Rob Steen
Rob Steen Rob SteenRSS FeedFeeds  | Archives
Sportswriter and senior lecturer in sports journalism at the University of Brighton

Where do we draw the line on Twitter outbursts?

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

Rob Steen

April 24, 2013

Comments: 8 | Text size: A | A

A screen shot of a Twitter page
The Twitter age has lit a bonfire of the inanities © Getty Images
Enlarge

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.


Adil Rashid struggled again today, with his three overs costing 27, South Africa v England, 2nd ODI, Centurion, November 22, 2009
Adil Rashid: in the eye of a minor storm © PA Photos
Enlarge

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

RSS Feeds: Rob Steen

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by jackthelad on (April 24, 2013, 19:09 GMT)

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

Posted by 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.

Posted by 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

Posted by 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.

Posted by 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"

Posted by 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?

Comments have now been closed for this article

FeedbackTop
Email Feedback Print
Share
E-mail
Feedback
Print
Rob SteenClose
Rob Steen Rob Steen is a sportswriter and senior lecturer in sports journalism at the University of Brighton, whose books include biographies of Desmond Haynes and David Gower (Cricket Society Literary Award winner) and 500-1 - The Miracle of Headingley '81. His investigation for the Wisden Cricketer, "Whatever Happened to the Black Cricketer?", won the UK section of the 2005 EU Journalism Award "For diversity, against discrimination"

    'I learnt the importance of flight from Bishan'

My XI: Erapalli Prasanna on his partner in crime, Bishan Bedi

    Why Norman Tebbit was wrong

Rob Steen: So long as people's sporting affiliations do not assume racially abusive or violent form, who does it harm whether they support their national side or not?

    Catches, Moeen, and more

Switch Hit: The team reviews the 2014 county season

    'Kenya cricket is dead'

Aasif Karim's dream spell against Australia in 2003 symbolised a brief golden period for Kenya, but since his retirement, the country's cricket has nose-dived. By Tim Wigmore

Remembering Tony Greig, the allrounder

Stuart Wark: It's easy to forget that some popular commentators of our time were also excellent cricketers

News | Features Last 7 days

'Kenya cricket is dead and buried'

The veteran spinner's dream spell against Australia in 2003 symbolised a brief golden period for Kenya, but since his retirement, the country's cricket has nose-dived

Dhoni clears the stadium

Plays of the Day from the Champions League T20 match between Chennai Super Kings and Perth Scorchers, in Bangalore

'You can't survive 66 Tests on the basis of a quota'

Ashwell Prince talks about proving critics wrong, scoring hundreds against Australia, and that unending partnership in Colombo

Umar Akmal gives Raza the glare

Plays of the day from the CLT20 match between Dolphins and Lahore Lions in Bangalore

A hint of the vintage Sehwag

The Plays of the day from the CLT20 match between Kings XI Punjab and Northern Knights, in Mohali

News | Features Last 7 days