More like this
Fry defends Twitter but fears his ‘tribune’ status
While liberal spirits dominate the site, all is well. What happens when the enemy join in?
After a week in which Stephen Fry's Twitter posts about Trafigura and Jan Moir have both put him firmly in the public spotlight, the comedian, actor and quiz show host has written at length about his relationship with the popular micro-blogging site.
Fry was the most high-profile of a number of commentators who revealed that it was Trafigura who had slapped an injunction on the Guardian, banning the paper from mentioning a Parliamentary question about the company's alleged involvement in toxic trading. Then he responded to Jan Moir's mean-spirited article in the Daily Mail on Friday about the death of Stephen Gately with a strongly-worded attack, calling her "a repulsive nobody writing in a paper no one of any decency would be seen dead with".
But the incredible popular response to his pieces - more than 21,000 complained to the Press Complaints Commission as a result of his tweet about Moir - has led to criticism that he is a champion of press freedom only when it suits him. In response, Fry has written a six-page blog post titled 'Poles, Politeness and Politics in the age of Twitter'.
Fry begins by declaring his regret that Moir has been attacked by quite so many people, and suggests she will now be able to write "the inevitable Vulnerable Frightened Piece in which she tells the world just how tyrannised, terrorised and victimised she felt". But he goes on to discuss the wider implications of Twitter, and criticises journalists for lazily crediting him with being "a kind of a Citizen Smith of the Twitting Popular Front".
He says he was not cut out for the hurly-burly of adversarial politics: "This whole thing has just grown up around me and now I cannot help wondering if, despite my preference for turd-sucking over politics, I have found myself in a new Fifth Estate political assembly, willy-nilly hailed as some sort of tribune by friendly people on one side and being yelled at by unfriendly people on the other."
Fry, who had 868,689 followers at the time of writing, insists that his joining Twitter "was not part of a clever commercial plan to 'build my brand' (whatever the arse that means) nor to sell tickets, books and DVDs nor to ready myself for government, nor to disseminate a point of view nor to raise my profile in the media."
About how the site has attracted so many people so quickly, Fry says: "'Political consultants' who had never heard of the service six months ago will be hiring themselves out as experts who can create a 'powerful, influential and profitable Twitter brand'. And the moronic and gullible clients will line up for this new nostrum like prairie settlers queuing for snake oil and salvation."
He also discusses the relationship between Twitter and traditional media. "The press dreads Twitter for all kinds of reasons," he writes. "Celebrities (whose doings sell even broadsheet newspapers these days) can cut them out of the loop and speak direct to their fans which is, of course, most humiliating and undermining. But also perhaps the deadwood press loathes Twitter because it is like looking in a time mirror. Twitter is to the public arena what the press itself was 250 years ago - a new and potent force in democracy, a thorn in the side of the established order of things."
And the future? "Twitter may seem to some to be dominated by bien pensant, liberal spirits at the moment. Will I be so optimistic about it when these spirits are matched by forces of religiosity and nationalism that might not accord with my chattering-class, liberal elite preferences? ... What will I say then?"
WHAT OTHERS ARE SAYING
Charlie Brooker of the Guardian on Twitter: "Agree with [Stephen Fry] - I also empathize with Moir: often shot my gob off then regretted it. In 2004 I wrote a dumb (and not even original) Bush joke and ended up getting shouted at by what felt like half of the USA so I know, it can FEEL like you're on the end of an 'orchestrated campaign', even when you aren't really."
Damian Thompson, the Daily Telegraph: "Moir's reputation is in tatters this evening. But, my God, the social media world harbours some pretty smug and self-righteous individuals. The words 'I'm sorry, but you're not allowed to say that!' are never far from their lips – or, to put it another way, only liberals are allowed to be offensive."
Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, the Independent: "The ship flying the flag for free speech is often unsteady, sometimes leaky, as it sails capricious, tempestuous seas. Sometimes even the captains jump off and struggle to keep faith with its mission. Like the supremely erudite Stephen Fry who has always, to my knowledge, been an uncompromising champion of free expression, keeping watch on deck whatever the provocations." ·
Comments are now closed on this article
Comments
This rather tiresome debate could really be avoided if people just learnt not to be personally offended by people disagreeing with them. I may be appalled by something that you say, it may be an opinion I find repellent, but unless it moves away from opinion and becomes a groundless insult, disparagement, hatred, or incitement to hatred, or it's a bare-faced lie, then you can say it. Just don't expect me to like you for it. Or to stand up for you if you are pilloried for saying it. Jan Moir did nothing ILLEGAL by saying what she said, she's just a vile individual for saying it. And that's my opinion. And I can say it. And I am doing so.
Why is it that a group of individuals expressing an opinion via Twitter is regarded as a 'campaign', while a columnist pushing her personal opinion under the banner of an influential national newspaper is somehow the victim of the piece? Curious. Moir's piece was at best mean-spirited, and jumps to some fairly loopy conclusions about gay men and civil partnership in general. It certainly warrants comment, via Twitter or wherever.
I'm all for 'liberals' saying anything they want whenever they feel like it Ben Geddes. No problem. I don't object to anyone's right to free speech and free thought. It is many of my political opponents who come into this catagory that want to stifle free speech and democracy that I object to and that includes some gays. On this particular subject I would even say in favour of the hysterical gay lobby, how can free speech be a threat to free speech, as suggested by some bullies in the press? Go for it gay lobby, but when I speak my mind, disagree by all means. Just don't tell me what I can and can't say, because that, I really am intolerant of.
Do you honestly think 'The Liberals' are threatening free speech? Did Stephen Fry try and censor your posting here somehow? I know Jerome Peter above thinks that liberals are fascist totalitarian dictators, but does anyone sensible really think someone's Twitter comments are muzzling the press?
Isn't Twitter (and in fact all internet blogging and comment sites including this one) just an extension of the press?
In fact, even assuming the liberal conspiracy is real and trying to stamp out free speech, how are they going to stop you writing whatever you like on the web? Is there some sort of liberal super-software that monitors the whole web and deletes content, and if so why don't the evil liberals ever use it?
It is interesting to see which issues Fry thinks are important. It tells you a lot about him. What it reveals is not all that nice
Yes Mark , let me explain , its bad , very bad , because she may only seem Blatantly Homophobic to you and your friends , she is however excercising her right in our free democracy to say what she thinks . Frys campaign therefore uses his same right to champion the gay cause but muzzle the press. To me and my friends , this is a heinous crime which should be punishable in law .
So called 'Liberals' often behave more like arrogant, patronising and totalitarian dictators these days. Only their opinions are valid and can be openly expressed as far as they are concerned. It's called fascism. I am a patriot, a nationalist and right wing as is my right and I won't be shouted down by self righteous bullies posing as champions of the downtrodden, when they are the ones doing the treading all over other people's human rights. That these hypocrites should present themselves as opposing fascism is beyond the pale. These new 'Liberals' self-righteously use 'minorities' to intimidate and bully everyone else into silence. 'Liberals' are dictatorially intolerant of people who are proud of their country and wish to defend it against more unwanted mass immigration, or who believe in our inherent right to self-determination as a people. They have attempted to demonise patriotism and people are sick of it. The only free speech that Liberals champion is the speech that they wish to indulge in. Their attempts now to 'accuse' someone of belonging to the right, as if it is a crime show how bigoted they are. They are extremists and should be challenged at every turn of the way before free speech is banned for everyone as a result of their this intimidation and bullying. As for some of the more unsavoury elements within the media, serves them right. Now that journalists no longer have a franchise on the dissemination of information, their propaganda is going to fall increasingly on deaf ears.
Sorry, but I can't understand why it's wrong to hound someone as blatantly homophobic as Jan Moir. Can someone explain what's so bad about campaigning against such prejudicial journalism?
NO NO NO!
"more than 21,000 complained to the Press Complaints Commission as a result of his tweet about Moir"
If you had read Fry's blog properly, you would have seen where he pointed out that he was actually quite 'late to the party' on both Trafigura and Moir. He even includes a link to an article explaining that fact http://is.gd/4sD6H -- with pictures and everything!
Twitter harnesses *popular* support and gives voice to it. Thugs like Jan Moir will always be a vocal minority, and Twitter is their greatest fear - you can't outshout it.