Law is meant to serve our needs, not the other way around.

I contend (no research, y’see) that most Twitter users would see a tweet as ephemeral chit-chat rather than An Act Of Publication. And in ephemeral chit-chat, if we offend someone then we usually apologise. Or ignore it and move on.

While technically we might defame someone in a conversation at a pub, if their response was to call in the lawyers we’d probably think they were even more of a tool. We’d tell them to get over themselves and move on. And, except in the case of narcissists and other obsessives, it’d all soon be forgotten.

But what happens now that ephemeral conversations are not forgotten, but recorded forever and, potentially, quoted out of context years later? Where the original context might have been ironic rather than literal? As a society, do we really want to start applying those big sticks to trifling little insults?

Conversely, do we want to slam as “unprofessional” anyone who’s ever said something they later regret, just because now it won’t fade from public record? If so, we wouldn’t have a single person left in the media industry — or any other industry for that matter.

Time to adjust to a new reality, I reckon. If we can.

It is still open to the same rules of society and the same laws of defamation and libel.

So i would be very careful about calling someone a ‘complete slut’, even if that is how you feel at that point in time.

Thanks for your comment.

I think the ‘lazy journos’ view when press releases are recycled is itself something of a lazy stereotype.

From what I’ve seen of it, this tends to happen when there is simply not enough resource. Journos are expected to produce a great deal of content, so they have to cut corners to get it out.

Even if time available means they are producing an inferior product, most journalists are working harder than ever before. But lazy doesn’t come into it.

Cheers,

Tim – Mumbrella

Yes, we all have some new social rules to learn — but in the long run I actually think it’s A Good Thing that we start presenting one, unified face to the world, not a split personality of an all-roses-and-rainbows but ultimately dishonest “professional” face on the one hand, and a separate, honest face that we reserve for our friends on the other.

What’s pathetic is that the anonymous person who posted the random Twitter grabs didn’t have the spine to post under their own name.

The rest of your Twitter comments are not really an issue, just an expression of what was happening and how the situation made you feel. Maybe a bit tactless, but no crime.

But the “complete slut” and “Asian sweatshop” remarks are downright rude, churlish, aggressive and offensive – equally so that you think those are acceptable.

How would you feel if a PR posted similar comments about you and your magazine, trashing your brand and reputation? Would you feel aggrieved if the PR shrugged and said he/she was “more than comfortable with my conduct”? I think not.

So, in the light of Pru’s apology to Jason on behalf of her fellow PRs, as a journalist I would like to apologise to PRs for those remarks of Jason.

I’ve written a wholly positive piece on this particular company; any bad PR that comes from this is entirely their own doing.

In the hubris of a piece in which you challenge PR people’s skills, you have been hung out to dry by your own PR petard.

In a double whammy, it is ironic that some low-level investigative blog-journalism has tripped you, a journalist, up so publicly. It’s not a shame, it’s an internet blog.

There may be some empathy about your points, but you increasingly appear on the back foot about them.

Which is what PR is all about…

IF a company demands to see copy, we make it very clear this affords them the right to amend FACTUAL ERRORS ONLY. Any changes they make are mere suggestions; I feel no obligation to change anything if I don’t feel it’s warranted. I make that clear up front. What goes to print is MY story each time.

It’s less than ideal but sometimes you have to play that game in b2b. And if you draw clear lines and maintain your right to reject any changes they think are necessary then I’m reasonably comfortable with how it works. Until the corporate communications department decides to play rough, that is….

Kind of a shame that “Anonymous” has dug up my personal Twitter stream demonstrating my frustration with a particular matter (with tongue firmly planted in cheek, clearly) rather than add to what is a good debate on the relationship between journalism and PR and how both sides need to manage this. I think the example I have is a really instructive case on how NOT to manage media relations. I’m more than comfortable with my conduct.

http://twitter.com/thetowncrier

6:17 AM Apr 29th from TweetDeck in reply to SnarkyPlatypusI am so FED UP WITH BEING TOLD WHAT TO DO BY CORPORATE PR HACKS!! I DON’T OWN SHARES, I DON’T CARE ABOUT YOUR SHARE PRICE. FUCK OFF.
6:08 AM Apr 29th from TweetDeck in reply to wolfcatFor the record, I’ve heard Jennifer is a complete slut and everything at Myer is made in Asian sweat shops. Just so you know.
6:06 AM Apr 29th from TweetDeck Now I have the entire Myer corporation on my ass worried their contract with little Miss Universe could be under threat. Seriously.
6:05 AM Apr 29th from TweetDeck Seems Jennifer didn’t think on the cover of Australasia’s premier logistics management publication was a good portfolio piece…
6:04 AM Apr 29th from TweetDeck Had some wacky experiences working in b2b. Could write a book. But this might be wackiest yet: apparently I’ve pissed off Jennifer Hawkins.