So far I’ve been following the whole #twitdef saga from a distance. Whatever the rights and wrongs of that issue, this editorial by The Australian betrays a complete misunderstanding of Twitter.
It has a provocative headline, “Truth is Twitter’s First Casualty”, and goes on to rally against the social media service.
The Australian appears not to appreciate that Twitter is a platform. It is a way to publish and distribute content, just like printed newspapers, radio or TV. The platform does not determine the content, people do.
I wonder if The Australian would run a headline like “Truth is Radio’s First Casualty”, or realise the absurdity of such a statement before publication.
The paper goes on to say:
The hothouse environment of Twitter has become a breeding ground for falsehoods that quickly become received wisdom with repeated telling. Twitter’s broken promise was that it would widen debate by connecting citizens on this vast continent in all their glorious diversity.
This is a sweeping generalisation. Any media platform can become a breeding ground for falsehood, even ones we would describe as the mainstream media. Anyone remember how the mainstream media reported WMDs?
Twitter isn’t filtered in the way that journalists filter traditional news content. There is a greater emphasis on the individual to be media-literate, which means the people on the network are their own filters.
This creates the potential for a much broader debate than is possible on mainstream media controlled by a handful of editors.
It is far more messy, disorganised, and, at times, may be wrong too. But that is the one of the strengths of Twitter – it is open.
The tone of the piece is captured in this line:
If new media aspires to compete with traditional broadcasters and publishers, it must abide by the same civil codes.
In other words, follow our rules, do things our way, we know best.
I am not arguing that there is not a role for mainstream media. Rather, pointing out the futility of turning this into a them and us fight.
The Australian could do well to read Alan Rusbridger’s recent talk about Twitter and the idea of a mutualised future for journalism.
PDF
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Alfred Hermida, Alltop Journalism and sergiors_rss, Journalism.co.uk. Journalism.co.uk said: [Alfred Hermida] A response to The Australian editorial on Twitter http://bit.ly/h6Yth9 [...]
The Australian has long had a strange relationship with Twitter.
Many months ago a journalist from the Australian reported from a court case with frequent Tweets in between his online and print reports. The paper stopped him from tweeting saying it was worried, among other things, about the legal issues of tweeted journalism – presumably because the messages go out without first being edited or sub-edited.
So, in a sense the defamation action threat is the flip side of the same coin – as you say a misunderstanding of Twitter.
It also throws up an interesting question. Normally, following successful defamation actions in Australia, New Zealand and the UK (I can’t speak for North America), the court looks at the amount of harm done before deciding on the damages.
Twitter audiences are small to start with, but with hundreds of tweets whizzing by most viewers, it’s impossible to say how much harm they cause. Most actions to date have awarded derisory damages for this reason.
Also, I’m intrigued by the role of retweeting in this. Normally a news outlet repeating a defamation is as guilty as the original defamer. How would this work in a court?
Thanks for the comment Bill. The question of retweeting is interesting. Should we consider it an endorsement of the original tweet? Or is it more like posting a link to another site?
There was a case in Canada recently where a court ruled that a website could not be held liable for
linking to an allegedly defamatory article.
It suits The Australian’s purposes to treat Twitter as a single voice, when it is anything but. Social media is what the name says – a type of media which is essentially a conversation through the internet. For traditional mainstream media, where the message is pushed from the one to the many, this concept of sharing information and commenting on news in real time is profoundly disempowering, which is why the Luddites at The Australian are fighting it so hard. It really is incredible to watch.
[...] more from the original source: A response to The Australian editorial on Twitter | Reportr.net Related PostsA response to The Australian editorial on Twitter | Reportr.net (0)The Australian [...]
There are two interesting aspects to this defamation case.
One is the platform (Twitter) and the other is the accuracy of the reported remarks.
Evidence seems to suggest that Julie Posetti paraphrased the remarks accurately.
In that case, I suggest there is no defamation case to answer. The discussion occurred in a public forum and reporting it was a matter of public interest. There was qualified privilege.
Regarding the platform, it was effectively a “live” medium, like radio. I’m not sure how courts would regard defamation, even if were proved, on a medium that has numerous participants, but arguably few readers/listeners.