On shooting the messenger
Last weekend I undertook one of the many ‘rank yourself on social media’ surveys. Apparently I was a ‘pioneer’ at the time. (Although I have since, for no apparent reason, become an ‘ace’) At the time I wasn’t particularly impressed with it it. However, when a journalist this morning described Twitter as the ‘wild west online’ of unregulated reporting, it took on a rather different feel. The same reporter also described Twitter as an ‘amoral disruptive force‘. To me this seemed a little strong.
There is a lot of talk just now about Twitter leaking stories to the world at large and the print media, not surprisingly, are nervous about it. However, shouldn’t we remember that the heart of this story is not actually about Twitter or newspapers, but about privacy and gagging? The fact that we have found out about draconian gagging orders through Twitter should make us question the orders themselves rather than the means through which we heard about them, surely? If a newspaper breaks a story of corruption in high places we should be more troubled about that corruption than we should about the right of a newspaper to report such a thing.
I can remember when radio programmes used to make a point about when a listener had written in ‘by email’ because it made the programme itself sound cutting edge. Now they no longer mention emails, but they do mention tweets. That will settle down, I’m sure. We may even reach the point where handwritten letters are such a novelty that they get a special mention.
In the meantime, though – lay off the little blue bird. He’s only doing his job…
Image:ocgoingvegan
preachersa2z
.
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 24, 2011 at 12:35 pm
Martin
I was wondering if this was going to be about launching small birds with a slingshot at small green pigs but see it is about the story that every one seems to be talking about. That is both through the medium of Twitter and also using the old fashioned medium of face to face conversation.
I’ve found out as much about the super injunctions or should I say #superinjunctions through talking to people as I have through twitter. The two forms of communication share many similarities but one is very new and shiny.
There are differences of course in that I am not restricted to using 140 character sentences when I talk to a work colleague or friend. Also if I overhear a conversation I can very easily mis-interpret what is beign said. If I “overhear” a Twitter this is less likely.
Having said that Twitter does have a very fast dispersal rate for new information. Traditionally gossip in an office may take a while to spread, gossip in a town longer and so on. Gossip or information on twitter far less as shown by the fact that Bin Laden was a fan of the IT crowd. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13467407
So after twittering on (#hangsheadinshame) a bit much; in the case of the super injunctions hasn’t twitter just expediated what would have happened any way?
May 24, 2011 at 12:43 pm
preachersa2z
I think you are absolutely right. It has simply allowed us to do more quickly and with less effort those things which we tend to do anyway. So why is it the story? Mind you, if Twitter really did try to link with angry birds …THAT would be a story!
May 25, 2011 at 9:50 am
Why shoot the bird? « The Bankside Babble
[...] I don’t think Twitter, or any other social media tool for that matter, is a ‘threat’ per se. No, the problems are more related to humans and we actually use the technology. As Richard Littledale rightly said in his Preacher’s A – Z blog… …shouldn’t we remember that the heart of this story is not actually about Twitter or newspapers, but about privacy and gagging? The fact that we have found out about draconian gagging orders through Twitter should make us question the orders themselves rather than the means through which we heard about them, surely? (Read more) [...]
August 9, 2011 at 9:05 am
Misinterpretation is trending « Richard Littledale's Preacher's A – Z
[...] was not a story about social media, but about political upheaval. The legal arguments about super-injunctions in the UK in May was not a story about Twitter, but about liberty and privacy. Similarly, last [...]