April 24, 2013

Where do we draw the line on Twitter outbursts?

Increasingly, if a tad incongruously, words are arousing as much fury as misdeeds

Tricky blighter, freedom of speech: lovely notion, complex reality. As principles go, it's as slimy as a snake soaked in suncream. One man's freedom is another man's outrage. Hypocrisy comes easy. Of course you should be perfectly within your rights to say whatever you wish - so long as you're not an extremist or fundamentalist, or have the gall to disagree with us sensible, reasonable fellows.

Thus it was with John Mooney, hitherto best known for sealing an improbable victory for Ireland over England in the World Twenty20. Had he dispatched his now infamous tweet - "I hope it was slow and painful" - about the death of Hugo Chavez, say, rather than Margaret Thatcher, it is unthinkable that it would have ricocheted beyond a few Dublin bars. As it was, Mooney was upbraided in the media, scolded publicly by his employers and compelled to apologise. Now he's been suspended for three matches.

Yet surely Mooney had every right to voice his views. Being a Dubliner, after all, scarcely disqualifies you from sympathising with the plight under Thatcher of the Northern Irish, let alone the mainland's disenfranchised and disadvantaged. That one should forgive the evil dead has always struck me as rather perverse. And judging by the parties that followed her demise, not to mention the invasion of the pop charts by three versions of Judy Garland's Wizard of Oz ditty "Ding Dong! The Witch Is Dead", it seems fair to say Mooney is far from being the only UK citizen who regards Thatcher as evil.

Increasingly, if a tad incongruously, words are arousing as much fury as misdeeds. How much easier it now is for us to express ourselves to the world at large, to tap or type than engage our brain or conscience, to turn a stream-of-consciousness rant of minimal import into a page lead, then write a column banging on about the shallowness of celebrities. The Twitter age has lit a bonfire of the inanities. Thinking in terms of 140 characters rather than words or spelling or punctuation was never going to enhance the cause of written English, but there's far more to all this than literary snobbery and grammatical tyranny.

"It's time to work on your interviews… You gonna have to learn your clichés." Thus does Kevin Costner's ageing slugger "Crash" Davis open an instructional talk to rookie pitcher "Nuke" LaLoosh in Ron Shelton's 1988 homage to minor league baseball, Bull Durham, one of the funniest and most perceptive of all sporting movies. Whereupon "Crash" reels off a list:

We gotta play them one day at a time… I'm just happy to be here… hope I can help the ball club… I just wanna give it my best shot, and the good Lord willing, things will work out.

When "Nuke" moans that it's all a bit, y'know, boring, "Crash" informs him that that's exactly what it's meant to be. Call it the art of saying nothing - or at least nothing that could possibly upset the boss. Call it freedom of conformity.

The Twitterati, thankfully, are shifting the furniture. Liberated from the repressive leash of press officers, cliché-steeped sportsfolk now use social media to cut out the middlemen, bypassing club, print and TV and communicating directly with anyone possessing the vaguest interest in their utterances. Kept at bay by those self-same press officers and official websites, journalists are on perpetual Twitter-watch to obtain unmanicured, uncensored quotes. What ensues is largely a torrent of the banal, the blinkered and the blindingly obvious, worthy of note only because they emanate from a celebrity.

How much easier it now is for us to express ourselves to the world at large, to tap or type than engage our brain or conscience, to turn a stream-of-consciousness rant of minimal import into a page lead, then write a column banging on about the shallowness of celebrities

Exceptions, refreshingly, are on the rise. Witness the expanding ranks of American baseballers and basketballers now tweeting their take on racial and political issues, fully cognisant that their pockets could suffer. Witness, too, Javi Poves, once a defender with the Spanish f***ball club Sporting Gijon, who in tweeting his retirement in 2011 described his trade as "putrid" and "corrupt". To continue in this "circus", he declaimed, would betray his principles: "Footballers are valued too much by our society compared to others who should be the true heroes. The system is based on being sheep and the best way to control them is to have a population without culture."

