The Responsibility of Public Figures in the Age of Social Media

PhotoCredit: Zimba Wave Photo editing

By Regina Pasipanodya

In the time of the social media where the publication of a single tweet or a single post could easily attract and engage thousands of people in a few seconds, mass media stars’ behaviour on social networking sites has turned into a matter of great public interest. 

The ongoing legal circus and village gossip between Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC) MPs Joana Mamombe (Harare West Constituency) and Bridget Nyandoro (Southerton Constituency) is a stark reminder of the strength and hazards of online platforms. It exposé’s characters and demands public figures to behave even if they are out of public view. 

Although, their case will probably be resolved in courts and their row draws close attention to how public figures should handle themselves when the spotlight is focused on them, most importantly on social media platforms.

The conduct of public figures, particularly those in the place of political influence, plays the most significant role in shaping society in various scopes. The language that they use and the actions that they practice are not only examined by the people who are in their close circles but also by the wider public.

This influence implies people’s latent needs: to maintain the image of the office which they have undertaken and to be a participant in the conversations that are of service rather than that are detrimental. 

When this expectation is not met, the consequences can indeed be quite far-reaching that will affect both, the individuals engaged, and also the institutions, which they represent.

Additionally, the conflict between Mamombe and Nyandoro is not merely abouta accusations and counteraccusations but is also indicative of a development that is certainly dangerous: the weaponization of social media in personal and political battles. 

Claims of stealing, dishonesty, and behaving in an unethical way, whether backed by evidence or not, can impair the good name of public figures and at the same time lower public trust. 

Therefore, for the politicians that would be the most undesirable state of affairs as their credibility is the basis of their ability to govern and foster positive beliefs of the citizens.

Moreover, the case intensifies the problems that can be caused by online defamation. This is the situation in Zimbabwe, which is not alone as far as the legal system is concerned, with online communication continuously growing in importance. 

However, the 10-day legal notice from Hon. Mamombe through her lawyers Mbidzo, Muchadehama and Makoni to Hon. Nyandoro demanding her to pay the damage, retract her remarks and apologising gives a clear warning of the consequences that celebrities, for example, could provoke in their online behaviour. 

In an interview with Zimba Wave News, Advocate Muchadehama confirmed that they are yet to serve Hon. Nyandoro with the legal summons.

“We understand that as public figures, they ought to behave in a manner that does not destroy their reputation in the public eye. Despite all the allegations that were made respecting each other was equally important and on top of that the allegations made were strong enough that Hon. Mamombe has to react,” said advocate Muchadehama.

However, in response to why Hon. Nyandoro did not respond to the 10-day notice, she said; “My lawyers are dealing with it.”

The fact that the legal side is involved further leads us to discuss the moral question. Public figures are always the examples whereas they might not even want to be. 

Their behaviour makes the others have a standard to follow. Negatively, if they partake in dirty politics or spread unconfirmed goods, they add fuel to a culture of mistrust and disunity. 

On the other hand, if they were to use the same platforms to encourage dialogue and interactions, transparency, and responsibility, they would become agents of positive transformation. 

Another aspect that the Mamombe-Nyandoro lawsuit brings up is the responsibility of social media platforms in regulating content and stopping the distribution of damaging stories. 

Although they have clear-cut policies against hate speech and misinformation, the platforms’ ability to enforce these policies is far from being consistent. 

Here, the burden is on the users, and specifically the public figures, to consider carefully the words they employ and the extent of the responsibility they are prepared to assume. 

This altercation between Mamombe and Nyandoro shows that being a public figure in the times of the internet is the tip of the iceberg. 

As the case is developing, it remains a strong optimism for the people of the world that the law still stands for good things. 

Public figures must always be careful when they navigate the social media world because they are aware that the words they utter can create or kill something. In so doing, they are not only saving themselves from reputation destruction but also fiercely guarding the institutions they lead.