I’M NOT thin-skinned, but if I’m to be the victim of a lazy hatchet job by a journalist, I think I have the right to expect at least a minimum level of accuracy.
Under the headline “Proof at last… our MPs really are a bunch of prize twits”, the Scottish edition of the Mail on Sunday today ran a critical piece on me and two parliamentary colleagues, Jo Swinson (LibDem, East Dunbartonshire) and Eric Joyce (Labour, Falkirk) for having the brass neck to Twitter from the Commons chamber.
It’s not available online (wiser heads prevailed, I presume), but the gist of the story is that we three have been “caught posting messages on the social networking site during PMQs.”
Caught? Doesn’t that imply a desire to avoid detection? I posted this Tweet last Wednesday in advance of PMQs. It automatically appeared on the front page of this blog — you know, the blog that many reporters read every day. Yet because this particular reporter accepted my open invitation to follow my Twitter feed on PMQs, he felt able to report:
In the middle of robust exchanges between Gordon Brown and David Cameron, Labour MPs Tom Harris and Eric Joyce and LibDem Jo Swinson were actively updating their followers with ‘tweets’ reporting the day’s events.
This is despite the fact that mobile phones, which can be used to post messages on Twitter, are banned from all but a few areas of the House.
Note the careful phrasing of that last line: “banned from all but a few areas of the House.” It’s intended to lead the reader to believe that phones are banned from the chamber itself, even though the reporter doesn’t explicitly say as much. In fact, mobile phones are now allowed in the chamber and I happen to know that the reporter did know that this was the case. How do I know that? Because I told him so when he called me at my constituency office on Friday.
In fact, the entire story is predicated on the assumption that using one’s mobile phone in the chamber is against the rules, otherwise there’s actually no story at all. Hence the deliberately vague wording above.
So, to recap:
1. Three Scottish MPs were Twittering during PMQs.
2. They were entirely open about their activities. I advertised the fact I would be doing so in advance.
3. Twittering during PMQs does not break any rules (unless you’re Twittering while asking or answering a question which, as far as I’m aware, hasn’t happened. Yet).
And I will continue to Twitter during PMQs whenever I can, as will Eric and Jo, I hope. If we were remotely worried about the kind of silly criticism we received today from the Mail on Sunday, we probably wouldn’t even be on Twitter at all. I can’t speak for my colleagues, but I think they would agree with me that if MPs can draw others into a political debate about PMQs or anything else using social media, then that is A Good Thing, however the media may wish to over-react or feign indignation.














Sunday 3 May 2009 at 8:06 pm
Tom, I don’t agree with you often, but I have to agree with you on this. Well done.
Sunday 3 May 2009 at 8:09 pm
I’ve actually been wishing a Tory MP would start Twittering PMQs – following you and Jo Swinson gives a distinctly leftie bias to the proceedings, it would be nice to have some balance in my Twitter Feed.
Any chance you could pull one of your honourable friends from the opposite bench to one side and inform them of this revolution in digital communication? It would be much appreciated in the cheap seats…
Sunday 3 May 2009 at 8:09 pm
They’re out of order, inferring that mobiles are banned in the Chamber – or maybe they’d prefer that MPs didn’t engage with the public, so that the public might (as if!) buy more papers to find out what’s going on in Parliament?
Sunday 3 May 2009 at 9:36 pm
The Mail’s story is ridiculous. PMQs would not be the same without your’s and Jo’s insight from the Chamber. Keep it up.
Sunday 3 May 2009 at 10:05 pm
It just sends out the wrong message, why attend if you are not interested in PMQs. You would never see a Tory doing this, they have manners
Sunday 3 May 2009 at 10:21 pm
I still don’t know what Twitter even is :*(
(Well, I do, it’s just that I find it a bit “pointless”… *shrugs*)
Journalists are being pretty stupid these days though, as this whole affair shows. Traditionally they rely on their hatchet jobs going unanswered, and thus their subtle pointing and hinting has the desired effect.
By going after someone with not only a blog, but a twitter feed that some readers of the article will no doubt seek out due to curiosity is pretty stupid. I mean, they are going after someone who CAN reply and distribute their reply easily to anyone who cares.
Idiots.
(Hi Tom btw! Haven’t been around too much lately due to work picking up. I think it’s safe to say there are “green shoots” in the housing market these days. I certainly seem to be opening a lot more conveyancing files these days than I have for a while at any rate.
Hope all is well with you and the other Harris’s!)
Monday 4 May 2009 at 12:01 am
Seems utterly bizzare to suggest that Twittering could be secret – by its nature it is the opposite.
Monday 4 May 2009 at 12:34 am
Yep; have to echo hat others have said here. I don’t often agree with you, and you’re still on my lump-of-coal list for being a weasel over the Gurkha disgrace, but I do agree with you on this.
We, the People deserve better service from our media than this. I know papers are printed to make money, and that is their prime reason d’être. But journalists are supposed to serve two masters; their editors who have to worry about circulation figures, but a greater master, that of the Truth. They are supposed to speak truth to power and the People.
Fail.
Monday 4 May 2009 at 12:57 am
no doubt you are the sort of person who chats on his mobile in the cinema.
i agree with johnny to the extent that if you are going to be twittering at PMQs then why be in the chamber? listen to it on the radio and twitter to your heart’s content, added advantage is that you won’t be distracting others.
however i do agree with you over the use of social media. all we disagree with is the time and place to do it.
Monday 4 May 2009 at 2:20 am
No story here. Move along. Tom is just passing the time before his next blog on why Hazel Blears wasn’t criticising Gordon Brown.
Monday 4 May 2009 at 11:35 am
While I absolutely agree with Tom that this Mail piece is rectal,and that he has absolutely nothing to be ashamed of, I have to admit to a certain unease about it.
Perhaps it’s something to do with the thought that an MP in the chamber should be giving his entire attention to the proceedings…on our behalf…no matter how boring.
Rather as I feel about MPs with dozens of jobs. Their minds could well be elsewhere.
Still, I admit I could easily be argued out of this position, particularly in Tom’s case.
Monday 4 May 2009 at 11:53 am
Tories don’t do it because they are largely old fogies in this thread or just want to criticise whatever, as it happens your “good friend” Carswell has blogged live from the Chamber during a debate to Conservative Home.
Basically you’re either in the 21st century or not. Most of the Tories aren’t.
Monday 4 May 2009 at 12:08 pm
Liberanos at 11.35: “Perhaps it’s something to do with the thought that an MP in the chamber should be giving his entire attention to the proceedings…on our behalf…no matter how boring”
Absolutely, and believe me, I pay a lot more attention to what’s happening, listening to each question, when I’m Twittering because I don’t want to post anything that’s inaccurate. And when I’m not Twittering, I’m much more easily distracted by colleagues. But when they see me typing into my iPhone, they tend to leave me alone.
Monday 4 May 2009 at 1:11 pm
Ah. Right. If you really are twitting about the proceedings, then yes, you clearly have to be aware of them.
My worry would be if you were just sharing jokes or twitting home.
You clearly weren’t.
Monday 4 May 2009 at 2:43 pm
[...] to Tom Harris, the Scottish version of the Hatemail on Sunday has published an article under the headline [...]
Leave a comment