The Wardman Wire

Here we go again. Twitter users are like bloggers, sad figures in pyjamas with no social skills (or presumably, girlfriends). Rachel Sylvester in the Times seems to make three points.

But before I start, I half agree with her on this:

MPs are trying to look in touch by using the latest webtools. But all they reveal is how insecure the political elite has become

and that there are all varieties of trivial smokescreens being put forward in a desperate attempt keep the show on the road. But let’s get back to Twitter.

Firstly, Twitter is about “what am I doing”. Rachel quotes:

The psychologist Oliver James has said: “Twittering stems from a lack of identity. It’s a constant update of who you are, what you are, where you are. Nobody would Twitter if they had a strong sense of identity.”

Rachel Sylvester has fallen for the superficial stereotype. Twitter is not just about “what am I doing”. It is is also about:

1. what I am thinking about,
2. this is interesting,
3. finding new information / serendipity,
4. can anyone help me find out x or y?,
5. distributed research (used in this article),
6. debate,
7. networked campaigning coalitions
8. this news reporting the news.
9. rapid turnaround political consultation.

I even sold my first paid advert via Twitter.

Secondly, the presence of trivial conversation (as well as all the “useful” material highlighted above), means the service is a waste.

My defence is quite simple: “small talk about not very much” is “glue” in all our relationships – whether with our partners or via inane banter in the Times Office to maintain a friendly atmosphere. It is not stretching it to consider Twitter as simply “small talk online”, although much more can be done with the service.

Finally, politicians are trying to appear to be “in touch”.

In this country, middle-aged MPs hope they will look youthful and “in touch” if they use the latest web tool. But there is a slight Dad-on-the-dancefloor feel to some of their attempts.

That is probably true.; they are politicians and that is what they do. But I can’t help feeling that our Twittering politicians are taking themselves a good deal less seriously than that. Love him or hate him, John Prescott has a sense of humour sometimes.

The Rumble of Incoming Henry Porter

With respect to Dr Oliver James, Mark Pack notes (via Twitter) that previously back in 2001 Dr James had a go at Peter Mandelson, who was defended by Henry Porter (of all people) (as quoted by Porter):

A lack of personal experience of his subject presents no obstacle to Dr James, who has delivered himself of the view that Peter Mandelson was at a “high risk of suicide attempt” because of his sacking from the cabinet. Without the slightest professional qualm, he further stated that Mandelson is likely to suffer “a terrible depression” and that there is some kind of “design fault” in him.

The only risk to Mandelson’s health is this egregiously self-confident doctor who has no business diagnosing anyone – whether a private individual or public figure – on the basis of one encounter and then giving his opinion to journalists on the Sunday Telegraph. But because Dr James interviewed Mr Mandelson for a 1997 TV show, he claims he is able to fathom that his “whole identity has been built around his relationship with his mother and grandfather [Herbert Morrison]“, and that he is trying to evade the truth about the deep fault in his personality.

Dr James, apparently an expert on everything from paedophilia to the meaning of Princess Diana’s death, is not a member of the British Psychological Society, which forbids such behaviour for two very good reasons. If Mr Mandelson was indeed a suicide risk or vulnerable to depression, nothing could be more dangerous than for a doctor to announce it in the press. But since Mandelson is suffering from strain – a natural reaction to his summary dismissal – it is extremely presumptuous of James to suggest severe, long-term instability. In other words James was either downright irresponsible, or he was wrong. Whichever way you look at it, he infringed Mr Mandelson’s rights and dignity.

Worse, perhaps, is that this garrulous professional allowed himself to be used in support of a Downing Street whispering campaign which, from the start, had been hinting that Mr Mandelson was detached and not quite himself.

Henry Porter is currently fighting the good fight on the other side from Peter Mandelson in the battle to overturn restrictive laws introduced by New Labour. Strange times make strange allies, but this doesn’t encourage me to take the good Doctor especially seriously when it comes to diagnosis at a distance.

(Headline credit: Sadie Smith on Twitter)

Wrapping Up

In response to the “Twitter and identity” comments, and in the absence of anything that resembles evidence or experience of Twitter by those commenting, I’m quite happy to go on Twittering. But I do wondering if we are witnessing another job application for the “Andrew Spleen of Twitter ” position.

In favour of The Times, at least the Twitter piece is an opinion column – which exists to stir up debate, while the “Mandelson” piece was (according to Porter in the article linked above) put forward as a news item.

Since we are doing media pop-psychology, I wonder whether the initials “OJ” are themselves a psychological hazard (by association). Perhaps a media “-ologist” would care to theorize about it for us.

As a final nugget, the numbers I see are telling me that some people are generating tens of thousands of click-throughs from links on their Twitter feed every month; it is rapidly becoming a good tool for political communication. Critics may end up eating humble pie and smelling coffee surprisingly quickly.

(Disclosure: I also run a Twitter blog at twexpert.co.uk .)

[Update 16/2/2009: Neil Williams has an excellent response: Grumpy Old Media]

Tags: bloggers in anoraks, dr oliver james, rachel sylvester, the times, twitter