So Malcolm Gladwell has an opinion on “social media as saviour.”  Seems he has been reading the wrong people because I don’t know anyone who believes that.

Gladwell recently penned an article in the New Yorker titled Small Change: why the revolution will not be tweeted. In it he argues that social media has not been responsible for social change and in the future won’t be responsible for social change.

A few things first.  No one really has argued that point.  Well, maybe a few people.  But nobody who anyone takes seriously.  Second, the article is not the first time Gladwell has spoken about social media’s role in society.

Back in April, 6 months ago, Gladwell spoke at the F5 conference in Vancouver.  In his keynote presentation he outlined 3 main points:

1. Social Media connections are made up of many “weak ties” and very few “strong ties.”
2. Social Media does not build trust.
3. Social Media will not change society.

In his New Yorker essay, Gladwell builds on a couple of the same points.  His main argument is that social media has never, and can never, create change in society.

So let’s discuss this.  One example Gladwell continues to come back to is the Iran Election and the influence Twitter had on any protests.  Here’s the deal, some pundits may have said that Twitter was a catalyst in these protests but after reading Gladwell’s piece, I have to be honest with you: It’s the first time I ever heard of it.

In my opinion, and I’m no Gladwell, Twitter was used in a few other ways.  First, it was used by sympathizers to message other supporters outside Iran on activities and progress of the movement.  It was also used by those outside Iran to keep in touch with what was happening inside Iran.

Gladwell also fails to mention the impact YouTube had.  I remember images of a young woman dying on my screen after being caught as an innocent bystander in the Iranian protests.  This and other images helped to strengthen the resolve of those inside Iran as well as their Western supporters.

Gladwell also fails to point out the election of American President Barack Obama.  If you read David Plouffe’s book, The Audacity To Win, you will come to learn the massive role technology and social media had in creating and mobilizing a movement.

Here’s the point, social media tools (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, even SMS and IM) are mediums for the message.  They are not the message itself.  I agree with Gladwell in that its people who will be the catalyst of any future change.  And most social media “pundits” will agree, too.

What social media does is allow more people to become involved.  And when more people are connected, then the chances of identifying people who can help spread the message is increased.  And that’s the power of social media:  it’s people driven.  Just like the next social movement.

I would love to know what you think. Feel free to comment below.

A few hours ago my Twitter feed was bombarded with news that TSN and the Montreal Gazette were reporting that former Leafs, Canadiens and Devils hockey coach, Pat Burns had died earlier today.

I read the news here.  But as you can see the story is gone although the link (as of now) is still valid.

Now, I don’t know for sure about Mr. Burns’ status.  I wish him well and pray for him, his family and loved one’s.  However, this is not an article about Pat Burns.

It’s about trust.

Who do we, as a media consuming society, trust?  The Montreal Gazette?  TSN?  Twitter? Our buddy at the water cooler?

Mainstream media (MSM) is concerned about selling advertising and units:  The more papers sold, the more advertising on the local news, the more banner ads on websites.  All of these increases an operations revenues.  And that’s good for them.

Your buddy at the water cooler?  She gets her news from media.  Traditional or new.  She’s too busy working and getting water to be involved.  She just wants to be part of the water cooler conversation.

Me and you on Twitter.  There’s no money in tweeting or retweeting.  There is, however, the issue of trust.  And it’s that trust that opens or closes doors for us in regards to career or potential business opportunities.  It’s also trust that determines our status in our local community.  Here’s what I mean:

If a large volume of my tweets are unsubstantiated and turn out to be false then the amount of trust I hold falls.  In real life, this can affect whether people will trust me as a friend or trust me to be a community manager of their brand.  On the other hand, if my tweets (and other social media content) are seen as valuable then opportunities for friendship and business abound.

And that’s the difference between MSM and social media.  MSM is profit driven and social media is trust driven.  It’s true.  National Enquirer is not popular because their stories are true.  They don’t care.  It’s about profit.

So when news breaks, it’s not social media/Twitter that is breaking that news.  People don’t make money tweeting.  People tweet based on news that comes from traditional media and their online properties.  Twitter and social media just spread what MSM publishes.

Rumours may spread like wildfire on Twitter.  But they are created by MSM.

What’s your opinion?