A Wall Street Journal article about Gil Kerlikowske and the “war on drugs” started making the social media rounds late yesterday. It was:
- Tweeted over 125 times on Twitter
- Dugg more than 2,300 times on Digg
- Voted up at least 59 times on Reddit
- Liked by over 55 people on Facebook
- Commented on over 430 times on Digg, 30 times on Facebook and 15 times on Reddit
Update, May 14, 1:15 pm: The numbers have been updated and show a total of over 475 comments on the social sites listed. That’s more than 3 times the 133 comments left on the article on the WSJ site.
Those diggs, votes, likes, comments and tweets were not submitted by WSJ or the article’s author, Gary Fields (except for one late tweet).
Is this a sign that we are in the “Era of Social Colonization” on the web as defined by Forrester Research? DestinationCRM shared a page from Forrester’s recent report, in which the era is described as a time when “every web site is now social, even if it doesn’t choose to be.”
If news sites are already social — with little effort by news organizations and journalists — does that mean media companies and reporters can sit back and let social take care of itself?
By the way, the social mentions of the Fields’ article came from an organization named Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. Is it now a journalist’s job to enter those social spaces to clarify that Kerlikowske was not advocating the legalization of drugs? If so, it better happen quickly, before LEAP posts a YouTube video or posts a bulletin on MySpace.