There were few people who didn’t get angry when watching the clips showing how a traffic incident transpired, involving a DJ and his blatant lies. Thanks largely to widespread outrage, he was fired from his job, and problems with the police and auto insurers are looming. Apparently, “justice” was delivered swiftly, which wouldn’t have been the case without the modern-day phenomenon of mobile-phone cameras and closed-circuit TV cameras following virtually everyone almost everywhere.

As usual, just when social media was reeling from accusations of being intrusive, with a critically ill actor and his loved ones being hounded, something came up to show their merits. The DJ case almost looked like divine intervention, because without an eyewitness’ video, it might have taken days, if not months, to debate or dispute his account portraying himself as the victim. As it turned out, he was fired from his job virtually within hours of the incident.

Few Thais missed the story, actually. After social media outlets were flooded with his “lies,” TV news programs, news websites and newspapers picked up the incident fast, leading to bigger outrage. The man had to go before “conventional” cameras to issue a tearful apology, apparently resigned to the possibility of his action being deemed as coming from someone who had to say sorry simply because he was caught red-handed.

The incident proves one thing: When all or most social media users are in agreement, their power is formidable. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. Social media outlets have not only been used to expose hidden facts or truth; they have also been employed to spread doubtful information or ideologies, which can be right or wrong. This is to say that all or most social media users can be in agreement on something that is wrong or harmful.

Social media can help bring about justice. That is for sure. But everyone must not get carried away, because what happens in camera frames remains hugely significant. That is what all social media users must keep in mind. After all, one incident after another has proven that people accused on social media can also be innocent, and vice versa. Most social media users became “judges” in the DJ case. That is somewhat understandable because evidence against him seemed so damning and infuriating. However, the case can fly in the face of critics of “trial by media,” a term coined to describe impact of newspapers and televisions on someone’s reputation before he or she is judged by a court of law.

The good side of “trial by social media” is that justice can come quickly and the innocent who wouldn’t stand a chance otherwise can be helped as if by a miracle. The bad side, of course, is when social media outlets turn unknowingly against the innocent. There will be more close-circuit video footage. More and more cars are equipped with video cameras. More and more people will be in possession of smartphones, whose ability to take video clips is getting better and better.

The DJ case, barring the possibility that there’s more shocking information that we still don’t know about, can be proclaimed as a triumph of social media and the benefit of putting cameras into citizens’ hands. But while it’s true that the DJ could have got away with lies and his other action but for social media, it’s become more imperative for social media to wield their power responsibly.

The “exposure” of the DJ and his punishment tell us so.

Editorial
The Nation (Thailand)
(Asia News Network)