‘HAVE you ever said something dodgy on social media?” has become the new “have you ever taken drugs?” for politicians in the digital age. Every other day there’s a fresh social media scandal involving a public figure, relating to something they once said or did on social media.
The latest person to find himself in the headlines is Jared O’Mara, the Labour MP for Sheffield Hallam, who has been suspended by the party after offensive social media posts dating back 15 years were uncovered.
The details of this case aside, it got me thinking about whether historic social media posts are an appropriate moral measuring stick. People do stupid things, and public figures aren’t immune from past mistakes or ignorance.
We understand the difference between a politician admitting to trying cannabis or ecstasy as a student and an expensive recent cocaine habit of a serving politician or public role model being revealed in a front page splash. There is a general understanding that people sometimes try, say and do all manner of things they’d likely wince at in later life. It’s part of growing up; young people, even young adults, push boundaries, rebel, seek to shock. Can we really point to these ill-judged instances as an accurate reflection of character?
These instances differ in severity and circumstance, and context is everything, so common sense is required when evaluating them. However, it has become clear there is a market in the social media scandal frenzy.
Several times, particularly around elections, I’ve been contacted by political party press offices offering social media dirt on opposition candidates. Often, someone has pored over years worth of comments to find something that would make a great headline. It’s easy to do, it’s often sensational and it brings in hits to news websites when they run the stories. It’s a win-win for everyone, right?
Well, it is, as long as you’re absolutely sure you’ve never said or done anything that could be spun out of context. If you’re confident you’ve never said something deeply controversial, or posted a picture you’d never want an employer to see, you’ll probably be fine. But the truth is most people have. One stupid thing someone said in 10 years of using social media could be their downfall, and people should start wondering whether it’s a good idea to take such a purist approach to any social media storm when they could find themselves one day falling victim to, well, themselves.
For our upcoming generations, in particular, this is bound to become a pressing issue. Kids today grow up with social media, and I dread to think what some may say and do throughout their rebellious teenage years only to find a decade later that their digital footprint is rendering them unemployable.
With that in mind, we may need to force ourselves to be more forgiving of social media incidents that aren’t quite as scandalous as the headlines would suggest. If someone can adequately explain why they said what they said, and show that it’s not a reflection of who they are with real sincerity, will we accept that it’s enough? Or will we continue calling for their heads?
Some people are real horrors, and social media can catch them out, to the benefit of the public. But many have just been horrendously stupid, and probably shouldn’t have to pay a lifelong price for a few moments’ idiocy.
However, O’Mara may find an unforgiving public. Alongside the emergence of his social media posts, a woman has come forward accusing the MP of using offensive, misogynist language towards her as recently as this year, a claim he strenuously denies.
A full pardon for any previous social media use is too lenient, as it can provide an insight into darker individuals who are not fit to serve in a public office. However, a slightly calmer reaction in these cases which allows for a proper investigation into the offending numpty’s character would be a bit more helpful in separating the good from the bad.
Just imagine that one daft thing you once did on social media suddenly landing on your boss’s desk, or into your parents’ inbox, and perhaps think twice before jumping on the bandwagon of destroying someone’s future.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel