Commentators

Rain (AM and PM) 2° London Hi 9°C / Lo 6°C

Terence Blacker: You don't have to be a twit... but it helps

It must be something of a nightmare for a well-known public figure – Stephen Fry, say – to be trapped in a lift with five other people, and then to find his discomfort broadcast minute by minute to thousands of people in the outside world via computer. To worsen the assault on Fry's privacy, a photograph was taken of him to accompany the messages sent from the front-line.

But here is something odd. It turns out not to have been a self-publicising, celebrity-obsessed stalker exploiting the situation, but Fry himself. An enthusiast of something called Twitter, an online social networking site which allows brief instant messages to be tapped out between friends and fans, Fry has taken to sending out regular reports to fans on his daily doings.

"Ok. This is now mad. I am stuck in a lift on the 26th floor of Centre Point," he wrote of this week's great drama. "Hell's teeth. We could be here for hours. Arse, poo and widdle." A flurry of messages – or "tweets" – followed this momentous news until Fry and his fellow passengers were rescued. "So many marvellous tweets from you sympathetic (and notable less so) peeps," read the message at his moment of liberation. "Much appreciated."

At first, I assumed the publication of these banal updates was a practical joke played by someone satirising the unassuageable vanity of those who live in the public eye. Then I worried that Fry, who has been commendably open about his mood swings, was having some sort of nervous breakdown.

But it turns out that this odd form of self-stalking is all the rage. Other famous people – Jonathan Ross, Alan Carr, John Cleese – like to do it. The "twitosphere" is a busy place. According to the website which has transmitted Fry's 1,179 tweets thus far, he has more than 127,000 followers (Ross has about 60,000 and Cleese just under 50,000).

He takes the medium seriously, describing it as "a fun and fascinating way to interact with all kinds of people who have so much to say". The constraints of 140 characters per message "seem oddly to bring out the best in wit, insight and observation".

This surely is, if not a form of mass insanity, then an extreme expression of personal insecurity. It is as if some evil, judgement-warping rays are emanating from computers, making apparently sane people believe they truly exist only if they are tapping messages to one another, however dreary, throughout the day. The digital presence on the screen of their Blackberrys of "followers" (bored people with nothing to do) and "friends" (whom they have never met) make them feel alive.

It is time to admit that computers, which have transformed and improved our lives in so many ways, are also doing terrible harm to much human interaction and thought. There are increasing numbers of people who find it easier to conduct friendships through Facebook than to leave their computer and spend time with real, flesh-and-blood friends. The fretful banality of round-the-clock texting and twittering is drowning out real communication and thought.

Twitter may have novelty value but it is more than mere surface silliness. It is anti-thought, the deadening white noise of modern life with all its pointless business. As for the dotty idea that short computer messages are full of wit, insight or observation – that is, to quote the master twitter himself, "arse, poo and widdle".

Now we see the hunt ban for what it was – government panic

If you talk to anyone who regularly hunts to hounds, the question of what actually happens out in the fields, now that the Hunting Act is law, tends to receive an evasive answer.

The various extenuating circumstances and loopholes – taking along birds of prey and so on – has made policing the Act difficult. This week, the High Court went further and ruled that the burden of proving that illegal hunting is taking place should always rest on the prosecution.

As time goes by, this legislation looks more and more like a meaningless political gesture enacted in panic by a beleaguered Blair government.

An ovation for London's musical Mayor

It is tempting to dismiss the London Mayor Boris Johnston's campaign to get members of the public to donate unused musical instruments to schools as a political stunt.

After all, it was the last Conservative government which did so much to undermine the teaching of music by cutting back on funding for central services provided by local councils. The Labour Government then played its part by promoting a league-table approach to education which inevitably meant that music was downgraded.

A new Ofsted report has revealed the full inadequacy of musical education in our schools. Of the primary and secondary schools visited, fewer than half were rated "good".

At a time when live performance is at its most popular and the internet provides access to all sorts of musical genres, the fact that a love and appreciation of music – one of life's great pleasures – is marginalised in so many schools is a betrayal of the next generation.

