In order to answer this question, a basic consideration that would be included is the concept of non-competition to the prejudice of less popular social networking sites. Do we follow the French Rule, discouraging broadcasting stations from doing so? Or, do we follow the English Rule instead, allowing these broadcasting stations to freely do so?
I find it important to define 2 things so as to put this piece in perspective: 1) broadcast media and; 2) social networking service.
“The term 'broadcast media' covers a wide spectrum of different communication methods such as television, radio, newspapers, magazines and any other materials supplied by the media and press. The broadcasting media supplies lots of valuable information, for example speeches, documentaries, interviews, advertisements, daily news, financial markets and much more. The latest (newest/most up-to-date) information can be found here.” http://www.lib.uct.ac.za/infolit/media.htm
“A social networking service is an online service, platform, or site that focuses on building and reflecting of social networks or social relations among people, who, for example, share interests and/or activities. The main types of social networking services are those which contain category places (such as former school year or classmates), means to connect with friends (usually with self-description pages) and a recommendation system linked to trust. Popular methods now combine many of these, with Facebook and Twitter widely used worldwide…” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_networking_service
First of all, I would have to say that I don’t find anything wrong for any broadcasting company to publicly announce a social networking site that they are using because there is no law prohibiting them from doing so. They announce the social networking site either because they are actually being paid to advertise it or it is just the social networking service of their preference.
Second, in order to widen their social network and reach the most number of audiences, it is logical that these broadcasting companies would have to choose the most popular sites because these sites would in turn have the most number of users.
Obviously therefore, given a choice between the French Rule and the English Rule, I would have to go with the English Rule allowing for the broadcasting companies to continually do what they have been doing, announcing the social networking preference to the public to follow them there because it is already a given that majority of the consumers are already on these sites.
Third, the broadcasting companies are not out there announcing to everyone that they should create an account on those sites to be able to follow them there. It is the individual’s choice if he/she would like to do so. If it is against the individual’s wish or preference, no one is actually forcing him to do so. The concept of non-competition would not apply because still, every individual has the say whether or not they would like to stick to their old networking site or create a new one in order to follow what is on the account of the broadcast company.
Fourth, it would be difficult for the broadcasting companies to have an account on all the different social networking sites that are available so that people on those sites may be able to follow them on every other individual’s social networking site preference. This may only entail more work for the broadcasting company, duplicity of announcements, re-typing of reactions, non-cohesive surveys, etc. Plus, who would say that the existing ones are the only ones that are going to keep its existence. New ones would definitely emerge and it is too much work to create and create and create accounts on all of the sites that would be available.
Fifth, there are latest developments that some social networking sites are able to offer ahead of others.
“At the forefront of emerging trends in social networking sites is the concept of "real-time web" and "location based." Real time allows users to contribute content, which is then broadcasted as it is being uploaded - the concept is analogous to live radio and television broadcasts. Twitter set the trend for "real time" services, where users can broadcast to the world what they are doing, or what is on their minds within a 140 character limit. Facebook followed suit with their "Live Feed" where users' activities are streamed as soon as it happens.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_networking_service
These developments make them more attractive for broadcasting companies because real time content will make them more effective in terms of providing latest information that may prove to be valuable, especially in times of emergency or crisis where effective communication of data is urgently needed.
To summarize if it would be appropriate for a broadcasting company to announce a social networking site: Yes, because: 1) there is no law against it; 2) Broadcast companies would reach the most number of audiences; 3) they are not forcing people to create accounts on those sites; 4) it would be difficult to maintain account for each and every social networking site in existence; and 5) latest developments such as real time services are offered on their social network of preference. With all these, again, I reiterate that, I am for broadcasting companies announcing social networking sites of their choice even if it would be prejudicial to less popular ones since they are being more effective in terms of giving up to date valuable information to the most number of audiences.
