Forgive the language, but I have already used ‘You’re doing it wrong’ as a title, so I thought I would just give this one the one we were all thinking, but that most people are too polite to say.
If you don’t know who or what I am on about, it is this piece of utter tosh on the CIF section of the Guardian website. If you are reading this on your phone, you will just have to trust me that the author image is of a gentleman wearing a hat. A gentleman who just happens to be a PR. Not a journo.
The article first caught my attention because it was yet another on the Guardian site, (who are not alone in this) erroneously calling an injunction a superinjunction. Such is my rage about that alone, I managed a whole post on the topic on Monday.
So we started off on the wrong foot, of me reading, muttering about media outlets who can’t get the law right. There is now a footnote on the piece recognising the error, which is something.
However, that error occurred in the 4th line. The first error came even before that, where the piece claims that:
Ryan Gigg is suing Twitter for breach of an injunction
Dear Mr PR man in your ridiculous hat, and dear, dear Guardian with your legal department full of very clever people, who must be bored because you clearly do not run copy by them, let me say this very slowly for you:
Ryan Giggs is not suing Twitter. Twitter has not breached an injunction. Got that?
As I say here a footballer, known as CTB, has made an application for Twitter to disclose user details on the basis that those users may have breached an injunction. Twitter has not breached it. Twitter is not being sued. It is a request for information, which Twitter may or may not comply with as is their choice, being outside of the jurisdiction of the court.
Now we have dealt with his legal inaccuracies, let’s have a wee look at the rest of this piece. According to Mr PR, Twitter and Facebook must be reeled in. I think he means “we should find a way to shut their users up’ rather than suggesting that Twitter and Facebook themselves are doing anything wrong, but who knows.
Apparently Twitter and Facebook:
as publishers of content, should be accountable as traditional media
Can you hear that noise Mr Hillgrove? That is the sound of the internets LOL’ing and P(them)SL. The thuds are those ROFL.
As he himself points out, most media outlets (save in the case of this one piece, the Guardian) employ highly trained journalists to write content which is legally compliant having been passed through the legal department. His solution?
A delay mechanism so that content can be checked. Yup. Genius. Does Mr Hillgrove understand how the internets work? It is not clear as to whether he is suggesting that the information be manually checked or whether we place an onus on the likes of Twitter and FB to make a reader.
We would then have to serve orders which are unenforceable in their country upon them to ensure they re-programmed the programme to keep it up to date with every s’leb who can’t keep it in their pants. This will apparently ensure that social media will grow up, but this will require:
some sort of international arbitration set up, which the Americans would need to be involved in, and quickly
Dear PR man, take your finger wagging elsewhere. Leave the writing to the highly trained journalists and leave the highly trained lawyers to find a legal solution. In the meantime, I suggest you find a hatmaker. The chaps on the Apprentice may be able to assist with that.
I reckon that Mr Hat’s, erm, Hillgrove’s article might be about the worst article on any legal issue that I’ve ever seen, ever. I particularly enjoyed his implication that the balance between privacy and free speech is a purely leftie concern, and that it’s evident to all right-thinking people that the former naturally trumps the latter. Wonder how the free-market supporters of the tabloid press feel about that?
It was a whole world of wrong, and beyond ironic that a piece about essentially, moderation, should require heavy moderation. So heavy in fact, that it needed the round file.
We could implement the delay/review strategy. But it would need to scale so that all tweets and posts are reviewed in a timely manner.
I suggest a tool that disemminates information to a global audience and allow the subscribing population to self-mediate by reposting only those posts that they believe have merit and are valid.
It would be something akin to Twitter. Oh wait a minute isn’t that where we started? #fail
Dear Sir,
All your base belong to us.
Love,
The Internets
Search for the Times article about him from a few years ago. Try Googling “trademark cowboy hat is a regular sight a celebrity get-togethers”.
My theory: he’s pissed off that Duncan Bannatyne doesn’t need him any more because he can do his own PR on twitter.
I though Duncan was Taylor Herring?
Anyhoo, have you read his site? Apparently it was his PR that turned around Little Chef! Can we spell ‘business strategist’?!
Er, AT celebrity get-togethers.
I’m amazed that this poor man has no one around him to advise him and do some elementary reality-check on his ideas. You mention the legal mistakes about jurisdiction and who the counterparty is, but did nobody think to say:
“Your point is that we need to bring Twitter into line with older, well-established methods of communication?”
“Yes”
“Like letter-writing and the telephone?”
“Yes”
“So this idea for a review process would work like the sorting office getting all the letters and reviewing them before they decide which ones to deliver?”
“Umm…”
He is a cracking example of why some off line media people needed to go the way of the dead tree press. Bless.
Perhaps the clue is in the Section title. Evidence that you get the quality you pay for? Shockingly bad. Actually just plain dumb.
Pingback: The case for self-regulation of social media | Arrucha Post