It is short-sighted, too. As the composer Howard Goodall has pointed out, the schools which perform best at literacy and numeracy are invariably those where a lot of musical activity is going on. Gimmicky or not, Mr Johnston is on the right track.

More from Terence Blacker

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Page 1 of 3
<<[1] [2] [3] >>
Hunting ban error
[info]sublibellous wrote:
Friday, 6 February 2009 at 12:20 pm (UTC)
The OP mistakenly refers to the ban on cruel sports as 'a meaningless political gesture enacted in panic' when it in fact it had overwhelming popular support. The only people who were against it were those who were actually involved in the barbarous slaughter of foxes and wanton damage to property.
Get with it, Terence
[info]sara_sense wrote:
Friday, 6 February 2009 at 12:47 pm (UTC)
Get with the program. You might want to stay exactly where you are with the women by the kitchen sink (judging by some of your previous columns) but others want to move with the times! This is the age of technology. Jump on the bandwagon and get some bandwidth!

Who pays you to write articles slagging off Fry for keeping up with his fans anyway? Where are your fans? :p
'Get with it Terence'
[info]tomhmacf wrote:
Friday, 6 February 2009 at 01:26 pm (UTC)
Nothing like keeping trivia - like the credit crunch, the Middle East conflict, not to mention climate change, peak oil, and the drought in China - out of the sweet little noddles of those besotted by the vacuous celebrity culture - Rupert Murdoch's restoration of the Roman "bread and games" - to keep the 'peeps' from questionning the current dystopia.

Pass me the plastic, I want to run some debt buying tat I don't need, labelled "Made in China".

Glad I won't be around to witness the pathetic bewilderment when the oil runs out.

"No one told us this was going to happen." I can hear the childish whinge now.
Fear Driven Drivel
[info]monstrouk wrote:
Friday, 6 February 2009 at 01:51 pm (UTC)
Your medium has been surpassed, discarded, improved upon. Much like the fax machine, pager and auto gyro you are remnants of the past. Now please, stop crying like some warbling Sun columnist and just go over there, sit in the corner and die.
What a twit
[info]theanswers42 wrote:
Friday, 6 February 2009 at 01:55 pm (UTC)
Terence Blacker sounds like the last sort of person anyone I know would want to twitter with. Perhaps he's jealous?
you obviously don't get it terence
[info]millersjon wrote:
Friday, 6 February 2009 at 02:00 pm (UTC)
but then again, at the age of 61 and retirement on the horizon, maybe you don't have to.
Luddite..
[info]buxtonmarauder wrote:
Friday, 6 February 2009 at 02:04 pm (UTC)
They malign, that which they do not understand..
Twitter
[info]mrbarrington wrote:
Friday, 6 February 2009 at 02:05 pm (UTC)
You don't agree that brevity is the essence of wit? Perhaps you could've tried Twitter instead of giving us assumption disguised as comment.
(Yes, that was 140 characters.)
Oh dear Terence...
[info]dillharris wrote:
Friday, 6 February 2009 at 02:11 pm (UTC)
I fear that your denigration of Twitter as an "extreme expression of personal insecurity", is in fact simply that. If I were a journalist, paid to publicly comment on the events occurring around the world, I too would be insecure.

The hive of comment and opinion that exists on Twitter threatens to devalue your contribution as a thinker and writer. The sheer amount and variety of opinion, coupled with the ability for responses to be almost instantaneous, has a negative effect on one who would seek to publish opinion through a more official channel such as a newspaper - which requires an editing process during which the opinions of the writer and counterarguments hitherto, could have already been published on Twitter, or other such sites. It is not only in mechanics that you are threatened, as the authoritative voice of the journalist is now undermined by the multitude's valid ideas. No longer does exposure equal worthiness, and if it does - that too is threatened by the online communities ability to support and follow the musings of the most erudite and well-informed. Democracy and free speech 2.0...

