I noticed a thing yesterday – that the government, or the civil service, have descended into the fray on Twitter to dispute claims about the way the Covid-19 debacle has been handled.
I think the fact that the govt. have decided to issue rebuttals and publish them on Twitter is a bad thing for a couple of reasons:
• By publishing a rebuttal to a news article in which the DHSC had a right of response, the govt. are starting a precedent. In the future, if they don’t publish a rebuttal, can we take it that the article is correct?
• Twitter is an egalitarian platform – meaning that if someone puts across a point of view, anyone can dispute that. Occasionally people quote their sources, but not always, and Twitter can be a very argumentative place where it is difficult to establish veracity
• The rebuttals that the DHSC (Department of Health and Social Care, under the Twitter handle @DHSC) have not really rebutted the articles; in fact, they have confirmed that the main claims are indeed true.
The first “rebuttal” I saw from @DHSC linked to this press release. Unfortunately, the release confirms most of the claims that the article in the Guardian made, i.e., that the army did help distribute stocks of PPE; that Movianto did store PPE temporarily in a smoke-damaged warehouse containing asbestos dust; that stock was stored in the aisles (albeit temporarily).
To my mind, publishing a link to this rebuttal on Twitter is almost inviting jeering and questioning, especially when the rebuttal is of such a questionable quality.
The second “rebuttal” was in response to an article in The Mirror which claimed that the NHS app collected care workers’ data for marketing and ads.
The DHSC, from the same Twitter account (@DHSC) responded that this claim was “factually wrong”, but of course this gave the right of reply to the Mirror journalists who responded: “The story is not factually wrong. The firm changed their privacy policy today, after we approached them for comment. Also, users of the app have been sent marketing materials over email. I enclose a screenshot.”
There is a third story involving Jen Williams and the Manchester Evening News here, and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (tweeting from the account @mhclg), where it seems that someone in an official capacity has yet again taken umbrage at what journalists are reporting.
Because of the way Twitter is set up, this looks like a discussion among equals, and each participant in the conversation can be given the same levels of respect and credibility. But it does seem that the rebuttals issued by the government either don’t rebut the claims they are intended to, or they can be quickly disproven.
From my perspective, it seems as though the government have indulged in a pointless attempt to steer the narrative around to their benefit, and it seems as though they have failed utterly. There is a phenomenon known as the Streisand Effect, where attempting to censor something can ensure it is discussed more widely. The govt. could have kept quiet in all three of these areas and attempted to appear above it all, but they chose instead to get down and dirty, and have thereby contaminated themselves.
Currently it seems the score is 3-0 to the journalists. Still, tomorrow’s another day, eh?
TTFN.
No comments:
Post a Comment