Twitter: Bullying dressed up as right to speak
First, the appalling smear imposed on (Lord) Alistair McAlpine by tweets consumed in a frenzy of child abuse allegations was stark and disturbing. Second, another report on RTÉ’s Frontline presidential debate again reminded us that a false tweet effectively changed the course of a democratic election.
What level of damage is needed before civil society changes its attitude towards uncontrolled tweets? Will someone have to die because of a mistaken tweet first? Is it then that the great and good will wake up and realise that fundamental rules around free speech are being undermined?
If a society like ours cherishes the right of opinion it must accept some degree of discipline. That used to be provided by a now much eroded profession, editors.
Their job was to; (1) ensure the quality of output met certain minimum standards of grammar, content and structure, and; (2) keep writers within the confines of the legal system to protect the publisher from the courts. A third, and less defined, responsibility was to provide some level of general guidance that kept writers aware of the dangers in openly naming individuals on matters that undermined reputations.
A combination of technology, cost restructurings and the decline in printmedia has washed away a huge part of that editorial infrastructure.
We are now exposed to a mind-blowing volume of tweets from individuals who have no training in how to write, how to debate or how to behave.
There seems to be a correlation between celebrity and Twitter following.
The greater the celeb, the higher the amount of air time and retweeting. This ends up with an old man being publicly victimised for something he never did. As his life, already afflicted by poor health, is damaged in ways few of us can imagine, the twittering moves on to its next victims.
In between, there will be a few tweets from the twits about someone famous who croaked. #so sad, seemed a nice family guy. RIP#. And we call this civil society?
Twitter and Facebook are rooted in commercial capitalism, yet they are presented by some of the eejits who use them as tools of liberation that Che Guevara would be proud of. Isn’t it great that we can all post photos of ourselves and chat away so that the world can hear our unfettered voices?
This orgy of megalomania is producing a new form of witch-hunting with individuals and groups subject to waves of virulent and violent language. It’s a form of glorified bullying dressed up as the right to speak.
Hopefully, either markets or democratically elected politicians will sort this out. Markets could do it if those who use Twitter and Facebook realise they are pawns in two gigantic advertising business models.
Politicians could do it by drawing lines about what citizens can and cannot say unfettered on the web. In the meanwhile, let’s hope that a better form of media stages a recovery.
If you’d like your kids to get a serious education about contemporary life have them watch Charlie Rose on Bloomberg TV. Here you have a colossus who believes media is about long-form interviews with an eclectic range of individuals drawn from the worlds of politics, business, culture and sport.
The anchor himself slips in to the background while asking clear, concise questions and allowing them be answered in full. It is the antithesis of everything Twitter offers and is so much the better for it. It is broadcast for 30 minutes most nights so you can be exposed to half an hour of accountable discourse or you can spend that time lathering yourself and others with tweets.
#It’s a no-brainer#
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
