BBC mis-quotes Paul Chambers Twitter Joke Trial tweet, presumably because electrons cost lots of money
As reported by David Allen Green at New Statesman, The High Court is unable to agree on the Twitter Joke Trial appeal. Chambers was convicted by Doncaster Magistrates’ Court under section 127(1) of the Communications Act for sending a ‘menacing’ communication—a tweet. In the short article, he notes:
A split divisional court is exceptional, and it appears that this may be only the second time it has happened this century.
Something that’s less exceptional is news organisations continually misquoting the original tweet. Here it is in its entirety, courtesy of The Guardian:
Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!!
Note a few things here. There’s the opening word: “Crap!” If you’re being a menace with intent to blow something up, it’s safe to say you probably won’t start with that word. If you’re writing a goofy tweet, in part due to your frustration at an airport being closed, on the other hand… There’s that double exclamation point at the end, just to nail home the fact this is a joke. And there’s the fact that it’s very obviously a joke, unless you’re some kind of bone-headed simpleton.
So well done, BBC News, for misquoting the tweet yet again [UPDATE: After quite a lot of fuss online, the article was updated at about 5pm UK time, including the swearing but still omitting the second exclamation mark. However, plenty of sources picked up on the BBC News report and haven’t updated their copy, so much of the damage remains. UPDATE UPDATE: The BBC presumably kicked to death a sub-editor and now includes both exclamation marks. PHEW! Although as ‘andrew’ points out in the comments, now ‘and a bit’ is MIA, so perhaps that sub-ed shouldn’t have been kicked to death after all.]:
The message Chambers tweeted said: “Robin Hood Airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit… otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!”
Just so you can see what’s going on here, I’ve helpfully placed in bold the bits the BBC cut:
Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!!
The original tweet is clearly a dumb joke, but the BBC edit actually does appear menacing. Dire, misleading reporting like this at the very least doesn’t help one of the more ridiculous tech-oriented verdicts in British history get overturned; worse, it rather backs the arguments from the CPS and others that this was a menacing tweet when it wasn’t. It’s been claimed by the CPS that the original tweet lacked context (ignoring the context of the rest of Chambers’ feed, presumably), and yet the BBC strips context from the tweet by removing a huge chunk of it, and doesn’t state that the words have been edited. What’s the problem? Isn’t there enough space on the infinite web to run the whole thing? Does the BBC have to pay for each letter it uploads? It’s a bloody disgrace.
If you’re feeling significantly angry about the whole thing, more money is needed for the next stage of this seemingly never-ending slice of stupid by the British authorities, and so if you can spare a few quid, donate to the trial fund.
UPDATE: Tons of people on Twitter have said they think the edit is down to the BBC removing profanity. That’s still not acceptable. First, the article states clearly that the quote is what Chambers said. That in itself isn’t technically inaccurate, but the article also does not say the quote was edited. Secondly, the BBC did not link to the full source. Thirdly, there are ways around the profanity issue—the BBC could have part censored the offending words in the tweet (‘sh*t’ or ‘s——’, for example), and stated that in the copy. Finally, it also removed the second exclamation point, presumably for style guid reasons, but this again affects the context of the tweet and distorts it from the original meaning.
Sadly, the BBC is not alone. The Guardian’s latest take includes the edited tweet (despite the same writer printing it in full in 2010) and runs with the not-at-all-loaded headline: ‘Twitter joke trial: man who threatened to blow up airport wins fresh hearing’. Classy. [UPDATE: The Guardian article now has a new headline, ‘Twitter joke trial: new hearing for man who tweeted about blowing up airport’, and the full tweet text, including both exclamation marks.]
The BBC and Guardian journalist have now responded to me regarding the points made in this post.
Quite true although the optimist in me hopes they removed those bits due to swearing and the BBC having a very strict language policy. I don’t even think they publish with expletives starred out.
However, I think you’re probably right…
The Guardian has the same mis-quote. Same cut. Bizarre.
If it’s a “no bad language” rule, they could still put “[Expletive deleted]! Robin Hood…”
I’m intrigued that many think it’s a self-evident truth that the writer was kidding.
We share society with people who have a range of (sub clinical) issues.
Even with all the reports of what a great guy the writer was and is, what he wrote gives me no insight into whether he was “joking” or not.
BTW, is joking a defence in law to s127 or any other crime? Is there a joke defence to sexual harassment? Is there a “kidding” defence available to football pitch racist “banter”?
@Kris: In the context of all his other tweets, this was clearly a joke. Even if there was cause for concern, the most that should have happened is a couple of cops knocking on his door and suggesting he 1) delete the tweet and 2) not post something like that again in the future. To essentially wreck his life over this is insane, not least given the nonsensical arguments the CPS has made during the case.
