The immediacy of Twitter: for fools or strategists?

It's the age of instant gratification.  The faster it is to express yourself, the easier it is to make a fool of yourself on the public stage.

With the internet it's global, and with twitter it's more immediate than email, and just as hard to press the delete button.

Ah, the internet.  The scourge of the unmeasured thinker.

I'm thinking of Rupert Murdoch, of course, who apparently stumbled again with a tweet.

Much as I might long for him to get too comfortable over a glass or two and a rushed comment, I can't picture it happening. (Much.  Depending on whether you count his comment about Brits being too broke to justify taking holidays.)

But the question - again - is why?  What's behind Murdoch's sudden move to Twitter?

It took JP to point out to me that retweets and aggregation services will give Murdoch's voice a lot of weight.  This translates to Murdoch's utterances having a global influence - something that he's never been averse to.  In fact, he couldn't get enough of it.

And does he not want to have his hand in every communication channel going?  Especially if the cost is negligent.

A few early mis-tweets have only helped to publicise his channel.  What could be wrong with that?

Journalistic bent 2: on the NSW child protection report

Like many government agencies around the world with a child protection brief, the New South Wales Department of Community Services is greatly understaffed and underfunded to achieve such aims. This is a tragedy for both individuals and the community. On the one hand, children are utterly precious: their innocence, joy and freedom is something we all aspire too, but mostly lose as we get older. Everyone deserves the opportunity to experience those qualities as long as possible. On the other hand, studies repeatedly show that investment in early intervention (education, income support, parental training, etc) is more than repaid for, in the subsequent adult-span cost savings on health, mental health, crime, and the like.

So to the Herald, front page of Tuesday, November 25:

'High-risk only' child protection (by Adele Horin)

"ONLY children deemed at "significant" risk of harm will need to be reported to the Department of Community Services' help line under a radical plan to reshape the state's overwhelmed child protection system. Others will be referred to a new service to receive assistance.

The higher threshold under the state's mandatory reporting laws - achieved by inserting the word "significant" to the law - is designed to potentially triage tens of thousands of calls to the department to enable it to focus on the minority of children in serious danger."

That story survives on the Herald website here, albeit with the toned-down headline 'Mandatory laws to be eased' (a sub-head on the front page). It was indexed via the 'National' section of that day's web pages.

A more conciliatory version of the same article is accessible (here) at smh.com.au, via the 'Breaking news' section of the day before:

Inquiry recommends changes to DoCS [bylined AAP]

Only children at risk of "significant harm" will be investigated by NSW child protection officers under reforms that will also see other at-risk kids outsourced to the private sector.

The special commission of inquiry into child protection on Monday finalised its year-long investigation, releasing findings that said the Department of Community Services (DoCS) was swamped by reports that don't warrant its time and effort.

Inquiry head, retired Justice James Wood, has called for changes to the mandatory reporting system so DoCS is only notified of cases where a child is at risk of "significant harm".

Horin's a longtime Herald reporter and columnist on social issues. Looks like she rewrote the original wire story for the front page of the following day. That later, more alarming version probably got read by more people than the online version. At my count, the later version appears on 14 websites, all of them owned by the Herald's owner, Fairfax. The original wire story appears on 7, three of which are Fairfax. It looks to be standard practice that re-written wire stories gain the byline of the re-writer.

I have not attempted to analyse other media's overall response to the event, the release of the report by the Special Commission of Inquiry into Child Protection Services in NSW. However, the head of the inquiry was Justice James Wood, who also headed the Royal Commission into the NSW Police. Without knowing his sociopolitical bent, he seems to have a reasonable reputation.

The Herald beefed up the story for the front page. Was it the right thing to do?

Poor journalism on executive pay

A minor quibble? Rather, an exemplary tale of how sloppy journalism can completely skew information, and thus understanding.

Edward Liddy is the new CEO of American International Group, an insurer that was just recently bailed out by the US government. A Herald report, a wire story from Associated Press, headlined the fact that Liddy was being remunerated just $1 per year for the next two years. (The only rider mentioned on this was "he may be eligible for a special bonus for 'extraordinary performance' payable in 2010".) All this accords with the general narrative run through the media that fat cat executives have been wallowing in luxury while the world is in turmoil and pain (a fair blow, if you read the spa story here, 'standard industry practice' with impeccably bad timing) - and that their deeds are only just catching up with them.

But. Don't expect executives to work for no pay, plus maybe performance-based extras. Altruism has its place, but it's not to be found working as chief executive for capitalists.

A little ferreting around uncovered a Bloomfield story explaining the situation. It reveals Liddy will also receive "an unspecified number of equity grants". That's where the actual money is hiding.

In fact, that AP wire story has been published elsewhere (examples here and here) with an additional sentence: "In addition to his $1 a year salary, Liddy will be getting an unspecified amount of stock." (The missing sentence can be found in other places, too, for example .)

It is clear that the Herald sub-edited out that sentence - for dramatic effect? To harmonise with the heading? The effect is, however, dissonant, as the end result - depending on how it is received by the reader - either conveys the wrong impression or just doesn't make sense.

One could say Not very bright. Unprofessional, even. But the impact is more than just a reflection of poor work. Such an omission of detail may leave people with a very different take on an issue. Ideological impact aside, such egregious misinformation can have as bad a nett effect as disinformation.