[ad_1]
There is nothing like controversy to increase the number of listeners to a radio show, especially one aimed at a younger, social media savvy audience.
So when broadcaster Jennifer Zamparelli tweeted Monday seeking to hear from people with “strong opinions” about wearing masks for her 2FM show, the strong reaction on Twitter promised good ratings, to say the least.
But such was the online consternation at his request that on Tuesday’s morning show Zamparelli announced that, after “an emotional 24 hours,” he had decided to leave the segment.
“It’s very clear that people don’t want this discussion to take place,” said the presenter, who sounded chastened. But while the segment did not air, the decision to start first and then drop a contentious issue has almost inevitably sparked online conversations about responsible debate versus the “cancellation culture.” It also raises questions about Zamparelli’s trial as a broadcaster.
The matter started with Zamperalli’s original tweet.
One doesn’t have to believe that ‘Covid is just a common flu’ to wonder what the incident says about coverage of the pandemic.
“Tomorrow we will have an open discussion on my show on @ RTE2FM about face masks. Do you have strong opinions on using them or not using them? I would love to hear from you. Write to me. “As the online response testified, people had strong opinions on the issue. But the overwhelming impulse from the more than 1,000 responses was shock and disbelief that Zamperelli should contemplate a debate on a vital public health issue, particularly after the violent incidents that followed Saturday’s “Yellow Vests” anti-mask demonstration in Dublin.
“The only people who are given (sic) their opinion should be the WHO, the CDCP, epidemiologists and other medical professionals. Do we really need a special RTÉ discussion ‘Let’s listen to both parties’? “was the considerate response from a tweeter, @Akagugs. Others were more direct.
“Until next time; seat belts, life preservers or hassles?” Asked another, @RobStears. (It’s worth noting that seatbelt use was once a heated issue, at least among those who hadn’t been thrown headfirst through a windshield for not wearing one.) “They’re promoting fascism,” was another. opinion of @colm_ryan. Perhaps the most concise answer came from Senator Regina Doherty: “Sweet Jesus.”
We have an open discussion about my program at @ RTE2fm tomorrow about masks. Do you have strong opinions on using them or not using them? I would love to hear from you. Email me jen @ rte
– Jennifer Zamparelli (@JenniferMaguire) September 14, 2020
Wow so much abuse so few characters …
First, considering the protests over the weekend, we want to look at the psychology behind someone not wearing a mask despite overwhelming medical advice. Wearing a mask is not a debate. Nobody said that
– Jennifer Zamparelli (@JenniferMaguire) September 14, 2020
We know what is correct and we know that we must wear a mask. But there are still those who feel that it is a discussion that must be had, why?
Tune in from nine @ RTE2fm– Jennifer Zamparelli (@JenniferMaguire) September 14, 2020
Distorting effect
At first, Zamparelli seemed to stick to his guns.
“Wow, so much abuse so few characters,” he later tweeted, adding that he wanted to examine “the psychology behind someone not wearing a mask despite overwhelming medical advice.” (She also added in a follow-up response that the “abuse” she received came through direct messages rather than public tweets.)
But on Tuesday, the hostess had changed her mind about the execution of the article. She explained that she had sent the original message “without thinking about the words I used”, but that her intention had been “very different from the one interpreted” (sic). She added that she had hired a “great guest” (unidentified) to speak about the psychology of those who believe they are above wearing masks, before emphasizing that she was using them before it became mandatory.
The article’s drop prompted predictable complaints from some far-right Twitter users. But one doesn’t have to believe that “Covid is just a common flu” to wonder what the incident says about coverage of the pandemic and, more broadly, about the distorting effect of social media on reasonable debate, or its lack.
There is a difference between suppressing a vital debate and walking away from a reckless idea
It is certainly fair to say that there is no unanimity on the effectiveness of the ongoing government restrictions, even around the cabinet table. And while the overwhelming consensus among clinicians and the general public is that Covid-19 remains a seismic public health problem, there has been relatively little discussion of how and why many people are beginning to tire of the restrictions, as less at the national level. radio. (The recently retired Ivan Yates was a notable exception, although his views seemed to be based on opinion rather than fact.)
Zamparelli may be rightly aggrieved that he had to leave the discussion. The benefits of wearing masks can be widely supported by scientific evidence after some initial confusion, but that shouldn’t stop you from wondering why some people take it as an affront.
The problem, as Zamparelli admitted, was that he seemed to be inviting the anti-masks to explain their reason for being, as it is.
Limits
In fact, that’s pretty much what the presenter was doing in her original tweet. How else can a call be interpreted to listen to people with strong opinions on masks?
But while one can draw the usual moral about the negative impact of social media from the incident, Zamparelli should be smart enough to know that starting a “discussion” on such a crucial topic via Twitter is fraught with dangers. .
Her career, from a contestant on BBC TV reality show The Apprentice to high-profile television host, sitcom star and radio host, has been based on her bold and outspoken image, as well as her talent as a broadcaster. With this in mind, your tweet is unlikely to be construed as an invitation to a reasoned and studied discussion, especially if it is sandwiched between loud melodies and celebrity gossip.
In the end, Zamparelli seems to have exaggerated his hand. Certainly there is room for further debate on the enforcement of restrictive measures, if not for the nutters who dismiss the scientific evidence.
But there is a difference between suppressing a vital debate and walking away from a reckless idea. While one fully sympathizes with the presenter for any offensive messages he received, it is more difficult to agree with his hurt explanation that his original intention was misinterpreted.
The whole thing seems less a matter of a poorly worded tweet than a rude awakening that there are limits to what a host for a state radio station can do to create a little heat in the air.
[ad_2]