The downside of the Twitter Age was clear in the recent landmark case involving Chris Cairns and Lalit Modi, wherein the latter's allegations of match-fixing against the former New Zealand captain foundered due to absence of evidence. "The allegation is not as serious as one of involvement in terrorism or sexual offences," admitted Justice Bean before ordering the erstwhile IPL commissioner to stump up £90,000 in damages. "But it is otherwise as serious an allegation as anyone could make against a professional sportsman." At the time of tweeting, crucially, Modi was clearly suffering from hubris. "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose," reckoned Kris Kristofferson; Modi's freedom was that of a man drunk on power, on imagined invincibility.

Views diverge, sometimes within the same office. In September 2011, Steve Elworthy, head of marketing at the England and Wales Cricket Board, asserted that "the general awareness" of the national team had never been higher, attributing this in good measure to "digital media such as Facebook and Twitter allowing followers to get closer to their heroes". Come the following summer's annual Kevin Pietersen eruption, Elworthy's boss Hugh Morris, managing director of Team England, decried Twitter as "a complete and utter nightmare for those of us trying to manage and lead teams", likening it to "giving a machine-gun to a monkey".

It was the deceptive freedoms facilitated by social media that dragged the Pietersen spat out of the dressing room and thrust it into our inboxes. Maybe that's what Twitter has become - an access-all-areas pass of Tower of Babelian proportions, where the lines between private and public are not so much blurred as eradicated. Nor does it help, of course, when the authorities play their traditional get-out-of-jail-free card and shoot the messenger.

It may have stemmed from a more conventional source - an interview - but the recent minor furore over Adil Rashid is a pathetic case in point. In late January, when Richard Rae pressed "record" in a café at Headingley, the Yorkshire and former England legspinner, star painfully on the wane, bemoaned the way he felt he'd been sidelined ("How can I not be bowling well enough when I'm hardly bowling at all?"). All pointed to a young man getting something extremely lumpy off his chest.

Then the magazine that commissioned Rae repeatedly delayed its next issue and, at length, he sold the story to the Cricket Paper and the Independent: it had a limited shelf life. When the quotes were finally published a fortnight ago, on the eve of a new County Championship campaign, Yorkshire complained, claiming it was the first they'd heard of Rashid's dissatisfaction; then the player backtracked; both blamed the newspapers and hence Rae.

To fully contextualise the Mooney episode, however, consider what was proffered for public consumption before this year's Super Bowl by one Chris Culliver. First, the San Francisco 49er burnished his image as a sexist of the highest order by tweeting something wholly unseemly about the female menstrual cycle. Then, asked if he would ever accept a gay team-mate, he replied: "No, we don't got no gay people on the team… they gotta get up out of here if they do. Can't be with that sweet stuff."

The ensuing stink obliged Culliver to issue what Dave Zirin, US sportswriting's conscience-in-chief, described, with all due scepticism, as "the finest, most heartfelt apology a 49er public relations intern ever had to write". Not that the 49ers punished their asset too severely, insisting merely that he undergo "sensitivity training". A few days ago, such complicity received its due when the club announced that Culliver was being "handled internally": questions had been raised about his Instagram account, through which he posted a text conversation in which women were referred to as "bitches" and "hoes".

Culliver might have concluded that, in an era when - to tweak that imperishable Adam and the Ants hit - notoriety is nothing to be scared of, it pays to cause offence. He wouldn't be the first. Yet if freedom of speech is to be anything other than a one-sided, one-eyed deal, affirming Mooney's right to vent his spleen surely means affording Culliver the same hard-won privilege, however grievously he offends our sense of right and wrong. That Culliver got away with it the first time says less about him than his employers.

Professional sport has its own take on freedom of speech: there are rules, contractual obligations, fines and suspensions to keep players in check and sponsors sweet. We all have our prejudices. According to mine, Culliver deserves to have the book thrown at him; Mooney didn't.

