In last Thursday’s post, entitled “Greenpeace, CNN, and Sloppy Research,” I referenced a May 24, 2010 CNN.com article “Social Media Can Help Save the Planet, Says Greenpeace Boss” and said that there were two problems in that CNN article. The first problem, sloppy research, you and I discussed last Thursday. Today, you and I will discuss the second problem, that of “semantical terrorism.”
The term “semantical terrorism” occurred to me while participating as a panelist at a recent symposium held at Bernard Baruch College in NYC. While participating on the panel “More than Friending: Social Media and Communication in Business and Education,” I was describing to the audience what I do. One of the other panelists, Alan Levine, Vice President, NMC Community and CTO, The New Media Consortium, looked at me and said something like “Oh, so you’re a counter-terrorist.” I paused for a moment, then agreed adding a modifying statement that “semantical counter-terrorist” would probably be more applicable. So, I will credit Alan with the inspiration for the term that we will discuss today.
In my work, I analyze advocacy groups (NGOs, activists, etc.) who perform anti-corporate actions. My primary area of analysis is on their actions in both online and offline media. That analysis is focused on how these irregular competitors “mangle the meaning” and “diddle the definition” of the corporate images owned by the companies they target. In fact, I have written a book on this subject, this “battle for meaning.” (For further details, please see Insidious Competition – The Battle for Meaning and the Corporate Image which is scheduled to publish very soon.) And it’s in this battle for meaning that “semantical terrorism” is performed by irregular competitors, who threaten damage, either overtly or tacitly, to the images of corporations who don’t go along with the NGO or activist agenda.
A battle in semantical terrorism it truly is and in the CNN article referenced above, I will point out how Greenpeace has showed their intention to use this tactic to meet their future objectives.
In the second to last paragraph of that article, Greenpeace’s executive director, Kumi Naidoo, says that although Greenpeace has a dialogue going on with a number of companies “if talk does not deliver the results, we have to create the possibility for millions of people who care about the environment to send a clear message.” He doesn’t directly state that the option is semantical terrorism, but I believe his implication is clear; that if negotiations don’t bring Greenpeace its desired results, then they will entreat millions of people to essentially “trash” the image of the targeted company. Greenpeace supporters have a reputation for exaggeration. And based on what I’ve seen Greenpeace supporters do previously in social media, based on how I’ve seen those supporters go off the central issue of the campaign, I can say that I expect many of those “clear messages” would not be based in fact, but rather in innuendo and insinuation. (For more on this, please see my research into the Greenpeace-engineered social media protest that I dubbed “The Kit Kat Incident.”) Such action would constitute a systematic approach toward coercion, a definition which correlates with that commonly accepted for the word “terrorism,” and would be anchored in the manipulation of meaning, i.e., semantics.
So, the answer to the question posed in today’s title, “Greenpeace . . . Will You Use ‘Semantical Terrorism’ in Social Media?,” appears to be a “yes” and thereby all corporations should be put on notice.
