The Guardian gagging by libel firm Carter-Ruck is a perfect example of the power mass dissemination, democratisation and consumption of news. It is also an unfortunate example of how ‘traditional’ news organisations are failing to embrace the revolution this represents.
The guardian said this in the Monday’s Media Guardian:
The only fact the Guardian can report is that the case involves the London solicitors Carter-Ruck, who specialise in suing the media for clients, who include individuals or global corporations
By the next morning Trafigura was the number 1 trending topic on Twitter – literally the entire ‘twitosphere’ was discussing it.
And who do you think Trafigura is? Have a look at this afternoon’s guardian.co.uk post by David Leigh:
The existence of a previously secret injunction against the media by oil traders Trafigura can now be revealed.
Within the past hour Trafigura’s legal firm, Carter-Ruck, has withdrawn its opposition to the Guardian reporting proceedings in parliament that revealed its existence.
Labour MP Paul Farrelly put down a question yesterday to the justice secretary, Jack Straw. It asked about the injunction obtained by “Trafigura and Carter-Ruck solicitors on 11 September 2009 on the publication of the Minton Report on the alleged dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, commissioned by Trafigura”.
It was both the power that the appetite for the truth behind the gagged headline and the immunity from the notorious British Libel that the sheer numbers on twitter provided that enabled those who wanted to read and discuss the news to, well, read the news.
But they also created the news by commenting on and developing it as they tweeted, blogged and facebooked the story across the world. As Paul Canning has shown, even google maps are not immune from the information revolution:
I was particularly tickled by this someone proporting to be ‘Trafigura’s board of the directors’ posted on the google map listing for Carter Ruck:
I retained carter ruck to serve an injunction on the british press to hide a certain indescretion with a boat, some africans and toxic waste. While initially they seemed competent, the resulting fallout (pardon the pun) has been nothing short of toxic. (there I go, punning again). We would have been better off with the “Where there is blame there is a claim” merchants they show during the ads on Jeremy Kyles show. In summary, not at all happy with the service
And yet, despite the internet being a-buzz with speculation, it took the BBC over 14 hours to begin their coverage of the story. It smacked not just of caution over libel risk but also of arrogance. ‘The people’ had decided the story and set the agenda and the traditional institutions were required to play catch-up. Channel four barely alludes to the issue on its main page news webpage
More 4 News (who, to be fair to them did cover the twitter angle quite interestingly) said it all:
(Twitter users) who, unfettered by legal constraints were able to score a victory over traditional media by publishing every last detail. It’s no wonder the bloggers are cock-a-hoop because although newspapers and TV are no longer banned from reporting on the parliamentary question, we still can’t talk about the contents of a confidential report by chemicals expert John Minton which is at the heart of the controversy.
Most traditional media outlets haven’t figured out how to work with new media in a remotely effective and, crucially, financially fruitful way and so it seems, they are jealous. The image presented of social networkers ‘cock-a-hoop,’ delighting in their victory just proves how complete their misunderstanding is. The people were engaging not attacking and a good journalist would seize on the interest not deride it.
Twitter is growing at a rate of 1382% a year (from Feb. 08 to Feb. 09) while More 4 News and Channel Four’s news at noon are no more as of the New Year.
Rag Doll 