But if we're drawing a line, where do we draw it? At the ubiquitously slippery "bringing the game into disrepute"? Define disrepute. You would have thought sexism and homophobia are now the very definition of disreputable, but the 49ers, and the NFL, evidently deem otherwise. What about the morals of staging a Grand Prix in Bahrain, or those filthy-rich club owners who put bottom lines before glory? Or those who stirred up the civil war now engulfing New Zealand cricket?

Perhaps the question needs rephrasing. Can the words of batsmen or linebackers really bring our games into any more disrepute than those who seek to curb their often excusably immature excesses?

Rob Steen is a sportswriter and senior lecturer in sports journalism at the University of Brighton

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Nutcutlet on April 24, 2013, 8:03 GMT

    Shakespeare calls Reason 'the pauser' in Macbeth (Act 2, scene 3). It is not in the make up of sportsmen to make much -- or any -- use of 'the pauser' (cricket captaincy should be the exception) as their whole conditioning is to trust to their innate ability to do, perform in the instant, with thinking relegated to an after-thought, if it happens at all. And so it is with the all-too-ready sporting celeb (or wannabe celeb) Twitterati. Get it out there. Keep my name bright with lots of tweety polishing. And then it boomerangs, often painfully. Mooney could have seen it coming back to bite had he used the pauser, but still I like the openness of his nature to share his uncensored thinking. Perhaps this is the beginning of the age of frankness, the demise of hypocrisy & cant. But first there have to be martyrs, as there always are at the dawn of a revolution.

  • Marktc on April 24, 2013, 5:33 GMT

    A complex issue this is. The reality of the matter is sportsman have become well paid celebrities...whether they like it or not. With this comes a certain amount of responsibly...to their country, their clubs, their fans and supporters. Social networking can do wonders for your popularity if you use it correctly. Just as using it to vent your deep seated anger and prejudices will come to bite you. Granted freedom of speech should be your right, but this is when maturity steps in and you think of the repercussions of of you messages. Do sports people need to be help accountable for what they release to the public- of course. I have always maintained that if you want riches and fame, then you have to realise the sacrifices that comes with this. As a public figure, your words are more likely to be used and spread..so choose them wisely. Yes, controversy sell, no doubt there. But is there any need to be openly prejudice. Sorry is only believed by a few.

  • jackthelad on April 24, 2013, 19:09 GMT

    There is a provision under British Law called 'fair comment', and nothing Mooney said transgresses that.

  • jackthelad on April 24, 2013, 18:46 GMT

    I'll tell you where we draw the line - where it becomes an infringement on personal liberty to publically say anything at all. It seems we have reached this point, and the 'nannie minders' of cricket need to remember that they are dealing with grown-up individuals, many of whom (hide your ears!) have brains and opinions. Ok, many of them are daft young eejits too, but when comes the day (and it is coming) that we have to fear the Powers that Be because we publicise our opinions (ah - I do it all the time, whether you want or like it or not) then there are serious - very serious - questions to ask about the viability of 'democracy'. This is a tiny case and a tiny drop in the ocean, but we should take this nonsense on board and work against the drift to stifle free comment.

  • hhillbumper on April 24, 2013, 10:14 GMT

    Adil Rashid needs to grow up and show some fight.He seems to pout and moan at every chance and can't believe he was ever chosen for England

  • addyblaze on April 24, 2013, 5:40 GMT

    Great piece, I look forward to every single one of your articles. Social media in general has led to a significant degeneration of the quality of content we consume. Our fundamental rights have never been anything more than an illusion and are left to the interpretation of those who 'enforce' them. We value sportspersons for their sporting ability, not their journalistic flair. The ones who can, in fact, write, don't use Twitter to spew nonsense. I'm not entirely sure I'm keen on banal 140 character rants about flatulence, homosexuality or a nice apple pie. Mooney had no reason to be admonished. That was ridiculous, unethical, moral policing at it's worst. As far the game being in disrepute is concerned, it being in repute is what shocks me more.

