There are a couple of very interesting pieces in this weekend's papers pulling together the various strands of recent 'Twitterstorms'; from Jan Moir to AA Gill, via The Guardian vs Carter-Ruck.
First yesterday's Guardian, today the Times, home last week to AA Gill's baboon-shooting confession.
Perhaps the mainstream is genuinely wrestling with the relationship they must forge with social media. Or perhaps some are simply standing on the Prehistoric plains puzzling over the bright light in the sky which appears to be drawing nearer. Either way, old media's fascination with Twitter only grows by the week, aided by very accessible, celebrity-driven stories.
Both of this weekend's pieces encourage perspective - the Times reason for doing so being perhaps the more obvious, certainly the more fresh, saying of the Gill backlash:
Twitter erupted with outrage...many postings were too crude and abusive for publication in a newspaper... Gill was described as “mental”, “adolescent”, “worthless” and “obnoxious”. Not everyone was critical, however. One poster observed: “I’m glad AA Gill killed a baboon, those things are scary”.
Perhaps showing the Twitterverse in an unflattering light is intentional. After all, the arguments of the barking and profane do little to credit to much of the more eloquent argument against Gill. However, I have already argued there were many reasons why that outrage simply didn't take off. And I was pleased to see the Guardian pick up on that argument in its own piece, quoting TheMediaBlog.co.uk alongside Stephen Fry:
But it is Twitter's function as ...the mouthpiece of the masses that is perhaps most interesting. Fry...goes so far as to wonder whether "the age of politics as we knew and loved it is now over". Do the two recent big Twitterstorms, he asks, mark a fundamental "shift in the very focus of democracy" – has "the Twinternet become the new Fifth Estate?"
There is a danger we could still be getting a little carried away with the power of Twitter. The Guardian piece is certainly rich in criticism of the "mob reaction" on the micro-blogging platform. Though that doesn't mean its not the real deal.
The Guardian quotes Harper Collins' publisher Scott Pack:
"I've got a way of saying something now. And if enough people agree with me, we can really make a difference."
That is the ultimate reality that the worriers and naysayers conveniently forget about Twitter. Sure, there are some 'keyboard heroes' out there who will criticise from the relative safety and anonymity of Twitter but their opinions will only gather critical mass if the 'mob' approves it. For all those who say the self-selective nature and predominantly liberal, progressive attitudes of the Twitterverse is a danger to democracy the truth is quite the opposite, there were simply far fewer people who found Jan Moir's take on homosexuality agreeable, while Gill's tone and account left people more divided or indifferent, for example.
Perhaps the fact the liberal Twitterverse is becoming more powerful is a reflection of the fact the traditional media is predominantly right-wing and politics in Europe shifting that way too. Perhaps that is as unsettling for those of a liberal disposition, as the rise of a powerful, unified, disintermediated voice is for the right. But if both sides are up in arms, that still sounds like balance to me.
Posts