Ultimately, Terence, arguing against Twitter is illogical if you value your current situation at all. The values that modern journalism is based on, that is including free-speech (right-to-reply, insight and opinion), communicating with, responding to and reflecting the zeitgeist; all find a platform such as Twitter as their logical conclusion. This is journalism 2.0, where the experience of the common man is mixed with that of the celebrity, where all can be seen and heard, a virtual newspaper constituting of the thoughts, discoveries and opinions of the great and the good. Merit, in this particular case, is judged against valuable contribution, and those that are found democratically to be the most meritorious acquire commonly agreed, if shallow, authority.

I'm sorry Terence, it really appears you should hop on, or be left behind. None of us blame you for being threatened... As I've said, I would if I were you...
Re: Oh dear Terence...
[info]ourmaninferney wrote:
Friday, 6 February 2009 at 09:52 pm (UTC)
"... support and follow the musings of the most erudite and well-informed."

Regrettably, they tend to be quickly drowned out by the inane and the uneducated.

The newspaper paradigm, on the other hand, with its ranks of editors and sub-editors, requires more thought on the part of the writer and is counter-balanced by the need to occasionally justify, prove, defend and support what has been written.

Twitter is perfectly named.
Re: Oh dear Terence... - [info]alexandra170 - Saturday, 7 February 2009 at 02:12 am (UTC) Expand
idiot
[info]nickhalstead wrote:
Friday, 6 February 2009 at 02:18 pm (UTC)
And they wonder why traditional media is dying? because dinosaurs like yourself still think we are in the dark ages and think it was 'better back then'. You have no understanding of what twitter represents and the implications it has on social media and human interaction in general.

Please do some research because making an assault on a medium for which you have zero understanding.

Nick Halstead
twitter.com/nickhalstead
CEO favorit Ltd
[info]neebone wrote:
Friday, 6 February 2009 at 02:20 pm (UTC)
What is twittering other than a condensed version of blogging. Bits of random thoughts put to the web. Like an sms but sent to a notice board and not directly to friends. And yes, talking for the sake of talking anywhere is just silly in my opinion, but mentioning things that are interesting or humorous ... whats the problem with that?

And I completely disagree about it making people anti-social. A lot of people who would be deemed excessively social tweet - and there are others who are completely misanthropic. But those kinds of people have always existed. Twitter has a range of useful applications such as status updates for service outages, latest information on certain topics etc. If someone decides to express their boredom of being stuck in a lift with others that might find that funny, what is the problem with that? Stephen Fry doesn't seem to me to be an very closed off and introverted person to me.

And finally, Twitter has been around for ages. Why all the media attention? Twitter was an unstable mess at one stage. It's still being written off by a vast number of people in 'tech'. But Mr Fry mentions it once on a BBC show and now the whole world seems to think it was invented last Friday at 2:30pm.

It's funny that Terence doesn't see the irony of his post.
Twitter
[info]dj_bogtrotter wrote:
Friday, 6 February 2009 at 02:23 pm (UTC)
And I read this article because? Someone linked to it on Twitter, which I'm finding is a much more interesting way of gathering information & news than just flicking through some dreary old paper. Mr Blacker should try Twitter out before just writing it off. There's a lot more to it than just celebrity tittle-tattle.
Re: Twitter
[info]alexandra170 wrote:
Saturday, 7 February 2009 at 02:20 am (UTC)
good illustration - and re trying Twitter, I suggest that Mr Blacker tries if for at least a week to get his own take on how he wants to use Twitter and its possibilities, it takes a while to get used to it and know how to use it to suit you and ensure a satisfying experience. No other 'social networking' (it's more than that) site has interested me in the slightest. This is strangely different and stimulating.
Elevating Twitter
[info]rickybee wrote:
Friday, 6 February 2009 at 02:24 pm (UTC)
In reporting Stephen Fry's lift incident sort-of verbatim, you choose to omit examples of the many messages of friendly sarcasm, jovial doom-mongering and general witty-spirits-keepy-uppie he received from some of his many followers (quite a lot of whom, incidentally, your readers will know, like and admire). And Stephen's modest but sincere thanks to those, tweeted on his happy release, also included his rescuers, who received a nice mention, as did their firm. Now, what, precisely, is your problem with all this? At the moment. Twitter is a fun application having, amongst other things, very useful functions as an information-poster and 'function cancelled - don't bother travelling' notifier. No-one obliges anyone else to anything on Twitter. And, you know, I'd say you'd love it. And, please be assured, Stephen Fry knows some very, very adult swearwords indeed - ask us tweeters, sometime!
Simon Dyda
[info]simon_dyda wrote:
Friday, 6 February 2009 at 02:25 pm (UTC)
"... an extreme expression of personal insecurity. It is as if some evil, judgement-warping rays are emanating from computers, making apparently sane people believe they truly exist only if they are tapping messages to one another, however dreary, throughout the day. The digital presence on the screen of their Blackberrys of "followers" (bored people with nothing to do) and "friends" (whom they have never met) make them feel alive.