  • SouthPaw on April 24, 2013, 5:31 GMT

    A very well argued post. It is time that politicians, sportspeople and other public figures think seriously about getting themselves some "sensitivity training"

  • TheOnlyEmperor on April 24, 2013, 5:11 GMT

    Twitter is increasingly used a medium where most people give vent to their trolling thoughts which the media uses to sensationalize. There's no need to draw the line. If you don't like what a person has to say ignore the person and the content. Most evolved celebrities and others stay out of this sort of a medium altogether... after all why associate with something if it gives you anguish instead of joy?

  • Nutcutlet on April 24, 2013, 8:03 GMT

    Shakespeare calls Reason 'the pauser' in Macbeth (Act 2, scene 3). It is not in the make up of sportsmen to make much -- or any -- use of 'the pauser' (cricket captaincy should be the exception) as their whole conditioning is to trust to their innate ability to do, perform in the instant, with thinking relegated to an after-thought, if it happens at all. And so it is with the all-too-ready sporting celeb (or wannabe celeb) Twitterati. Get it out there. Keep my name bright with lots of tweety polishing. And then it boomerangs, often painfully. Mooney could have seen it coming back to bite had he used the pauser, but still I like the openness of his nature to share his uncensored thinking. Perhaps this is the beginning of the age of frankness, the demise of hypocrisy & cant. But first there have to be martyrs, as there always are at the dawn of a revolution.

  • Marktc on April 24, 2013, 5:33 GMT

    A complex issue this is. The reality of the matter is sportsman have become well paid celebrities...whether they like it or not. With this comes a certain amount of responsibly...to their country, their clubs, their fans and supporters. Social networking can do wonders for your popularity if you use it correctly. Just as using it to vent your deep seated anger and prejudices will come to bite you. Granted freedom of speech should be your right, but this is when maturity steps in and you think of the repercussions of of you messages. Do sports people need to be help accountable for what they release to the public- of course. I have always maintained that if you want riches and fame, then you have to realise the sacrifices that comes with this. As a public figure, your words are more likely to be used and spread..so choose them wisely. Yes, controversy sell, no doubt there. But is there any need to be openly prejudice. Sorry is only believed by a few.

  • jackthelad on April 24, 2013, 19:09 GMT

    There is a provision under British Law called 'fair comment', and nothing Mooney said transgresses that.

  • jackthelad on April 24, 2013, 18:46 GMT

    I'll tell you where we draw the line - where it becomes an infringement on personal liberty to publically say anything at all. It seems we have reached this point, and the 'nannie minders' of cricket need to remember that they are dealing with grown-up individuals, many of whom (hide your ears!) have brains and opinions. Ok, many of them are daft young eejits too, but when comes the day (and it is coming) that we have to fear the Powers that Be because we publicise our opinions (ah - I do it all the time, whether you want or like it or not) then there are serious - very serious - questions to ask about the viability of 'democracy'. This is a tiny case and a tiny drop in the ocean, but we should take this nonsense on board and work against the drift to stifle free comment.

  • hhillbumper on April 24, 2013, 10:14 GMT

    Adil Rashid needs to grow up and show some fight.He seems to pout and moan at every chance and can't believe he was ever chosen for England

  • addyblaze on April 24, 2013, 5:40 GMT

    Great piece, I look forward to every single one of your articles. Social media in general has led to a significant degeneration of the quality of content we consume. Our fundamental rights have never been anything more than an illusion and are left to the interpretation of those who 'enforce' them. We value sportspersons for their sporting ability, not their journalistic flair. The ones who can, in fact, write, don't use Twitter to spew nonsense. I'm not entirely sure I'm keen on banal 140 character rants about flatulence, homosexuality or a nice apple pie. Mooney had no reason to be admonished. That was ridiculous, unethical, moral policing at it's worst. As far the game being in disrepute is concerned, it being in repute is what shocks me more.

  • SouthPaw on April 24, 2013, 5:31 GMT

    A very well argued post. It is time that politicians, sportspeople and other public figures think seriously about getting themselves some "sensitivity training"

  • TheOnlyEmperor on April 24, 2013, 5:11 GMT

    Twitter is increasingly used a medium where most people give vent to their trolling thoughts which the media uses to sensationalize. There's no need to draw the line. If you don't like what a person has to say ignore the person and the content. Most evolved celebrities and others stay out of this sort of a medium altogether... after all why associate with something if it gives you anguish instead of joy?

