Question Time shows how Dick Griffin can be beaten

The most encouraging sign emerging from last night's Question Time was that it has shown that the BNP can be beaten through debate.

Griffin was uncomfortable, uncertain of his own policies, exposed for having no idea of British history, not even sure of his own past and branded a 'thoroughly deceptive man'.

The audience - more impressive than any politician - tore his agenda apart with the mainstream media this morning picking over his support for the KKK, his repulsion at homosexuality ("the feeling is mutual" said one excellent lesbian audience member) and how, according to the Independent, he 'choked on the oxygen of publicity'.

Even the Daily Mail, Express, Sun and Star were united with the Mirror and quality press in their damning headlines this morning. Even Sky News have finally managed to stop treating "Dick - sorry Nick - Griffin" (another audience member) as a neo-celebrity in its reporting.

But while the BNP performance coupled with the headlines this morning will not have helped win new support, Griffin may have felt the party landed some important punches on mainstream politics this week.

The squabble about immigration on Question Time will not have re-assured any wavering voters inclined to vote on this issue - something Labour, Tories and Lib Dems must sort out rapidly. For such an important topic in beating the BNP, the three parties should agree a common line.

And against an almost united studio and media, the victim card may have cut through and helped galvanise his existing support base.

But (as I've argued below) last night's TV showed that when its ideas are debated, the BNP have no answers and nowhere to turn, other than in blatant lies, racism and homophobia. As Margaret Hodge MP suggested on Channel 4 News, when the debate is had, the BNP are exposed to voters as a nasty, hollow, violent party.

Mainstream politics does need to get its act together with clear messages which deal with the issues, a united approach and support from the public, but the BNP can be beaten and last night was a good start.

TweetMobs will not always be a power for good

There have been more words written subsequent to the Jan Moir article on Stephen Gately's death than she's ever written in her life. So there's no need for me to recount how error ridden her article and subsequent reply are (Charlie Brooker in the Guardian, Daniel Finklestein in the Times and even Janet Street Porter in the Mail give some of the best responses).

Even the freedom of speech debate is now well trodden (on right wing blogs and this morning's Wright Stuff). Moir should have the opportunity to express herself (she should get a blog), but the Daily Mail should not have printed such erroneous and PCC violating information.

But both Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and the Telegraph's Damian Thompson get closer to the most worrying issue.

The PCC may act, the Mail may lose advertisers, distribution channels or even sales, but what those of us tempted to rejoice must consider is what happens when the boot is on the other foot.

Just as a TweetMob has been created (if you scroll though What The Hashtag it's clear it's not just a few celebrities or gay activists behind this campaign) around Jan Moir and Trafigura, so – in time – will such a campaign rally round a more worrying debate.

An illegal immigrant kills a young mother leads to calls for mass deportation, a suspected pedophile is lynched by a TweetMob after his address is posted then found to be a pediatrician, a high profile gay celebrity is found cruising on Hampstead Heath as a class on a school trip pass by leads to a TweetMob calling for total CCTV cover and 24/7 policing of our parks.

We should never assume that a TweetMob will always be a power for good.

And given that, the question for those who have taken part in the more recent TweetMobs (and for those working in public relations) is how do you fight back against one?

That's a blog for the future...

Daily Mail Demonstrates Its Ugly Side (Again)

Two blogs in a week. The world is obviously taking a turn for the worse.

Jan Moir and the Daily Mail are the focus of my indignation today. Most notably the article today suggesting how Stephen Gately died because he was gay. Horrid woman.

Anyway, thanks to my pals on Twitter, it's been pointed out this is in clear breach of the PCC Code. So please complain away.

I reckon, this article is in clear breach of:
1) Accuracy. The coroners report clearly states natural causes - not being homosexual caused Gately's death
5) Intrusion into grief. Clearly this article is designed to hurt the grieving family of the deceased.
12) Discrimination. The author is clearly homophobic.

But there may be other breaches!

Trafigura, Twitter and the questions for PRs

I'll cut to the chase - those who haven't read up on Twitter vs. Trafigura/Carter Ruck only have to read the just one the Guardian's articles on the scandal to realise the case has implications for PR.

Will Jordan has started discussing this, but I think it raises five key questions for PRs, which certainly weren't discussed in PR Week's brief coverage of the issue this morning.

1) Will this become a case study of how not to act reputationally in the social media age.
Has there been a more spectacular transformation from a company which was virtually unknown to one with a reputation as a toxic waste dumper and destroyer of free speech in a matter of 24 hours?

2) What was the role of PR in the situation - Bell Pottinger's denials in PR Week are being questioned by The Guardian?

3) Regardless of BP's role. This is more important - where do PRs and lobbyists start to get involved in these legal proceedings? Is a case for the Law Society and the CIPR to investigate best practice and provide guidance?

4) Every PR needs to think about how they would have acted in the situation. Where does protecting a client and their right to representation become more important than protecting free speech? And do we need to look again at the 'whistleblowing' protection PRs have in this circumstance (membership of NUJ or CIPR looks more attractive by the minute)?

5) Finally, what is the resonance of this campaign? Sure PROs and the twitterati have heard of it, but has it resonated with the public? And what is the likely impact on Trafigura as a business?

And apart from these initial questions - what next?
Yes, Twitter has helped protect democracy and free speech - but should we as a nation really need to rely on Twitter to play this role? Will this mean new legislation to counter the actions of some lawyers - and what is the lobbying industry's thoughts on how big business will react to this?