It is time to admit that computers, which have transformed and improved our lives in so many ways, are also doing terrible harm to much human interaction and thought. There are increasing numbers of people who find it easier to conduct friendships through Facebook than to leave their computer and spend time with real, flesh-and-blood friends. The fretful banality of round-the-clock texting and twittering is drowning out real communication and thought."

Is this an example of what psychologists refer to as "projection" on your part? Or is making sweeping and uninformed assertions part of your job description?

Just asking.
Terence is with it
[info]insomniacboy wrote:
Friday, 6 February 2009 at 02:29 pm (UTC)
Terence is lovely - don't knock him. Blacker and Fry both know that social networking is part of the media fabric and a means of pr - if you earn your living through self-promotion, you're more likely to get some publicity through up to 150 words on twitter these days than through a well-crafted press release. The fact that it's a load of banal word-chaff with no content worth speaking of is pretty obvious, though. Its main market is insecure teens, but the only people who will benefit from it are its creators, venture capitalists, phone companies (and spammers when they crack the art of spamming social networks - just wait) and people like Fry who can up their column inches with it, at least for as long as it's the latest thing and newsworthy in itself (not long).
Re: Terence is with it
[info]alexandra170 wrote:
Saturday, 7 February 2009 at 02:28 am (UTC)
Yawn. It has already been spammed (again, do your homework for goodness sake) and that's been dealt with and they'll deal with whatever comes next too, rather than looking for perfection, you have to go with the flow as the benefits are huge.... And tweeting with select celebs is just a game, for goodness sake! Please stop underestimating (rather condescendingly) the users of these sites. They are more savvy about PR than you clearly are. And if (again, yawn) it's usefulness/amusement potential fades, so what? Same as any other toy or gadget out there. We'll move on to other amusements, maybe buy a paper once in a long while.
May I be the first to cry: Shenanigans!
[info]dr_whom_again wrote:
Friday, 6 February 2009 at 02:29 pm (UTC)
"There are increasing numbers of people who find it easier to conduct friendships through Facebook than to leave their computer and spend time with real, flesh-and-blood friends. As I was just saying to a group of Mumm-Ra hacks at a recent dinner party to which there was partial frenetic nodding on the part of those who have teenage children."

Case closed Blacker! You've done it again.

Seems to be that the easiest way to sort out this non-event of a spat is if we stay off the printed news media and you stay off our internet. Deal?

Follow me at Dr_Whom!
Hunting Act
[info]taxfries wrote:
Friday, 6 February 2009 at 02:33 pm (UTC)
The Hunting Act was borne out of genuine concern for animal welfare. Unfortunately, it was literally designed by a committee and turned out to be unfit for purpose. It was a New Labour attempt to impose a Dangerous Dogs Act - good idea, but beyond the wit of government. However, ministers quickly realised that Parliament would now digest any crudely drawn-up drivel which they put on a plate before it, before sitting up and begging for more. So the next trick was to pass a Dangerous Pictures Act ...
Please try and learn a basic level of accuracy
[info]philbradley wrote:
Friday, 6 February 2009 at 02:40 pm (UTC)
His name is Boris Johnson, not 'Johnston'. Normally I wouldn't bother to point out something like this, but in case of a journalist who writes for what passes as a quality newspaper I think it's slightly more important. If you cannot even get that basic fact right, I think we can safely ignore everything else that you say, particularly your sad, factually incorrect and bitter diatribe against Twitter. Which, ironically enough is where I found your sad piece of nonsense. Time that you retired, I think!
Twittering and twits
[info]simon_hill wrote:
Friday, 6 February 2009 at 02:47 pm (UTC)
Definitely. I don't get it myself. It's all just this continuous flow of drivel on subjects of little interest to any intelligent person written purely in the hope that it will attract followers.