  • TheOnlyEmperor on April 24, 2013, 5:11 GMT

    Twitter is increasingly used a medium where most people give vent to their trolling thoughts which the media uses to sensationalize. There's no need to draw the line. If you don't like what a person has to say ignore the person and the content. Most evolved celebrities and others stay out of this sort of a medium altogether... after all why associate with something if it gives you anguish instead of joy?

  • SouthPaw on April 24, 2013, 5:31 GMT

    A very well argued post. It is time that politicians, sportspeople and other public figures think seriously about getting themselves some "sensitivity training"

  • addyblaze on April 24, 2013, 5:40 GMT

    Great piece, I look forward to every single one of your articles. Social media in general has led to a significant degeneration of the quality of content we consume. Our fundamental rights have never been anything more than an illusion and are left to the interpretation of those who 'enforce' them. We value sportspersons for their sporting ability, not their journalistic flair. The ones who can, in fact, write, don't use Twitter to spew nonsense. I'm not entirely sure I'm keen on banal 140 character rants about flatulence, homosexuality or a nice apple pie. Mooney had no reason to be admonished. That was ridiculous, unethical, moral policing at it's worst. As far the game being in disrepute is concerned, it being in repute is what shocks me more.

  • hhillbumper on April 24, 2013, 10:14 GMT

    Adil Rashid needs to grow up and show some fight.He seems to pout and moan at every chance and can't believe he was ever chosen for England

  • jackthelad on April 24, 2013, 18:46 GMT

    I'll tell you where we draw the line - where it becomes an infringement on personal liberty to publically say anything at all. It seems we have reached this point, and the 'nannie minders' of cricket need to remember that they are dealing with grown-up individuals, many of whom (hide your ears!) have brains and opinions. Ok, many of them are daft young eejits too, but when comes the day (and it is coming) that we have to fear the Powers that Be because we publicise our opinions (ah - I do it all the time, whether you want or like it or not) then there are serious - very serious - questions to ask about the viability of 'democracy'. This is a tiny case and a tiny drop in the ocean, but we should take this nonsense on board and work against the drift to stifle free comment.

  • jackthelad on April 24, 2013, 19:09 GMT

    There is a provision under British Law called 'fair comment', and nothing Mooney said transgresses that.

  • Marktc on April 24, 2013, 5:33 GMT

    A complex issue this is. The reality of the matter is sportsman have become well paid celebrities...whether they like it or not. With this comes a certain amount of responsibly...to their country, their clubs, their fans and supporters. Social networking can do wonders for your popularity if you use it correctly. Just as using it to vent your deep seated anger and prejudices will come to bite you. Granted freedom of speech should be your right, but this is when maturity steps in and you think of the repercussions of of you messages. Do sports people need to be help accountable for what they release to the public- of course. I have always maintained that if you want riches and fame, then you have to realise the sacrifices that comes with this. As a public figure, your words are more likely to be used and spread..so choose them wisely. Yes, controversy sell, no doubt there. But is there any need to be openly prejudice. Sorry is only believed by a few.

  • Nutcutlet on April 24, 2013, 8:03 GMT

    Shakespeare calls Reason 'the pauser' in Macbeth (Act 2, scene 3). It is not in the make up of sportsmen to make much -- or any -- use of 'the pauser' (cricket captaincy should be the exception) as their whole conditioning is to trust to their innate ability to do, perform in the instant, with thinking relegated to an after-thought, if it happens at all. And so it is with the all-too-ready sporting celeb (or wannabe celeb) Twitterati. Get it out there. Keep my name bright with lots of tweety polishing. And then it boomerangs, often painfully. Mooney could have seen it coming back to bite had he used the pauser, but still I like the openness of his nature to share his uncensored thinking. Perhaps this is the beginning of the age of frankness, the demise of hypocrisy & cant. But first there have to be martyrs, as there always are at the dawn of a revolution.