Twitter Jumps the Snark

Last week, The New York Times reported on the story of Daryl Eisenberg, a casting director who was conducting auditions for "Gay Bride of Frankenstein," which will be part of the New York Musical Theater Festival this fall. While doing so, she issued tweets in real time to her 1,800-plus followers about those auditioning before her. A sample follows:

If we wanted to hear it in a different way, don't worry, we'll ask.

If you are going to sing about getting on your knees, might as well do it and crawl toward us...right?

Perhaps anticipating criticism for her unvarnished opinions, she issued a preemptive tweet:

There is NO rule/guideline against Twitter/Facebook/MySpace/Friendster. Freedom of speech. Ever heard of it?

After criticism from the Actors' Equity Association, the union that represents theater performers, that such a use of Twitter was inappropriate, Ms. Esienberg had a change of heart. She reported that there would be no more tweets coming from the audition room.

Since its inception, one of the most common complaints about Twitter has been the banal nature of its content. The average person announcing what he or she is having for dinner or what was watched on TV may not make compelling reading, but is, by nature, benign and not threatening. A growing number, however, use Twitter to grind their axes or to state caustic opinions about others. The aforementioned episode of Ms. Eisenberg is just one recent example.

In person, Ms. Eisenberg most likely didn't have the desire to break etiquette and confront the auditioning actors with these comments. But with Twitter, the ease of communication and its de facto broadcast ability have proven an irresistible temptation for many to say things behind a digital veil that would otherwise go unspoken. Someone who would normally be polite in person instead heeds the siren call of snark, a word defined by Urban Dictionary as a combination of "snide" and "remark" that also has a connotation of the unwarranted and nasty criticism of others.

This is an extreme example of what can be called the "Coti Law of Snark," named for the author of this essay in a moment of egotistical weakness. This states that there is a positive correlation between the amount of snark a message can contain and three factors: the ease of communication, the number of people to whom one is communicating, and the degree of anonymity provided. Depending on how these factors interact likely signals the snark potential of one's message.

Ease of Communication
The simpler it is to convey one's message, the less likely that any serious thought was given to its content. Thus, language that may later be considered regrettable ends up making its way into public discourse due to the lack of preparation required by that medium.

Audience Size
The greater the number of people to whom the message is intended, the more likely one will feel the pressure to perform or impress. Because, when communicating to a larger audience, whether in person or online, there is a sense that the message needs to be embellished with inappropriate content to hold the listeners' attention or to keep their loyalty.

Anonymity
The more one can preserve his or her anonymity when delivering a message, the more likely that snark at some point will be conveyed. Being able to say things without attribution allows the freedom to say what's on one's mind without significant consequence.

So how do these factors interact with one another over different methods of communication? What follows is a table with the relative rankings of each factor on a scale of one to three with the higher numbers representing more of that particular attribute.

Letter
Because of the time it takes time to write down one's thoughts, address the envelope, and deliver it to post, a letter is a poor conduit of snark. The time invested in a letter most often lends itself to more reasoned speech as it is almost always addressed to an individual and has little or no anonymity.

Email
This medium can encompass many points on the spectrum. An email composed quickly and sent to a group list has the capacity to contain snark. But one must pause momentarily to fill in to whom it is being sent as well as the subject line, which is perhaps enough time to re-gather his or her thoughts and to reconsider the content before sending it along. Interestingly, replies to emails are more susceptible to snarky and regrettable commentary simply because it doesn't require any fields to complete -- it's message can be sent almost instantaneously.

Text Message/Face-to-Face/Phone
Speaking to another individual, whether in person or by phone or by text message, occupies a snarky middle ground. The ease of communication is great, but there is only a specific person to whom one is speaking and there is no anonymity. The potential for snark is there, but it is generally limited and requires the listener's cooperation.

Speech
When giving a speech to an audience, there isn't any anonymity and one usually must make some preparation as to what will be said. But there is an element of performance when speaking to groups -- the attention of those to whom one is speaking demands constantly to be sated. The chances of an off-the-cuff remark or an inopportune attempt at humor increases significantly.

Twitter
Once the application used to issue a tweet is up and running, sharing one's opinion with others is as simple as typing and pressing the ENTER key. This is the worst of both worlds: a message is easily composed and sent, and the number of people who have the opportunity to read said message can number in the thousands thus requiring a "performance." At first glance, there doesn't seem to be any anonymity. After all, followers know from whose account the tweets are emanating. But the connection is tenuous: someone who has more than 1,800 followers like Ms. Eisenberg obviously doesn't know most of them at all and vice versa.

The larger issue, regardless of the medium we use to communicate, is simply remembering the necessity to respect one another both in words and deeds. This is not to say that criticism or harsh commentary directed at others do not have their place. Rather, it comes down to intent. Is the message aiming for a cheap laugh at another's expense? Is it a sign of insecurity that someone else must be degraded to elevate the stature of oneself? To paraphrase Shakespeare, the fault lies not in Twitter, but in ourselves.