Your column, that is.
Re: Twittering and twits
[info]dr_whom_again wrote:
Friday, 6 February 2009 at 03:04 pm (UTC)
@simon_hill

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZIIIIINNNNGGGGGG!
Re: Twittering and twits - [info]ourmaninferney - Friday, 6 February 2009 at 09:57 pm (UTC) Expand
Twitter
[info]summery1 wrote:
Friday, 6 February 2009 at 02:58 pm (UTC)
Am I wrong, Mr. Blacker, in believing that columnists write their personal views and opinions; and that you write to a word-count? Not unlike the 140-character restraints of Twitter? I suspect you need to open your mind to the possibility that communication can - and does - develop through various different media.

I do not buy the Independent as I do not usually wish to read what you have written. I do "follow" Stephen Fry and other people on Twitter because I choose to know what they wish to communicate.

The internet is a very useful communication tool and one which has changed my life for the better. Without it, I would not have met my husband - the best man I know - and we would not have had our wonderful son. Undoubtedly, there are ways in which it can be used to harm, as all tools can, but I do not believe that Twitter is one of those harmful influences. In fact, I believe that is a false and laughable conclusion.
I fear you're all wasting your time
[info]humana wrote:
Friday, 6 February 2009 at 03:01 pm (UTC)
Given that this article seems to have an underlying fear of changes in modern technology, particularly in terms of social interaction, it seems very unlikely that Terence will be checking out comments on his articles on the internet. To do so would display "an extreme expression of personal insecurity". Or perhaps an extreme fear of debate and the possibility of learning something.
Really? Such a small minded column from the Independant?
[info]davelaw00 wrote:
Friday, 6 February 2009 at 03:53 pm (UTC)
"an extreme expression of personal insecurity." you mean like this article is of yours?
Really? Such a small minded column from the Independant?
[info]davelaw00 wrote:
Friday, 6 February 2009 at 03:59 pm (UTC)
"an extreme expression of personal insecurity" - like this article is Terance?

@insomniacboy Do a little research on demographics before you make uninformed claims like that http://www.quantcast.com/twitter.com/demographics

Oh, and it's 140 characters.
Re: Really? Such a small minded column from the Independant?
[info]sara_sense wrote:
Friday, 6 February 2009 at 04:26 pm (UTC)
That's funny - I'm almost exactly the correct demographic! Don't worry, insomniacboy is cleary Terence. He just can't sleep because he's worrying about his future as a journalist. And so he should do :p
[info]ms_rebecca_riot wrote:
Friday, 6 February 2009 at 07:03 pm (UTC)
You sound threatened. Perhaps folk would rather read Fry's wit than your bitter column. After all- you are broadcasting your thoughts to people you don't know- and you are unlikely to receive such a positive response. It's another form of communication. Like the telephone.
You really are hilarious.
[info]ms_rebecca_riot wrote:
Friday, 6 February 2009 at 07:14 pm (UTC)
You sound 'old media being threatened'. After all- you write for the newspaper/ internet (yes!) and its read by people who don't know you. You're highly unlikely to have as many followers or positive responses. People would rather read Fry's wit than your bitter rant. if you're so serious and profound- why do you have nothing better to write than knocking an amusing celebrity who is simply having some light-hearted fun. Doubtless you would have dissed the introduction of the telephone.
Page 1 of 3
<<[1] [2] [3] >>

Columnist Comments

bruce_anderson

Bruce Anderson: The EU battle isn't over for Cameron

A short-term crisis has been averted, but a longer term crisis is inevitable

simon_carr

Simon Carr: Don't call me an alcoholic

Binge-drinking was once praised as being safer than steady soaking

philip_hensher

Philip Hensher: Berlin... but that was in another country

A great wall rises up between us and what we remember


Loading...


Most popular in Opinion