America. We would have had many fewer Black and other minority filmmakers, actors, and more inclusive television shows. We would not have had as much awareness of the plight of minorities since that time.

I concede to these younger activists that much more could have been done. Granted that after the heightening of awareness, many in the majority culture returned to their previous, more personal focus, however, they were more aware. This awareness kept the coals simmering since so that when new protests were enflamed, the somewhat forgotten embers of the past were ignited and some from the older generation added their voices and support. Still, many others like what happened 50+ years ago, cling to what they are used to and what is comfortable. Now however even those people are seeing that the world will not be the same, if only because of the results of the virus and our attention to policing efforts.

What can we as social media managers do? Can we bring a new sensitivity about language and communication to bear? We are living through a time where it is easy to be overwhelmed, frightened and stressed. This is also a time where we may want to help, to contribute to solutions and to a path forward. We can change the world, but it has to begin within us, with a review of our attitudes and actions, and specifically our messaging.

It is our responsibility as social media managers to examine our intent and our clients’ intent in all communications. We must be clear and act with one of the promises in the Hippocratic oath, primum non nocere: “first, do no harm.” I now read my posts, emails and other communications one more time. I want to be sure to deliver the correct message in the clearest language. I pledge to watch my language and hope other social media managers will do the same.

~Written by Drew Becker