"I'll bet my right testicle that my late granddad didn't fight in the war for this country 70 years ago so that idiots of later times could whore---"
This starting sentence of a blog post, titled "About the people who ruin this country", caught my attention on a late night Facebook link clicking spree. Or maybe it wasn't the sentence alone, but the picture of the blogger. I recommend you click on the link now, if you didn't already.
Now excuse me for my stereotypical thinking, but someone who looks like that using language like above makes me intrigued. The post in itself was about the environmental mishaps of the Finnish political scene, and to be fair, from a point of view I wouldn't first connect to a middle-aged man in a suit. In fact, it rang quite a few bells.
After a bit of more clicking, it turns out that it's not really him, but a younger chap who would "look the part" behind the contents of the blog post. Reasoning for using a fake image? Being taken seriously. Would the post have created a serious, well-argumented discussion in the comments from people all over the society on a political portal if the picture would have been of a 20-something guy on a beach in Goa with a guitar?
Is it in what is said or who says it?
I have dreadlocks. And tattoos. I can't walk in heels. I'm also an all A's student and I've bagged a few European PR awards. Yet, when I first turn up to a "serious" event, I get looks. I don't look the part, especially in London, but hopefully I'll be the part if given a chance. It's just about who is willing to even look behind the looks - isn't it about 3 seconds that we have to make a first impression? And we all know how easy it is to change those.
Perhaps that's the beauty of the world wide wonderful. Anyone can be an expert. Identity theft aside, is internet by making people faceless actually making us pay more attention to what is said than who is saying it? Or is it [still] a fake it till you make it -sort of a truth that's out there?
OK the English translation on the page is a little dodgy - but it doesn't effect the point your making, which I agree with.
ReplyDeleteI'm reminded of a talk I went to a few years back about authenticity and job interviews. In the same 30 minute talk the presenter encouraged authenticity in your personal and work life, but also advised that having pink hair and piercings would not get you a job. I wanted to walk out there and then - but I didn't want to be the blue haired girl making a scene.
OK, maybe you won't get a job as an investment banker with facial tattoos but looks should be totally irrelevant in other industries, especially creative ones.
I am lucky enough to work for a company that hires employees on talent alone and lets their employees dress as they please; tattoos, piercings, dreads - not a problem.
Going back to your point about the faceless internet - I think we definitely do judge content based on the author, especially in terms of credibility. But does that mean fake identities should be used to up the credibility rating? Hmmm.... Jury's out.
Sounds like an awesome seminar - on how to be contradictory and bloody annoying, really.
ReplyDelete"Faceless internet" is such an interesting topic, stretching outside marketing too - to the point of social issues and bullying on blogs. Of which I could also go on for until Web 5.0 is introduced. Another thing revolving around it is how it at the same time gives more content or brings closer people that have thus far only been familiar faces. Presidents blogging! Celebs tweeting! Quite a few of political hotshots have seared into popularity by their witty tweets - but is it really them or a very well-oiled PR machine?