Those of you who know me know I love me my Twitter. I am an avid twitterer (tweeter? twit?) and reader of the live feed. Among my subscriptions are @SarahPalinUSA and @daveweigel, @glenngreenwald and @larrysabato. I even follow @fivethirtyeight.
So it was with interest that I read about this case from Australia, which shows the perils of liveblogging with Twitter. As you know, liveblogging is one of the most dynamic forms of blogging and it’s exciting and fun. We did it on Election Night and had a blast. Using Twitter to establish a liveblog is one of the best ways to liveblog, and I never thought about how it might go wrong.
The present Australian case has all the great tropes: a villianous Old Media mogul, a burned-out reporter giving her One Last Scoop with a Bile Topping, and just for you, Mister Universe, global warming deniers. In short, man vs man, man vs nature, and man vs himself. Faulkner would’ve been proud.
Jonathan Holmes does such a great job of summarizing the facts of the case, I’m not going to do that here. Go to his Australian Broadcasting Company (ABC) blog, have a read, then come back here and make a comment. Or two or three.
We even have some attorneys here who might be able to opine on the legal ramifications of the case. Knowing that Commonwealth libel law is quite different from US libel law, could something like this happen here?