Entertainment legend Dick Clark passed away yesterday, and literally, this morning, within the same 60 seconds I learned of his passing, I read a derogatory Dick Clark post on Twitter. What is it about social networking that causes people to lose all social grace and respect for other people?

Every time someone well known passes away, the poor taste jokes start flying on Twitter and then Facebook. (Be proud, Facebook, that you lag a bit here.) The cycle gets shorter and shorter, and today’s was the shortest I’ve ever seen.

Earlier this month, “Painter of Light” Thomas Kincade passed away. The personal attacks that plagued Kincade throughout his career persisted after his passing, and reportedly drove him to alcoholism which led to his death.

While I literally despised his paintings, I was able to separate the man from his work. I resisted the temptation (yes, there was a slight one) to make light (no joke meant there either) of his passing and his career. I may do so some day, but now is not the right time.

Thanks to social networking, the time-honored formula tragedy + time = comedy has been updated to eliminate the “time” variable. Gilbert Gottfried learned this well when he tried to make 9-11 jokes in an appearance at a Friar’s Club roast just three weeks after the tragedy. Gottfried was booed with chants of “Too soon! Too soon!” In other words, the club’s members recognized that some day it might be OK to make 9-11 jokes, but three weeks after the event was too soon.

I have given up hope that premature and uncalled for attacks on individuals will let up. (Personally I am opposed to any attacks on individuals, but the idea that these will stop is crazy.) It is an unfortunate and, sadly, institutionalized part of the dialogue found on social networks.

Tags: Dick Clark, poor taste, jokes, too soon, Thomas Kincade

Both the Obama campaign and Republican campaigns have been relying heavily on e-mail marketing to get through to voters. And in some cases, accusations have been made that sleazy techniques are being used on both sides of the aisle.

A February post by Loren McDonald of Silverpop, an e-mail marketing company based in Atlanta, Georgia, points out that the Republicans have employed a number of “questionable (e-mail marketing) gimmicks” designed to “make the email stand out in the inbox or imply that the message is coming from a friend. These include (the use of) re: and Fw: or Fwd:, to grab the recipient’s attention.”

The use of e-mail with fake “REs” in the subject line has long been a staple of spammers, and is designed to create the impression of an e-mail response, simulating a relationship and ongoing communications with the recipient. It is surprising to see it in a presidential campaign.

People have seen everything, and they’re tired of being manipulated. They know a con. This scam has been around a long time, and legitimate marketers, particularly if they represent a presidential candidate, should know better. In any context, this technique is insincere and manipulative. It’s a strategy that will backfire with most consumers and most voters.

In commercial use, simulated email responses with “RE” in them are probably in violation of Federal Trade Commission (FTC) rules. The FTC announced ten years ago that it was waging war against e-mail spammers, and filed suit against perpetrators of an e-mail chain letter scheme.

A 2003 FTC report specifically defines false subject lines, including those with “RE,” as “deceptive,” and therefore potential violations of FTC regulations.

As Martin Chorich comments, political speech is not subject to the same oversight and restrictions as commercial speech, so the FTC rules do not apply, but clearly this kind of email deception is something that regulators have identified as harmful to consumers, and is equally harmful to voters.

Consumers can file a complaint about any deceptive email practice, by simply forwarding the email to spam@uce.gov, or by completing a complaint form on the agency’s site.

The Republicans are not alone in this. The Obama campaign came under attack recently for what some see as a sleazy e-mail campaign.  Earlier this month, Jon Stewart remarked that the e-mails from the Obama campaign were akin to a Nigerian 419 scam letter.

Note: This post has been edited to indicate political speech is not governed by FTC regulations, in respone to Martin Chorich’s helpful comment below.

Tags: obama campaign, deceptive e-mail, fake, RE, FTC, Federal Trade Commission, spam,, republican

It seems that nearly every news item that makes its way onto Twitter or Facebook is first expressed through reportage (simple links and tweets with headlines), followed by a fire hose of hate and mockery, and sometimes a backlash against the backlash. A couple examples include:

• Susan Boyle: “Her popularity in Britain had been tempered by the ‘Boyle backlash,’ a phenomenon created and christened by the national media which at first hyped her natural talent and then attacked her for being overhyped.”
• Steve Jobs‘ passing: (Online comment reacting to S.F. vigil in memory of Jobs): “Disgusting. A vigil for a telephone? How about one for the millions of congolese raped and killed in a war over the minerals needed to create laptops and phones that become obsolete in a matter of months so that a corporation can reap billions of dollars?!”
• Samantha Brick, first attacked for “complaining” that her attractiveness was a nuisance, with reactions like : ”Most people have beer goggles. She has a beer mirror.” “I’m sure she has a ‘best’ side, but I think she’s sitting on it,” and then defended, in an unusual online turnaround.
• Olive Garden review, written by 85-year-old Marilyn Hagerty, “went viral” in mockery of Hagerty, but then saw some reversal. Anthony Bourdain tweeted, “very much enjoying watching Internet sensation Marilyn Hagerty triumph over the snarkologists (myself included).”

So what is it in us that drives the angry online reactions to almost anything in the news? For many years, both national and local media were accused of pandering to viewers. Every newscast started with a sensationalist teaser and highlighted stories of killings, disasters and crime. Now that social networking has democratized reporting, and we are all journalists, everyone is tempted to pander.

I’m not sure it can be stopped. It’s human to want attention and it’s easy to get by being outspoken. A while ago I realized I was being a little too agressive on this blog for openly and harshly criticizing people who had committed social media and PR gaffes, and decided to call attention to the bad behavior and propose alternatives, rather than making it about people.

I also tried to raise my own fairness standards, and recorded my own set of guiding principles in what I call The Social Media Love Manifesto. Unfortunately, in the war of influence, the idea of social media love hasn’t drawn much interest, and is in danger of cancellation.