With the emergence of social networks and the impact that is immediately produced in cyberspace by the messages that are published or shared, and above all by the idea of growing and monetizing, the vast majority of communicators and influencers practically adopt a character, a style of communicating, and a positioning and image that people get used to receiving and valuing.
Some assume the role of defender of just causes or of showbiz critic, or of social or political analyst, or of political cadre or of a coach for personal growth. And that communicator manages to penetrate a niche or audience target, which gives approval to his publications, and the specialization, focus and communication role that is identified with a style or some character is born.
Supporting all this is the ability to communicate, creativity, depth in content, and the grace to convey messages that help make the moment fun. And speakers also emerge that represent interests, to communicate certain messages and promote or exert specific influences on the audience.
Using social networks, cyberspace, the Internet, is no longer a funny event that happens because luck wanted it that way, but because the majority uses these mass media to learn, inform, inform, entertain, do business or support causes, right wrongs. Unfortunately, they are also misused to defame, extort, blackmail, accuse, point out, threaten, insult, slander, and outrage people.
This space where freedom of expression reached its maximum potential has been undermined by a number of communication styles, bad practices and characters, which are far from educating, improving the quality of life or making people grow.
For these reasons, misconduct and the commission of crimes arise that conflict with criminal and civil aspects, and laws arise that, in order to regulate the appropriate use of these media, have come to the point of restricting, censoring or putting a gag on the freedom of expression and dissemination of thought. It is feared that, out of fear of being punished, people will choose to remain silent and not communicate what is happening, settling for self-censorship, censorship or institutionalized gagging.
It has recently become clear that even without the new penal code and other gag-type laws coming into force, using only current laws, less burdensome sanctions can be applied without the need to go to the extremes set forth in the new penal code and related laws. We firmly believe that the Executive Branch must observe the new penal code and withdraw those articles that restrict fundamental freedoms and rights.
Finally we emphasize the consequences of an unwanted message or influence. There seems to be a trap that many communicators can fall into, because when they are in front of the cameras or behind a microphone, they become slaves to their words and their characters, letting their emotions lead the tone of their narratives.
In front of the cameras and perhaps without realizing it we act, excited by the topics discussed, or by interpreting that character that we want to represent or a “successful” celebrity to imitate. There are characters that you can identify and even add a few more to your list: the aggressive, the irreverent, the confrontational, the vigilante, the patriot, the anti-system, the defender of the government, the destroyer of reputations, the paid speakers, the rebel, the charlatan, the instructor, the promoter. Add yourself to the list.
But when repetition in these roles leads us to define a communication style, it becomes so natural and natural that our personality is easily adorned by the character’s self-influence. And suddenly, the emotions that we imprint on a message make it reach the audience more strongly and offensively, and more people may feel affected, defamed, insulted, offended.
Assuming a character does not eliminate the responsibility of the message, but when we have fallen into the trap and message, messenger, character are confused and insult, defamation, moral damage or damage to honor is perceived, then issues begin that sadly end up in court. This last situation described makes the influence of the character and his message stronger than the person.
It is not the same to inform, give an opinion, denounce, provoke, incite, humiliate, warn, advise, confront, deny, analyze, extrapolate, infer, correlate, or feed collective emotions, share images, audios, destroy reputations, threaten, coerce, blackmail, extort, outrage, defame, insult, reveal, reveal, lie, insult, give false testimony.
All of these elements occur daily in front of the cameras or behind a microphone. Cameras modify behavior due to the existence of adrenaline, audience, competition, ego, rating, applause, immediate validation, roles, characters. And in that environment, emotions can take the wheel.
The curious thing is that many times the communicator does not perceive the change. He thinks he’s just being spontaneous. But repeated spontaneity in front of a massive audience ends up becoming influence, although not all influence is intentional.
The communicator may not want to provoke a protest, not want to destroy a reputation, not want to polarize a community, and still contribute to it. Because influence does not depend only on the intention of the sender. It also depends on: the perception of the recipient, the social context, the level of existing tension, and the reach of the message.
In this same vein, there are those who believe they are so much the character that he has kidnapped them without knowing it. Some allow themselves the luxury of inventing in politics, many times without enjoying the content, training, intellectuality and skills that can serve for worthy national representation. The majority of those who have tried or have accepted appointments based on this self-suggestion have shown, each time, ineptitude, incompetence and failures in the state, and even loss of money used to access power. These experiments continue to validate the Peter Principle.
