For a short while on Friday (19 March 2010), Telegraph.co.uk had the embarrassing phrase “Large Hardon Collider” in a headline.
Dubbed “the typo we’ve been waiting for” by Gizmodo, the hilarious - and painful - error was soon corrected. Later that afternoon, the only evidence was a screenshot, taken by freelance writer and twitterer Rebecca Watson, and the Telegraph’s own tweet on Twitter, via @tnuk:
“Large Hardon Collider breaks energy record http://bit.ly/bXis5r”
The slip up was also recorded in the site’s archives as the article headline, but by today (Monday, 22 March 2010), even that had been removed, which raises the question: what else has the Telegraph covered up?
This single case may be an innocuous typo, but who knows what else has been altered or removed without our knowledge? What political or financial pressures have been applied to hide news from the public? By pretending such errors never existed, the Telegraph and many other online news organisations erode the public’s ability to rely on the news as presented.
The editorial staff of Telegraph.co.uk declined to comment on its correction policy, but the site’s terms and conditions clearly state that The Daily Telegraph (UK) under no circumstances guarantees the accuracy of its stories. Its Australian namesake has a similar stance, stating that News Limited “does not warrant the accuracy of the content on the Site”, the same disclaimer in the Terms and Conditions of every News Limited website.
The website of their major Australian competitor, Fairfax Digital, states “We do not make any representation or warranty that any Material on the Fairfax Network will be reliable, accurate or complete”.
If this is the case, it seems absurd to demand that Australians pay money to access these sites, as both Fairfax and News Limited are planning.
In contrast, the ABC’s editorial policies currently require that significant changes are accompanied by an editor’s note with the date and nature of the changes. In an incident similar to the “Hardon” Collider, abc.net.au recently published an article in which the “poolice” fined an elderly driver. A reader noticed the scatological error and reported it on Twitter. Half an hour later, the spelling was corrected, complete with both the original and updated times and dates.
The relative permanence of Twitter has been overlooked as a reference tool. While individual tweets can be deleted by the author, Twitter archives old tweets, allowing those curious enough to read back through old posts.
Matt Padovan, a UC Honours student, approves of the political ramifications of Twitter, but is wary of the pitfalls of posting while drunk.
“I would call that a good thing,” he said. “Ensures that people think about what they say and can't easily backstep on what they have said... I can appreciate the value in it, but for my own purposes - I don't think people need to know that I took a huge dump at 10:45pm.”
Its value may seem irrelevant when looking at the ‘twittersphere’ as a whole, but in the heat of the election lead-up, Twitter could prove to be a useful tool.
Not only are the current activities of many politicians available in a feed, but voters can look back and see the issues important enough for their candidates to address when they aren’t campaigning. Politicians also have the opportunity to discuss hot topics with their Twitter followers, ensuring they are aware of what really matters to their electorate.
For ACT voters, Senator Gary Humphries’ Twitter feed varies from petitions against paid parking to education issues to the colour of his next newsletter. In October 2009, Senator Humphries asked his followers for issues they would like raised in the Senate and five months earlier, he asked for people’s thoughts on the budget.
