Jan Moir and the Power of Twitter
Now the dust has cleared – a little – in the wake of Jan Moir’s Mail article looking at the circumstances surrounding the death of Stephen Gately and the subsequent outpouring of Twitter anger, it’s worth asking what the difference is between Moir’s article, aimed at a certain set of like-minded readers, and the response on Twitter.
However ugly and unpalatable Moir’s insinuations were, there will always be celebrities and personalities in the public eye facing deconstruction, valid or not, and there will always be snarky columnists at the Mail. But it would help, if there is to be a mass outpouring of fury on Twitter in response, if it were more akin to constructive debate; it was disappointing to see that much of the response was simply mass retweeting of a few salient tweets from the likes of Stephen Fry.
It was an effective campaign, certainly, given that the Mail lost a number of high profile advertisers from the online article. But it was very much a case of an angrily bleating herd retweeting a few choice points – in much the same way as Moir’s supporters reiterated her views.
It’s interesting to note that the Mail have run a couple of big articles looking into the Twitter phenomenon over the weekend – they were clearly unsettled by the likes of Marks and Spencer pulling adverts – but I am not sure that, once the dust settles, the Mail will change its modus operandi significantly.
The only way that is likely to happen is if the masses use Twitter to voice their own opinions, rather than just relying on a few informed celebrities to dictate their opinions. The only way Twitter can become a truly democratic tool is if people find their own voice.
It will certainly be interesting to see what Moir has to say on Friday, once the dust has settled, and what reaction her response engenders.


Sadly, for most people, repeating what some celebrity they like has said is much easier (and therefore preferable) to actually working out and putting into words their own opinion.
Jan moir. A strange, lonely and troubling columnist.
Not clever, not nice, and not interesting.
Come on Mark, look at your own Moir oeuvre: a couple of rewtweeted links and jokes, just like the rest of us ‘angry bleating herd’.
There’s a time for reasoned, critical debate. And there’s time for just adding your bleat. And we all, quite rightly, bleated. If you’re uncomfortable with that, fine. But don’t disingenuously point at ‘them over there’. You bleated too.
I have a slightly different angle (I’m not sure if it meets Mark’s required standard of constructive debate but it doesn’t call for Moir to be crucified or whatever the baying mob are clamouring for). One key problem is that, as Mark said, ‘I am not sure that … the Mail will change its modus operandi significantly’. Why? Well, because the authorities (i.e. the Press Complaints Commission) are powerless. That’s not just my opinion … Journalism.co.uk predicts ‘… Jan Moir and the Daily Mail will escape disciplinary action’ (http://www.journalism.co.uk/6/articles/536207.php). They go to great lengths to explain why. There may be a simper answer … Cronyism … Mr Paul Dacre, the chairman of the Press Complaints Commission’s ‘Code of Practice’ committee also has a day job as editor of … the Daily Mail.
I don’t think anyone ever claimed that a trending topic on twitter was necessarily indicative of constructive debate. Your critque of the jan moir twitter-storm therefore seems founded on an unrealistic interpretation of how twitter actually works.