I came across an article on BBC talking about social media and politicians, and then thought about recent scandals in the news and how social media has exploited them... ahem... John Edwards... illegit child. On one hand social media is bad for the Edwards' scandal because he is susceptible to negative press, for example, the name-calling, "John Edwards, Sleazeball" (he kind of is a sleazeball!). But, on the other hand, Edwards can leverage social media by telling America just what was going on in his head when he decided to make a love-child/sex tape whilst his wife was dying of cancer.Apparently Edwards has used 24, that's right TWENTY-FOUR, different social media tools (ZD Net). Doesn't seem very effective to me -- it ruins his credibility. 24 just seems a tad excessive. 24 social mediums of communication just multiplies the amount of negative press he will receive and makes him vulnerable to public scrutiny. A more effective approach would be to use a one-way communication tool such as a website to convey an apology; this limits/eliminates the feedback Edwards would receive directly on his website and hopefully untaint his original message.
Social media or not, John Edwards is screwed -- big time! (Especially after Andrew Young's appearance on Oprah.)






