I guess I should not be surprised that the leader of a political party should contradict himself. It happens all the time. In the case of David Cameron and his twitter comment though..“Too many twits make a twat..” It doesn’t seem that long ago that Mr Cameron was extolling to me the virtues of social media.
I’m not sure how we can believe anything he said in the Audioboo interview when he is now so keen to slam tweeters.
Twitter at the moment is the mainstay of all the social media I’m involved in and I think others use it in a similar fashion. It’s the back bone, the spine of cross platform conversations. Interesting how Cameron says “Politicians do have to think about what we say..” Perhaps they should also think about what they have said..
Maybe he just wanted to reconnect with his ‘Base’.. Maybe he still just doesn’t understand social media at all.
UPDATE: The comments that follow this blog post have become way more important that any statement I made in my original hasty proclamation.. Please make sure you read them.
I think this is a little bit of a mountain out of a molehill. I’m not a Tory (far from it!) but think people are getting the wrong end of the stick.
Judging from what he said before the “twat” remark, and the way it was delivered, I think he was just trying to use ‘clever’ wordplay to say that the instantness of Twitter can easily lead to people making a fool of themselves, rather than an attack on Twitter in general. Clearly though, he failed at being clever.
See my blogpost for a better explanation http://bit.ly/ybovV
I don’t see him as contradicting himself – he was illustrating the principle – that it is dangerous for politicians to speak without prepared remarks and a prompter.
And done with a human face . . . almost wins my vote . . . now point me to the policies . . . if he can do what says and lay them out simply and clearly in ways the ordinary person can understand them and feel they will be honoured . . if he uses a few words that I had to look up in the “urban dictionary”, I think we will live.
At the level of “organizing priniciple”, I think it is time for us to think out this distinction – David Cameron is not interacting with us as David Cameron. As he sat there, he was simply the Leader of the Opposition – duly elected by the Conseratives following any internal constitution and with a further role provided by the unwritten constitution of UK. He is not David Cameron – he represents the outcome of collective decision making and if he steps outside the collective decision making he is acting, well, illegally.
My point – social media must collect and facilitate the collective decision making. Distill it, “thicken it” – aid democracy and help the person who is “walking point” to represent us. Remember this person changes from time to time. It is the process that is important. No matter who is sitting there, the process should work.
We need to help these guys to think out the process AND because of their legal responsibilities – document the process. They can’t make calls on the fly – that is NOT their job or their right. It is their job to bring collective decisions to a point where we know what we want to do as a group, why we want to do it, how we are going to do it . . . etc.
Buckle your seatbelts… I’m about to respectfully disagree with our man inside.
I don’t think Cameron is slamming Twitter or social media in general. I think he is both saying and showing that the practice of communication — with new/social media tools or the more traditional arsenal — is just that, a practice. Doing it right isn’t easy (see Gordon Brown on YouTube).
Politicians put hard work, thought and money into their formal communications, and I think Cameron neatly (inadvertently?) demonstrates that communication channels like radio, YouTube, Twitter and so forth don’t offer a free lunch. It takes skill, insight and practice to be effective in new or social media, just as it does in old media. Too many tweets DO make a twat. (And it’s those twats he is criticising.)
To me, Cameron’s measured approach to social media demonstrates an intelligence and understanding of the same that goes far beyond most of the other “Check me, I’m down with the kids” politicos.
It’s pretty bloody egocentric to walk up to a new tool and just assume you’ve already nailed it. I commend Cameron for recognising that and sitting a round out, rather than rushing in blindly and making a complete twat of himself.
I came not to praise Cameron, but… nor to bury him.
I’m not so sure that Cameron’s tweets and twats comment is such an avant face. He’s describing two different disciplines really. Your question was about Social Media – which covers many platforms and formats; his discussion of Twitter was of the dangers of the instant soundbite. Oh the irony. Or not. I’d wager that line was written long before Cameron sat in the studio (cynical, moi?).
Whether or not you like your politicians bawdy and shooting from the hip like this, I don’t think this pins Cameron as a social media hater – indeed, I read some tweets taking the stance: ‘David Cameron calls Twitter users twats – way to alienate a connected voter base, Dave’… That’s not what he said. He’s discussing the dangers of politicians trying too hard, making slips (again with the irony, folks), spilling beans / expenses…
So, be cool, Doc. Wait for some of this dust to settle. I mean, you don’t really believe Cameron is, like, totally down with the net kids do you? What he told you on audioboo is no more real than that which he told O’Connell on radio.
He doesn’t tweet; he blogs though. He doesn’t have to like ALL of everything does he? Desperately inoffensive to everyone? That’s exactly the kind of politic twattery we all hate, right?
(None of which means I like Cameron or the Tories btw. Just keeping it real.)
