And That's How Rumors Get Started

With all the ruckus over Romney's statement about cutting funding for PBS in the first Presidential Debate, Sesame Street and its various characters (especially Big Bird) have been getting a lot of air time lately.  Now, I haven't watched Sesame Street in 15 or so years, but I still have fond memories of Big Bird, the Cookie Monster, Oscar the Grouch, and, of course, Bert and Ernie (I mean, "Rubber Ducky" is simply a musical classic).  In all my fond memories, though, there is one jarring note.  I remember I was in middle school when I heard that Sesame Street was planning to kill Bert.  They were caving in to parental fears that Bert and Ernie were teaching their children to be gay by having Bert get run over by a vegetable truck.

This is Bert's mug shot--because apparently he's evil and that's another  reason for killing off Bert

This rumor has circulated for a really long time, and you can find multiple variations of the rumor: Bert was going to be killed in some sort of motor vehicle accident or by some heavy-duty disease; Ernie was going to be killed in some sort of motor vehicle accident or by some heavy-duty disease; Bert was going to be killed because he was gay; Bert was going to be killed because he was evil (see this website); Ernie was going to be killed because Jim Henson (Ernie's muppet-teer) actually did die. According to Snopes.com, the first reliably recorded instance of this rumor was back in 1991.  That's a long time for a rumor to still be floating around.

What does Bert and Ernie have to do with digital culture, you might wonder.  I mean other than the fact that Bert and Ernie are awesome and that there is actually a Bert is Evil website, I think we can learn a valuable lesson from the Bert/Ernie dies rumor.  Rumors spread quickly, even without the internet, but think of how much faster they can spread and how much bigger they can get when spread through social media sites like Facebook and Twitter.  For example, remember my post about Facebook status updates? (If not, you can read it here)  Let's say I had posted some vague concern about my older sister's welfare.  How many people  could see that and jump to the worst conclusion--as people are so wont to do? In a more real-time example, I had a friend who posted a picture of his completely totaled car yesterday morning and by about 2 P.M. that same day he had already had 15 people asking if he was ok.  It turns out he wasn't hurt at all, and the car was crashed back in July, but since he didn't post any information along with the picture, people started to freak out.  And that, my friends is not only how rumors get started, but with the power of digital culture, that's how rumors can get out of control.

To Update or not to Update: The eternal Facebook Question

This morning, before I drove off to my first class of the day, my mom told me some startling news about my sister: she had been sent to the emergency room, and she would probably have to have surgery.  My sister and I are very close, and this news was rather distressing for me.  I wanted to let her know that I was thinking about her, and that I wished I could be in New Mexico to help her and her family, and other things like that.  Calling her wasn't really an option, since she was in the hospital and I would be driving for the next 40 minutes and then going straight into class.  My next thought was: I know! I'll update my status on Facebook to let her know that I'm thinking about her!

While this thought seemed promising at first, it got me thinking about updating the Facebook status.  I wanted to say that I was thinking about my sister, but I didn't know how much she wanted everyone on her Facebook to know about her situation, and I knew that if I was vague on purpose ("My thoughts are with you, Chels!  Hope you're doing ok!" or something like that) then I would get a whole bunch of comments asking why I was thinking about her, what was going on, was everything ok, etc., etc.  And herein lies my quandary: How do you post a Facebook status update that conveys all you want it to convey without infringing on someone else's privacy?

I know that Facebook status updates don't always necessarily concern telling someone else's story.  However, people are still such a huge part of our lives, and Facebook is all about letting people interact with one another.  It would be almost impossible to eliminate Facebook statuses that involved other people and their privacy, especially now that Facebook has features like linking, where you can link your status to someone else's profile.  I think that many people don't stop to think about how much their status updates can affect their friends and family.  That makes it sounds so dramatic, but it's true.  What if my sister didn't want anyone to know about her visit to the hospital and I blabbed about it on Facebook?  What if, even though I had been vague about the situation, my sister became inundated with phone calls from her Relief Society Presidency because they somehow saw my status update?  A lot of times people just aren't aware enough of their Facebook surroundings to think before they update.

Our society today is so focused on social networks, such as Facebook and Twitter, where anyone can receive daily, hourly, even minutely updates on almost anyone else's life.  We love to hear about happy circumstances and disasters alike.  In this world where the public sphere is increasingly crowding into the private sphere, when do we draw the line in order to preserve a person's privacy?

In writing this post, I realize I've probably told too much of my sister's more-than-unfortunate day today.  It's a good thing family is so forgiving.