Why Twitter could be the worst kind of public sphere

By Dr Darren G. Lilleker, Associate Professor, The Media School.

There have been many positive predictions regarding the social media microblogging tool Twitter. Clay Shirky has long been an exponent of the idea that such social forms of communication will reinvigorate public debate, expanding participation in an informed and influential public sphere. Similarly, Robert Cox argues such tools allow marginalized voices and perspectives to have a public outlet.

Yet a darker side to Twitter is emerging that suggests that use of the tool can be both ill-informed, with no intention of stimulating debate and in some high profile cases for deeply disturbing forms of discourse.

While some used Twitter hashtags around the party conferences to make political comments on the promises made by the respective party leaders, reading through the #labconf feed during Ed Miliband’s speech, many seemed to be only interested in contributing the line ‘Shut up beaker’.

A comment which likened Miliband to a character from the Muppets and which targeted his own Twitter account to make it visible not only to other Twitter users but the Miliband as well. Similarly one poster repeatedly directed the message ‘F*** Off Cheesehead’ at David Cameron during his conference speech. While the politicians may well shrug this off, and the tweets themselves represent little more than some online form of graffiti, it does counter more positive predictions about the platform’s use.

More concerning is that a number of Twitter users, most notably Peter Nunn, jailed this week for 18 weeks, think it is appropriate to go one step worse than calling political leaders cheeseheads or beaker, but threatening them with rape. For no greater crime than running a campaign to have Jane Austen on the back of a UK bank note, MP Stella Creasy and feminist campaigner Caroline Criado-Perez were subjected to some of the most vile threats imaginable. The BBC refused to quote them so Criado-Perez published them on her blog instead.

Criado-Perez levels criticism at Twitter, arguing the tool is optimized for trolling. But is it practical for Twitter to self-censor? The sheer number of tweets per minute means that any form of censorship would have to be automatic. So how does a computer differentiate between the threat of rape and, a comment on rape, or revelations about rape in conflicts? Sadly it probably couldn’t. If a dictionary were to be created of words that need to be assessed independently prior to posting, there would no longer be any immediacy.

Perhaps then the only solution for Twitter is to ensure all users are identifiable, and so liable to prosecution, rather than using anonymous names and single usage email addresses when setting up their account.

There remains a punitive alternative. Tough sentences for anyone found guilty of threatening behavior, so treating this form of abuse in the same way as face-to-face threats. But perhaps also there is an educational alternative.

What makes an otherwise respectable father like Peter Nunn feel it is appropriate to threaten to rape MPs if they disagree? What makes anyone feel they can say things on social media they would be too afraid or embarrassed to say face-to-face. Perhaps there needs to be a final button asking, ‘Are you sure you want to say this publicly?’. Or perhaps more needs to be done to show how this sort of behavior is equivalent to offline behaviour. Posting on Twitter is not the same shouting at a television and drunk tweets are not only read by fellow drunks in the same way as a comment in the pub or bar might be. What seems to be required is self-awareness when using these tools in order for them to have any chance of meeting their potential in society.

While there are still those who would use Twitter without thought for themselves or others, there seems to be far weightier arguments for ignoring Twitter and the like. Perhaps avoiding them is the solution and treating it as the sort of pub you just never want to go into, the one where you are never sure if you will come out unscathed and with your sanity intact.

Fishing for stories – Talk BU Q&A

The recent Sunday Mirror ‘fishing exercise’ scandal involving a fake Twitter account and former Cabinet Office Minister, Brooks Newmark, has raised questions around ethics in journalism in a post-Leveson world. Talk BU asked BU lecturer and former journalist, Andrew Bissell, what we can learn from the scandal, and what we should be teaching the journalists of the future about rights and wrongs.

First off, are the media within their rights to set up proactive operations in order to uncover private details/images/practices of celebrities?

Media rights are addressed by the law, the European Convention on Human Rights and the Editors’ Code of Practice. Nonetheless privacy is not a black and white issue; on the contrary, interpretation and opinion ensure the issue continually swirls in a persistent grey fog.

For example, any individual can require any UK court to consider their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights which came into UK law in 2000. But while Article 8 contains the right to respect for privacy and family life, Article 10 enshrines the right to freedom of expression and the right to receive and impart information.

Similarly, the Editors’ Code of Practice reinforces the right to privacy however there may be exceptions “where they can be demonstrated to be in the public interest”. A public interest justification can also be offered if material acquired by “clandestine devices and subterfuge” is obtained or published.

However the proactive nature of the Sunday Mirror sting is particularly interesting with regard to public interest; that’s because the now defunct Press Complaints Commission consistently ruled that ‘fishing expeditions’ – the dangling of bait to see what happens – were unacceptable. For all its claims of public interest, the Sunday Mirror story could appear to exhibit many of the hallmarks of such an ‘expedition’.

