it has been explained As “everybody’s worst nightmare” and “the terror of group chats gone wrong”, you might think it’s a bit melodramatic, but only if you haven’t experienced it yourself.
As it stands, political scandals are rarely so relevant.new zealand green party in great public turmoil A politician apparently mistakenly sent a message to a group of other colleagues that appeared to criticize them.
While Chloe Swarbrick of the Green Party addressed the House of Commons on Wednesday, her fellow MP Elizabeth Kerekere sent a text message to a group of Green Party politicians and staff. .
After a colleague replies with “I think this is the wrong chat…?” – which ranks alongside “must speak” for its ability to instill immediate fear in the mind of the recipient – Kerekere deleted the text and apologized for the “inappropriate message…not intended for this thread.”
Kerekere denied “calling Swarbrick a crybaby” and the full exchange was leaked to Radio New Zealand, which reported the story on Thursday. Subsequent analysis Capitol TV shows two green MPs sitting behind Swarbrick looking at their cell phones and responding to texts with obvious terror.
Green Party co-leaders Marama Davidson and James Shaw condemned Kerekere’s message as inappropriate and against party values, and said it would be fully investigated. In the meantime, here’s a lesson for all of us.
The obvious might be, “If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything,” but that was not a realistic expectation of human nature.
In the age of social media, the line between having a momentary, perhaps unmerciful thought and sharing it with an audience is dangerously thin. On the other hand, attempts to limit its spread (e.g., sharing with “close friends only” or on her Twitter account under a pseudonym) are problematic and highly error-prone.
A message shared with a few trusted confidantes can easily become a public broadcast using screen grabs and transfers.
There are a few takeaways from this majestic tale. From a practical standpoint, clearly distinguishing group chats with names and images provides visual cues. If you have to trash talk someone remotely, voice notes are harder to circulate (and emojis are harder to interpret).
It’s also never a good idea to have a sensitive conversation when you’re tired or distracted.Risk of sending messages To who you want to message almost is too expensive.
One underutilized strategy I would advocate is to simply speak less. It’s only recently that people have been able to share vain thoughts that pop into their heads almost instantly.
Please see Twitter. Some people can’t help but make statements of such astonishing banality. I am particularly struck by two memories of her. Ga! ” Another is “time for lunch.”
I’m not saying all my messages are dangerous, but who would take the time to type this one?
This message from Kerekere is different, not “mean and unconscionable” (to give Davidson’s preliminary reading) and not stupid, but the fact reflects the same impulse. increase. “We apologize for the inconvenience”) is not complete until it is articulated.
In this attention economy, it seems that some people have come to feel inadequate if they don’t share their feelings and experiences with a wider audience (like WhatsApp friends and Twitter followers). .
Comparisons to the “past” are almost always reductive. That’s because there’s currently no bundle that puts social media back in Pandora’s box.
For example, had she not had a seemingly private means of voicing it, Kerekere would have been frustrated enough to exclaim at Swarbrick, “What a crybaby!” in house? Or would she have sat silently about it, and if she was still irritated when she got home, would she have vented about it then?
Sadly, in this modern, individualistic digital news cycle, such complaints are everyone’s problem. Perhaps it comes at the cost of trust in politics as a vehicle for change.
Of course, leaking to the media is one way of indirectly sanctioning such behavior. And it is undoubtedly in the public interest to be aware of divisions within the power-hungry party.
But Swarbrick has surpassed it, effectively calling her far worse.The news cycle is distracting.
It also speaks to a loss of perspective on what politicians are there to do: serve.
That’s not to say elected representatives should just sit there and think only of worthy thoughts about how best to pay taxpayers to save the planet. and people are people: contradictory, impulsive, irritable and hungry.
But learning how to manage your emotional reactions and maintain perspective, or at least thinking before you tweet, is even more helpful in a demanding job working under intense pressure and scrutiny.
In his forthcoming book, Order Out of Chaos, kidnapping negotiator Scott Walker explores the importance of mastering your own mindset (particularly your ego) in order to communicate effectively and achieve your goals. I’m talking
Politicians everywhere saw their job as a high-stakes negotiation with real consequences, not a TV show to keep an eye on as they texted their friends. Better.
But if it’s too much to ask for, you might do worse than follow Alice Roosevelt Longworth’s advice. At least I can’t make screenshots.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/commentisfree/2023/apr/07/with-a-text-message-sent-to-the-wrong-group-chat-new-zealands-greens-have-never-been-so-relatable Text message sent to wrong group chat makes New Zealand Greens friendlier than ever | El Hunt