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.
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.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited





Comments
Who pays you to write articles slagging off Fry for keeping up with his fans anyway? Where are your fans? :p
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.
(Yes, that was 140 characters.)
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...
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.
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
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.
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.
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!
Your column, that is.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZIIIIINNNNGGGGG
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.
@insomniacboy Do a little research on demographics before you make uninformed claims like that http://www.quantcast.com/twitter.com/de
Oh, and it's 140 characters.