Politicians and Twitter

Boris and Sarah Brown need to refine their "twattergy"

It has often been predicted that our political class's engagement with new media will end in tears, and Sarah Brown and Boris Johnson will both be refining their "twattergy" (a composite of Twitter and strategy) after this week.

Brown's son hijacked her Twitter account in order to the post the following:

fvdfzsrsazxzzxcvbnmadgfhjjkqwrtyuuuiop

The rogue tweet came just days before Gordon Brown launched an initiative on children and internet safety. Speaking yesterday at the launch, Brown said the "message of gobbledegook" had taught him a "big lesson" about the need for supervision.

Over at the Media Blog, Malcolm Coles scents a conspiracy:

[D]id Gordon Brown get his wife to send a deliberately gibberish tweet so he could tell a funny story a week later about their son hitting the keys while they weren't watching?

Meanwhile, Boris has been formally reprimanded after using his official mayoral Twitter account for party political purposes. On the day the Sun defected to the Tories, he tweeted: "The sun has got his hat on, hip hip hip hip hooray".

By continuing to tweet and winning nearly 59,000 followers, Boris is stealing a march on David Cameron, who, despite embracing new media with WebCameron, has persistently refused to join Twitter.

It's likely that Twitterphobic politicians will be further discouraged by the experience of Labour's "Twitter tsar" Kerry McCarthy, who was bombarded with more than 100 questions at the request of the comedian Ross Noble. We now breathlessly await McCarthy's appearance at parliament in a gorilla suit.

Asked by one user if she would wear the costume, she replied: "I don't think it's expressly forbidden. I could give it a try?"

 

You can, of course, follow the New Statesman team on Twitter

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

New Statesman
Show Hide image

Quiz: Can you identify fake news?

The furore around "fake" news shows no sign of abating. Can you spot what's real and what's not?

Hillary Clinton has spoken out today to warn about the fake news epidemic sweeping the world. Clinton went as far as to say that "lives are at risk" from fake news, the day after Pope Francis compared reading fake news to eating poop. (Side note: with real news like that, who needs the fake stuff?)

The sweeping distrust in fake news has caused some confusion, however, as many are unsure about how to actually tell the reals and the fakes apart. Short from seeing whether the logo will scratch off and asking the man from the market where he got it from, how can you really identify fake news? Take our test to see whether you have all the answers.

 

 

In all seriousness, many claim that identifying fake news is a simple matter of checking the source and disbelieving anything "too good to be true". Unfortunately, however, fake news outlets post real stories too, and real news outlets often slip up and publish the fakes. Use fact-checking websites like Snopes to really get to the bottom of a story, and always do a quick Google before you share anything. 

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.