Endless tweets calling someone a liar or stupid do nothing to enlighten us
IT all kicked off on social media last week when the Twitter account of media blog Wings Over Scotland was temporarily suspended after its editor Stuart Campbell called a Daily Express writer, Siobhan McFadyen, an “utter disgrace”. Wings had been responding to an Express article by McFadyen, which described “widespread outbreaks of violence” over a period of months before and during indyref. The article attracted ridicule – particularly as Scottish police actually praised the public for their calm behaviour on the day of the historic vote – and outrage at what many felt was a gross misrepresentation of events. There was broad agreement among social media commentators that the Wings ban was an infringement on free speech, and Twitter rightly lifted the suspension. But the story didn’t stop there; McFadyen went on to tweet that she’d reported social media abuse to the police, and wrote about taking action against others for defamation. The saga continued for days. Every tweet that McFadyen posted in fury at the situation prolonged the response from an onslaught of tweeters who had very unkind things to say. Now, while I think the Express article concerned was an atrociously inaccurate representation of events in Scotland two years ago, I felt some sympathy for the writer after she found herself in a Twitter bunker trying to deal with thousands of tweets calling her a liar and mocking her. I know this won’t be a popular view, but hear me out. I agree with those who believe the Express should be taken to task for its reporting, but that shouldn’t be a pass for all manner of behaviour that people would be unlikely to exhibit offline. Put yourself in the shoes of the writer, who is a human being. Even if the comments directed at McFadyen do not in themselves constitute abuse, being on the receiving end of such a huge volume of comments from people telling you how awful you are feels a lot like harassment, whether or not that’s the intention of the individuals involved. Imagine the offline equivalent: if McFadyen was in George Square, she’d be cowering in a corner while a hefty crowd hurled insults at her for hours on end. If that was me, I’d likely be screaming about calling the police too. Social media comments do not have to be abusive to be damaging. Much like bullying, it can be hard to pinpoint something illegal within individual incidents. However, the end result of persistent negativity from multiple people can feel overwhelming and even traumatic.
I do, though, also have sympathy with the many tweeters voicing their views on McFadyen’s article. The portrayal of a vastly peaceful movement as one marred by violence and threats is infuriating and insulting. It is not OK for a journalist or a publisher to manipulate information to fit a pre-determined editorial line.
However, two wrongs do not make a right; the shoddy behaviour of a publisher does not justify what amounts to a form of harassment – whether intended or not – towards a journalist. Within any trade or profession, bad practice should be highlighted, discussed and dealt with. It is a sign of maturity to deal with such situations with clarity and dignity rather than rage and sweeping insults.
Social-media users can make a choice about which category they want to fall into. Specifically addressing inaccuracies on social media and backing up analysis with evidence is legitimate and extremely useful. Endless tweets calling a journalist a liar, or stupid, does nothing to enlighten onlookers. If anything, frenzied, angry language only alienates people who would otherwise welcome an articulate insight into what is a serious problem in today’s media.
As a journalist, I’ve expressed my views about online abuse several times within this column, but there is a big difference between abuse and extremely disgruntled readers. It is unfair to write a provocative article and then decry readers for responding.
If, as a tweeter and a human being, you take care to ensure that your behaviour in all walks of your life doesn’t have a detrimental effect on others, then consider, before posting your next tweet in a fit of anger – no matter how justified that anger is – whether you’re achieving something worthwhile, and whether your rant is worth it if it causes the person at the other end unintended distress.
And equally, if you’re a journalist who really cares about the readers and the principles of free speech, consider, when you’re issuing legal threats, whether your behaviour is in the spirit of good, honest journalism.
Even on our modern social-media channels, good old-fashioned advice may serve us best: step back, take a deep breath, count to 10 and think before you tweet.