The human tendency to equip itself with the widest possible knowledge of everything that pleases and interests it, and beyond that, it finds in social networks such a motivating and pleasant environment, that since the very invention of this innovative communication support it has not ceased in its effort to give it its own language, even if it is woven with statements and reconstructed styles of other discursive genres.
In this way, the information found in the Gutenberg press was the push to become accessible to a larger population, which was accelerated in its diffusion with the determining steam engine of the industrial revolution, the same one that raised journalism to the category of industry. overcrowded with the help of the telegraph, telephone, radio, TV; Today she is catatonic and shaken by the vertiginous quantum leap that social networks imprint on her.
Now any information that does not know how to adapt to the language of social networks remains in the colloquial "Tip of the tongue", wet in the inkwell, in the "I forgot to tell you", because messages travel through the platform at such close speeds in light that any perceptual failure of the attributes that decorate opinion and information as relevant events, can send the messages to the center of the black hole of the aptly named "Caliches".
Note that the networks have imposed on us a communication protocol in which the first requirement to send a message is to rethink the density and quality of the subject to be treated, followed by locating and transmitting the context where the message is generated and will be generated, to immediately make us doubt about which network we will use. Once this stage has been clarified, they ask us for an understandable style for those involved in the act of communication, which in any of its forms has to be brief, concise, simple and clear, accompanied by the gallant deontological quality, more human than journalistic and more journalistic than human. , of honesty.
In short, our daily encounters with the network are already regulated by a protocol that makes us reflect on how to make ourselves understood, which network we will use, if we send the information through a voice message, text message, a video, a photo, GIF , an emoticon. We add to this discursive engineering the ethical postulate of the Argentine journalist, author of the book Santa Evita, Tomas Eloy Martínez, when he says that every journalist should always ask himself if what is expressed in his discursive constructions is what he wants to say, because what they say and what he says through them, is him.
This is so, because if the human and the divine have been present at some historical moment in communications, that is, the cognitive biases or ideological positions of the messenger, it is in the current one. No matter how polysemic their readings are, no matter how much exegesis is made of the content, every user who breaks down the messages received from the Internet tries to know the messenger to elucidate the communicative intent of the message. He closely links the messages to his and the messenger's ideological bias, and from there he makes every effort to identify the intentionality of their contents. So much so that the affinity of ideological idiosyncrasies is a requirement sine qua non at the time of deepening the exposed topic and follow up with any user. The messenger is the message, parodying the famous phrase coined by Canadian semiologist Marshall MacLuhan, "The medium is the message."
Note the weight of ideological positions in the formation of groups, in which it already reaches a degree of institutional norm that any opinion other than the editorial line is sanctioned with the phrase, more recognized for its spoiledness than for its rationality, of "this group he was not formed to talk about it ”, which contains the implicit submission to La Espiral del Silencio, under greater pain of expulsion and isolation. We are witnessing the historical moment when the networks are in the work of carving stable statements, their own discursive genres, that give them efficacy, effectiveness, communicational stability. And one of those challenges is to achieve, as we have said, conciseness and clarity, which requires the actors to be honest and perceive, treat, transmit the context that makes the messages understandable.
The context, as a mental representation of what is happening, according to the Dutch semiologist Teun A. van Dijk, is key to understanding what is said on the networks. In order to understand the communication act, the user must insert the message in the context, a task that is often not at all simple and in more cases full of contradictions, due to the brevity and speed that determine the maximum saving of words, which leads to trying to understand the message more by the subjective intention of the actors of the messages, than by what is said in the message: it is who says what?
We see then that the little path traveled by the networks in the construction of their language is used to manipulate public opinion. In the most candid way, the emission of the message without taking into account the contextual elements, mental representations, causes confusion and distraction of the receiver of the message. It is worth saying then that the efforts of networks to build their own discursive genres are hampered by contextual dislocation and the dishonest and intentional use of short and concise sentences.