Also, if you have a law, it should be used equally. Technically, every single ‘Spartacus’ email should have been dealt with in the same way, as should myriad other tweets along the same lines. However, the CPS argues they—including ones not clearly linked to the Chambers case—are obviously jokes, whereas the original somehow is not. There’s also a massive difference between so-called racist banter on a football pitch (which is extremely hard to excuse and argue against) and the kind of phrasing used in the Chambers tweet.
“BBC having a very strict language policy.” Its a shame they don’t have a very strict quotes policy. There are enough right-wingers calling them biased, please don’t let them have more ammunition.
When Ronald Reagan “jokingly” said “lets bomb Russia” when his Mike was down in a radio interview it sort of caused A FUSS , paul is being PROSECUTED for something similar ! ! (intentional double exclamation mark) dear CPS JOG ON !
The BBC story seems to still have an incorrect quote. It may have the swear words in but the “and a bit” is now missing.
It seems to me that there are far too many ‘over-blown’ stories and arguments in today’s media which all tend to lead back to these social networking sites. Why add more problems to our already complicated lives, and why report on such trivial matters as the use of punctuation, when there are so many real and more serious problems around?
@Alice: The entire case (i.e. someone’s life) depends on the interpretation of a single 140-character message. Writing—including punctuation and the type of language—can be and often is indicative of the spirit in which a piece of text was meant. To that end, it’s wholly relevant to explore edits in this case. By changing the tweet, news organisations change its context, and make something that wasn’t menacing into something that is. Take a rather more extreme example:
“Joe Bloggs regularly enjoys kicking a ball around with his son and beating him in games of chess, although his son is learning fast!”
Edit that to:
“Joe Bloggs regularly enjoys kicking his son and beating him!”
It’s a rather different message. As noted, this is far more extreme than Twitter Joke Trial, but that’s why subtler changes are so important in this case. As for “real and more serious problems”, I’d argue injustice and free speech are real and serious.
Of course I underdtand the severity of the case, and I am aware of how slightly changing a tweet can completely alter one’s understanding of what was meant by it in the first place.
What I am really wondering is, if sites such as twitter didn’t exist, might we not have had this problem at all? So is the real blame to fall on twitter?
And maybe it is just me, but I find problems that arise from such sites are not so serious in the whole scheme of things.
Without social networking, this specific issue would not exist, clearly, but we still have plenty of problems regarding written word, especially in the UK, which has dreadfully outdated libel laws. The laws need a major overhaul, and these should take into account things like online communication. As for the bigger picture, a single person’s case stemming from one social network isn’t on par with a nationwide atrocity, clearly, and it shouldn’t have been taken seriously at all in the first place. Sadly, while any number of organisations could have slammed the brakes on at any time, none did, hence the absurd situation Chambers now finds himself in.
“What I am really wondering is, if sites such as twitter didn’t exist, might we not have had this problem at all? So is the real blame to fall on twitter?”
Please tell me you’re being sarcastic… Why not ban paper, speech, and any other form of communication as well in case they are ‘misused’?
“Why not ban paper, speech, and any other form of communication as well in case they are ‘misused’?”
Oh dear… it’s a shame you rate Twitter on the same level of importance in communication as paper and speech!
I never suggested banning social networking sites anyway. My point is, my heart sinks every time I read of some problem, or a person such as Paul Chambers who is getting absurd treatment, because of what has initially risen from a site such as Twitter. But Craig Grannel is right – the libel laws do need a major overhawl and maybe then we can stop reading about such silly matters.
I agree with (what seems to be the majority) that this case is a bit ridiculous, but perhaps I arrive at that conclusion for different reasons.
In the current climate, sending messages about bombs is not the wisest thing to do and the conviction was thoroughly deserved. The punishment of a fine is a trivial one that should have been accepted. Now lots of celebrities are on the bandwagon saying how harshly this man was dealt with. WTF?
Pay the fine, end this bizarre legal action, and forget about it.
@Lee: The man has a criminal record and his entire career was ended by a thoughtless tweet that amounted to a bad joke and that’s the sort of thing you see and hear on– and offline daily. “I’m going to kill ‘x’!” “I’m going to blow up ‘y’!” It’s not just a case of pay and move on. For him, it’s pay and live with a criminal record and figure out an entirely new career path, along with living with injustice.
I don’t disagree that something should have been done, but the end result was hugely disproportionate to what happened, entirely unnecessary, and, importantly, it hasn’t been repeated since. As I’ve said in the past, a knock on the door by a couple of police and an off-the-record “that tweet wasn’t smart—delete it and don’t do it again” would have been sufficient.