Ed Balls had a barbecue today. He ate hickory smoked pork shoulders. I bet you really wanted to know that, didn't you? He disclosed his culinary preferences, again (he had stir-fry on July 1st) through the medium of Twitter, which - alongside his impotent, "now look here" insistence that Fraser Nelson remove a Spectator blog post correctly demonstrating that he lied in an interview on the Today programme - just goes to show that he simply Doesn't Get The Internets.
For sure, there are people who share the pointless minutiae of their lives on Twitter, and this is normally the main criticism levied at it by people who don't really understand its primary purpose. For the majority, it's simply a quick and easy way to connect with other people - often those whose interests or specialisms are relevant to one's own - and, most importantly, share news, links and content in a highly time-sensitive manner. For me, Twitter acts as a sort of newsroom/feed reader/micro-blogging service/"ask the expert" hybrid. We also use it for various work projects - often as one way of providing customer support, finding others to work with, or engaging with potential customers.
Surely the most important currency of online engagement is authenticity. That does not necessarily mean revealing your personal identity, although it can help. It does, however, mean behaving appropriately, being consistent - and demonstrating credibility, transparency and truth in whatever you contribute. You are open to criticism from all sides - and from many other people who are often far more experienced and knowledgeable. There is very little point in bluffing or spin as the old rules no longer apply (and that includes attempting to bully bloggers into silence).
So this tweet:
"Quote from unnamed Political Staffer: 'My lot have all been told they have to create Twitter personalities'"
from Matt Wardman is really rather depressing. No-one wants to know who is buying what from Boots at lunchtime; or with whom they are socialising at the weekend. What we really want to know, for example, is how our political system can defend the indefensible - like Badman's utterly shoddy review into elective home education.
This document has attracted in-depth analysis and considered criticism from all angles, both nationally and internationally. Formal complaints are being made to the BRE, the UK Statistics Authority, and the DCSF Select Committee amongst others. Anyone producing such ill-founded, poorly researched and biased work must surely expect their professional reputation and ability to be questioned, critiqued and even satirised. But only in such a warped and incestuous system as ours would you expect such legitimate concerns, once vocalised, to be used as a basis upon which to consider turning down searching FOI requests under section 38 of the Freedom of Information Act, which:
"provides that information is exempt if its disclosure under the Act would, or would be likely, to
(a) endanger the physical or mental health of any individual; or
(b) endanger the safety of any individual."
I know that the DCSF is risk obsessed, but really? Is Graham Badman, with his track record of high profile positions in highly politicised environments, not to mention the provocative activity of his daughter on home education Facebook groups, really so vulnerable and in need of protection? Apparently so. The DSCF is:
"aware that attempts are being made on the Internet to vilify and harass the author of the review. It is the Department's view that, whilst dealing with each request on its merits, this situation will have to be taken into account in dealing with any relevant FOI requests. We therefore consider that section 38 is engaged in respect of all the submissions you have requested. In balancing the public interest we anticipate the need to consider whether it is in the public interest to release information likely to intensify any such campaign, or to lead to harassment or distress to individuals."
Or is it simply engaging in a pathetic game of bureacratic tit-for-tat which is, quite frankly, laughable?
If you want to read information prepared by an "expert", by all means go here. It'll tell you all you need to know about his personal prejudices and lack of academic rigour. If you want to read information prepared by real experts, then go here to AHEd. What's more, these people didn't trough their way through tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money in the process; money which the DCSF treats rather too comfortably as its own.
Also covered at: Corvidae Corner, Dare to Know, Grit's day