@article_dan
I agree with the points above, I don’t think David was necessarily contradicting himself (although that is of course the fundamental linguistic smokescreen of all politics, not just modern politics) – but is is clear that he sees Twitter (and by extension any social tool that facilitates rapid and widespread communication of opinion and information) as a series of isolated bleeps rather than components of an ongoing discourse, the potential speed and transparency of which are more than capable of absorbing the odd ill-judged comment.
Jesus – politicians are more than capable of hanging themselves with inappropriate comments in the mainstream media where the comments are hung out to dry for endless analysis (in the broadsheets) and lowest-common-denominator character defamation (tabloids).
At least in the social media sphere an immediate, democratic and self-adjusting dialogue may spring up in which the orginator of the comment can apologise, explain, retract or defend – in real time.
I think the problem is that David can’t see past the valid problems of faddishness and 140-character rhetoric to the sheer power of social media used effectively.
Great comments.. Probably highlighting why i should at least have a coffee in the morning before i attempt a blog post. Maybe then it would come across as less of a knee jerk reaction to the dissing of Twitter.. 🙂
I think I have been spoiled having recently been in the company of Nick Clegg. Having come into social media contact with all three of the political party leaders, I feel that Clegg is the most Human and bar being slammed by the press for making a flippant unthoughtful comment.. I feel he is the most likely to handle the conversation and also be forgiven for faux pas along these lines.
If I have gotten the wrong end of the stick regarding the Twitter/twats statement, (& i’m not the only one) Cameron should probably stick to his guns and stay off it all together. If he can’t make himself clear in a sentence on the radio.. He’s got no chance in 140 characters. 😛
Am I now being too flippant?
too flippant! after all, D, too many flips make a… flop? 😉
Having seen the clip on Channel4 last night, I really did agree with D’s original sentiment. And then I read Sara’s first comment..
Maybe social media’s dramatic rise to prevalence has caught out our attitudes. These days I’m just about getting used to the fact that when my train is late I can moan directly to the manager of the Liverpool-London line via twitter.
But a politician, they are different breed, there civil servants and we all know what a dinosaurs they are when it comes to technology.
Or maybe we just least we think we do!
Too flippant? Maybe – there’s a lot of flippancy and the sense that complicated political processes and situations can be boiled down to simplistic memes and encapsulated in one-line explanations in social media.
They can’t.
We need politicians in this space, engaging with the electorate. It won’t be perfect and mistakes will be made but suggesting that they stay off it will encourage further political alienation and a ‘cooler-than-thou’ ethic that means we fail to use this powerful set of tools to hold our elected representatives to account, communicate our thoughts and become part of the political process.
How can social media be truly revolutionary if it has no political interface?
Well, he’s definitely slamming Twitter usage in my eyes – although lightly.
I don’t think it was a very intelligent way of saying that “social media” does not offer a free ride. It certainly wasn’t a great way to “hint” that new forms of communication takes practice. It was just a stupid, half ass sweeping generalization joke which from you can infer that the man does not know how to participate in social media and does not dare to take the jump.
But you know, it’s never to late. He could one day soon discover that you can tweet many times without being a twat?
If I had watched the Channel 4 news piece last night and not just the soundbite used on the Guardian’s blog this post would have been very different indeed.
Looking at the intelligent and varied points made in these comments below though.. I’m kind of glad I jumped into the conversation how I did.
Which is kind of my point and illustrates one facet of the argument right there – you reacted to a soundbite out of context but opened up a valuable discourse and are also able to modify your original statements.
I believe it’s called dialectic, the process by which a reasoned argument takes shape and evolves. It’s great to see in action.
Taken out of context it doesn’t look good. But the ‘too may twits make a twat’ comment demonstrates exactly David Cameron’s point… making a comment ‘in the instant’ can land you in hot water!
Comments made on twitter by public figures (whether politicians or celebrities) often get reported on national news bulletins… which exposes them to risk if they tweet ‘in the heat of the moment’.
I can see where he’s coming from – but I don’t agree with David Cameron’s viewpoint.
Interesting stuff, the destructive power of Twitter – even if you don’t use it!
This ties in nicely with this article that I was reading earlier: http://bit.ly/4osTCo – even if that one is a little more inflammatory.
Excellent discussion guys:
http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2009/07/28/would_the_real.html – this is a much needed discussion started by social network academic, Danah Boyd.
Network language has been integrated into society – people now have experience of linking, connected, and sharing information through social media. Simple network terms like long tails, power laws, strong/weak ties, etc. are thrown around casually. Because living is fundamentally about networking and connecting, a sense of understanding exists in the use of terms, but I think they are often misunderstood. Or, they are used to bluntly. I think we might need to develop more nuanced use of language in discussing social networks.
It was a stupid comment to make, but I also think it has been taken out of context. Just goes to show that politicians and social media do not mix imo.
“When my train is late I can moan directly to the manager of the Liverpool-London line via twitter.” – Absolutely brilliant, had not though of that but will have to give it a try!