On Monday evening, I received a link from a friend to the mothers' post, which has since made waves all over the web.
In order to read the post in question, I had to like the page "Hungry children are happy" and like the whole country, I too was shocked by the correspondence between the two mothers against the background of the lavish birthday celebration, the entrance to which was conditional on a luxurious gift.
While I find it hard to believe that such a conversation can take place between two mothers, I started receiving the same post from dozens of people, shocked, skeptical and those who want to help that mother.
The social networks and the media were all over the story in an attempt to locate the injured mother and already that day, 80 thousand NIS had already been raised for her benefit.
Less than 12 hours had passed and the rumor that it was a fake also began to spread like wildfire. It made me wonder what was worse - The knowledge that such a conversation can take place between mothers, or the possibility that someone is capable of faking and lying about such a subject?
Correspondence between 2 mothers in which one of the girls is required not to come to the birthday because of a gift/screenshot, no
The role of the media is sharpening
The tube Guy Lerer/screenshot, network 13
The fear of forgery was revealed in the program "The Tube" on Network 13, which tried to reach the victim's mother in order to help her by publishing the story.
In an interview with Radio 103FM, the show's presenter, Guy Lehrer, said that the question marks in the story were among the biggest, strangest and most disturbing he had seen.
According to him, no one has been able to verify any of the details of the story.
All of this prompted a stormy discussion about the credibility of social networks vis-à-vis the media - in this case Network 13 - concerning the way rumors spread and the importance of checking the facts even when it comes to sharing a post on the network and even more so when it comes to press coverage.
Where is the privacy?
The mother claimed that she wanted to keep the girl's privacy, and welfare officials who spoke with her said that she even gave fake names, including the name of the school where her daughter attends.
At this point it is not clear if shame is what caused her to give wrong details, or if it was a fraud, or maybe just a rumor blown out of proportion.
The manager of the community "Maschimim Nadim Ravim", Shani Shukron, who published the original post and the correspondence between the mothers, published a clarifying post in which she stated that all the mother asked for was to go to the free supermarket run by the association that Shukron founded. She stated that she was ashamed to have revealed the correspondence, Because the mother is not ready to expose her daughter or to be exposed herself, and added that her mother did not ask for money at all, and did not receive a penny from the donated funds.
A natural solution
This is how you will improve performance and pleasure in bed - with an exclusive sale
in collaboration with "Gabra"
Shani Shukron's clarification post./Documentation in social networks according to Section 27 A of the Copyright Law
Where did the money go?
According to Shukron, at this stage the funds are in the hands of two donors who stated that they will transfer the money only after they meet the mother.
However, the concern is that other entities that are not at all related to that woman also collected donations in her name, and siphoned them into their private pockets.
In conclusion,
Even without going into the question of the truth of the story, the right to privacy is a basic and constitutional right of every person in the country.
Wasn't it necessary to think about the mother's right to privacy before the correspondence was published for all to see?
Couldn't the story be published in a way that preserves the privacy of the mother and the child?
And while the pipeline program and all the official media are obligated according to the rules of ethics and fairness to carefully examine every publication, the social network and the group managers are not obligated to anything and are not under any supervision or ethical framework.
And if this is the case, how are we, the consumers of the content, supposed to distinguish between truth and deception or lies?
Shani Mizrahi is the owner of a strategy, public relations and crisis management office.
More on the same topic:
motherhood
the tube
Guy Lerer
communication
privacy
Donations
rumors
Fake news