My impression is that what is flying around at the moment are mere emotions, an opportunity of letting out old bottled-up grudges and hatreds
But we’ve been on the cyber space long enough to know what actually influences the public.
We should ask these questions;.
• Why should we talk?
• Who are we talking for?
• Who is the target of our talk?
• Then, what exactly should we say?
Our talk must have clear objectives otherwise we just make noise. The primary essence of our communication should be to inform our audience, then subtly persuade them through what and how we say what we say
The idea of “defending” a principal has done more harm than good. It has led to more combative, vitriolic and abusive online conversation that doesn’t help one’s strategic objective, in the course of which we lose what should be the focus, which in this case, ought to be the showcasing of the Principal’s strength. We must therefore shift focus to PERSUASIVE COMMUNICATION
The Atiku Campaign should be an example of how little toxic conversation can achieve in the over all objective, while it can achieve enough toxicity, it does so little to burnish the image or enhance the profile of the contender whom the abusers intended to promote
Here in Rivers, with respect to them, the Abe team is a good example of how to badly market a good product. Not only did their engagement lack real substance, it also earned them more enemies than friends. That is to say, the more they talked, the more enemies they gathered. They focused more on abusing their opponents while doing so little to convince Rivers people on the positives an Abe Governorship may have offered them
So for me, if we talked before just for the sake of doing so, we must now engage constructively in such ways that our engagement can be measured and weighed against improving the over all objective
By Ikenda Elechi