Craig Smith: Monetised outrage and the erosion of local government
Why resist verification?
Cllr Craig Smith is the Deputy Chairman of the Leicestershire Conservatives Area Executive and a councillor for Coalville North Division on Leicestershire County Council.
As someone who uses social media daily, perhaps more accurately, hourly, for both professional and political purposes, you might argue that I am a fine one to talk.
Social media is now embedded in modern politics. For councillors, MPs and campaigners alike, it has become an essential tool. Used responsibly, it allows elected representatives to communicate directly with residents, explain decisions, counter misinformation, share updates and remain visible between elections. In local government, especially where turnout is low and engagement can be difficult, social media can strengthen accountability and trust.
But it is also a double-edged sword.
One poorly chosen phrase, one comment taken out of context, or one lapse in judgement can spread rapidly and live on indefinitely. Screenshots do not disappear. Nor does the reputational damage that can follow. Any elected representative who uses social media regularly understands that risk.
Yet beyond the danger of accidental missteps, there is a more troubling trend emerging, one that poses a serious challenge to the standards and purpose of public office itself.
Across the political spectrum, a small but growing number of individuals are using social media not to represent, inform or engage, but to provoke. They post deliberately inflammatory content, dismiss serious issues with contempt, or make statements designed to outrage rather than contribute. This behaviour is not spontaneous. It is calculated.
What has changed in recent years is the incentive structure. In the past, such behaviour was often about notoriety, chasing attention, relevance, or the thrill of controversy. Today, it is increasingly about money. Many social media platforms now allow accounts to be monetised. Engagement equals income. Likes, shares, comments and reactions all feed an algorithm that rewards outrage far more generously than nuance. Calm explanation does not travel as far as provocation. Division generates clicks. Anger pays.
For private individuals, this may be distasteful but largely self-contained. For elected officials, it is profoundly corrosive.
Councillors and MPs are not paid to generate engagement. They are paid by the taxpayer to represent communities, to attend meetings, to scrutinise decisions, to work with officers, to handle casework and to solve real problems. Their role is grounded in service, not performance.
Yet when an elected representative becomes more invested in posting daily rage-bait than in carrying out the duties of office, the line between public service and personal profit begins to blur.
This is not about free …
Why resist verification?
Cllr Craig Smith is the Deputy Chairman of the Leicestershire Conservatives Area Executive and a councillor for Coalville North Division on Leicestershire County Council.
As someone who uses social media daily, perhaps more accurately, hourly, for both professional and political purposes, you might argue that I am a fine one to talk.
Social media is now embedded in modern politics. For councillors, MPs and campaigners alike, it has become an essential tool. Used responsibly, it allows elected representatives to communicate directly with residents, explain decisions, counter misinformation, share updates and remain visible between elections. In local government, especially where turnout is low and engagement can be difficult, social media can strengthen accountability and trust.
But it is also a double-edged sword.
One poorly chosen phrase, one comment taken out of context, or one lapse in judgement can spread rapidly and live on indefinitely. Screenshots do not disappear. Nor does the reputational damage that can follow. Any elected representative who uses social media regularly understands that risk.
Yet beyond the danger of accidental missteps, there is a more troubling trend emerging, one that poses a serious challenge to the standards and purpose of public office itself.
Across the political spectrum, a small but growing number of individuals are using social media not to represent, inform or engage, but to provoke. They post deliberately inflammatory content, dismiss serious issues with contempt, or make statements designed to outrage rather than contribute. This behaviour is not spontaneous. It is calculated.
What has changed in recent years is the incentive structure. In the past, such behaviour was often about notoriety, chasing attention, relevance, or the thrill of controversy. Today, it is increasingly about money. Many social media platforms now allow accounts to be monetised. Engagement equals income. Likes, shares, comments and reactions all feed an algorithm that rewards outrage far more generously than nuance. Calm explanation does not travel as far as provocation. Division generates clicks. Anger pays.
For private individuals, this may be distasteful but largely self-contained. For elected officials, it is profoundly corrosive.
Councillors and MPs are not paid to generate engagement. They are paid by the taxpayer to represent communities, to attend meetings, to scrutinise decisions, to work with officers, to handle casework and to solve real problems. Their role is grounded in service, not performance.
Yet when an elected representative becomes more invested in posting daily rage-bait than in carrying out the duties of office, the line between public service and personal profit begins to blur.
This is not about free …
Craig Smith: Monetised outrage and the erosion of local government
Why resist verification?
Cllr Craig Smith is the Deputy Chairman of the Leicestershire Conservatives Area Executive and a councillor for Coalville North Division on Leicestershire County Council.
As someone who uses social media daily, perhaps more accurately, hourly, for both professional and political purposes, you might argue that I am a fine one to talk.
Social media is now embedded in modern politics. For councillors, MPs and campaigners alike, it has become an essential tool. Used responsibly, it allows elected representatives to communicate directly with residents, explain decisions, counter misinformation, share updates and remain visible between elections. In local government, especially where turnout is low and engagement can be difficult, social media can strengthen accountability and trust.
But it is also a double-edged sword.
One poorly chosen phrase, one comment taken out of context, or one lapse in judgement can spread rapidly and live on indefinitely. Screenshots do not disappear. Nor does the reputational damage that can follow. Any elected representative who uses social media regularly understands that risk.
Yet beyond the danger of accidental missteps, there is a more troubling trend emerging, one that poses a serious challenge to the standards and purpose of public office itself.
Across the political spectrum, a small but growing number of individuals are using social media not to represent, inform or engage, but to provoke. They post deliberately inflammatory content, dismiss serious issues with contempt, or make statements designed to outrage rather than contribute. This behaviour is not spontaneous. It is calculated.
What has changed in recent years is the incentive structure. In the past, such behaviour was often about notoriety, chasing attention, relevance, or the thrill of controversy. Today, it is increasingly about money. Many social media platforms now allow accounts to be monetised. Engagement equals income. Likes, shares, comments and reactions all feed an algorithm that rewards outrage far more generously than nuance. Calm explanation does not travel as far as provocation. Division generates clicks. Anger pays.
For private individuals, this may be distasteful but largely self-contained. For elected officials, it is profoundly corrosive.
Councillors and MPs are not paid to generate engagement. They are paid by the taxpayer to represent communities, to attend meetings, to scrutinise decisions, to work with officers, to handle casework and to solve real problems. Their role is grounded in service, not performance.
Yet when an elected representative becomes more invested in posting daily rage-bait than in carrying out the duties of office, the line between public service and personal profit begins to blur.
This is not about free …
0 Comments
0 Shares
52 Views
0 Reviews