Does the public have the right to know what MPs such as Brooks are up to away from the public eye? Was this really in the public interest?

Again, we return to the grey area of opinion and interpretation: is there a tipping point when an MP’s private conduct can be deemed to question his or her claims to honesty and integrity in public office?

The Sunday Mirror claims there was a “clear public interest” because Mr Newmark had a prominent role in seeking increased representation of women in Parliament. Others, of course, will simply maintain he’s the victim of a commercial drive to sell newspapers. Some legal experts have already declared the sting amounts to entrapment and maintain claims of public interest are weak.

In the light of the Leveson Enquiry, should the media think more carefully about the way they conduct undercover operations?

Publication of this story has certainly raised media eyebrows. I’m not surprised two newspapers reportedly turned it down considering the current media climate. There is still intense post-Leveson scrutiny of the press and Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso), the new regulator, is just three weeks old. Ipso was already under pressure to demonstrate its independence; now many will want to see the size of its muscles too.

Meanwhile the Sunday Mirror is already in the firing line for seemingly using a Twitter picture of a model without her permission to illustrate their article. And all this comes less than a week after the Sunday Mirror’s parent company admitted that some of its journalists had hacked phones. The media already thinks very carefully about undercover work; this case – and the all-important reaction of Ipso – will offer further food for thought.

Will this be the test case for the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso)? How do you think they might react?

This is certainly a test case. Ipso will take its time and could well employ the kind of proactive investigation its predecessor, the PCC, did not. Ipso has 28 days to get the facts of the case together and then pass them on to a complaints committee. Will a breach of the Code be found? It’s a very close call.

How do we as a university explain to students where the lines are when it comes to doing what it takes to get a good story? What boundaries do we instill within them?

Tuition for journalism students at BU is guided by the ethical and professional standards enshrined in the Code of Practice. Courageous, incisive journalism frequently poses complex and difficult ethical dilemmas; however we do not want to instill a suffocating, risk-averse approach to investigatory work.

What is your opinion on the whole episode? And I know you don’t have a crystal ball – but do you think it will become a milestone in press regulation?

I think the heat is about to be turned up on the simmering post-Leveson regulation debate. All eyes are now on Ipso and its first high-profile decision seems destined to define its future position.

VIDEO: TalkBU Live – Shoeless and Sausages

Professor Stephen Heppell’s talk Shoeless and Sausages: Making Learning Better was the first in the Talk BU Live series.

It received a great reception from the audience in Dylan’s Bar, with entertaining insights and ideas around incorporating technology into learning.

The talk provided an insight into what the future has to offer the world of education and how children can benefit when educators keep up with the ever-evolving worlds of education and technology,

Speaking about his Talk BU experience, Stephen said: “For me, watching everyone’s faces as we dashed playfully from the design of school toilets and chairs, to levels of light and CO2, it was rather like watching the sun come out.

“A roomful of smiling faces, lit up by BU research, felt pretty good!”

TalkBU Live is a monthly, on-campus event at Dylan’s Bar featuring a short talk by BU staff or students, followed by a question and answer session with the audience.

The event aims to get staff and students thinking and talking about topics beyond their degree subjects and schools, with talks on a wide variety of different subjects.

.

Talk BU Live launches with ‘Shoeless & Sausages: Making learning better’

Talk BU is going live for the first time with a talk by Professor Stephen Heppell.

The short talk, ‘Shoeless & Sausages: Making learning better’, starts at 5:30pm, Tuesday 23 September 2014 in Dylan’s Bar.

Talk BU Live is a free monthly on-campus event designed to get people talking, thinking and shouting. Talks are no more than 20 minutes long and open to all students and staff at BU. Join us for an evening of ideas, entertainment and inspiration.

Shoeless & Sausages: Making learning better

What is the best thing to eat on the morning of an exam? Why do degrees take three years to complete? Should 30 children be thrown together in a classroom just because they are born between two particular Septembers? Are current learning practices adopted out of habit or convenience?

With so many people learning – not just in schools and businesses, but on TV as they master dancing, cooking and diving – it’s extraordinary that we seem to apply little of what we know from good research to making learning better. Suddenly this is changing, and changing rapidly, with a new wave of learners and educators brave enough to challenge long-held stereotypes of learning.

Stephen will be challenging our beliefs about learning, exploring what the future holds and why it matters that education, and educators, can keep up with a rapidly evolving world.

 

If you want to get involved or find out more then please contact the team at newsdesk@bournemouth.ac.uk or call +(0)1202 961041.

Please note that this event will be video recorded and made available online.