The fake Daily Mail Twitter account has been causing a few laughs lately. Status messages like: “Tomorrow’s front page “COULD CURRY GIVE YOU CANCER?” Also inside: Free Chicken Tikka for EVERY reader,” have made me chuckle greatly. In fact, I think I enjoy reading this Twitter feed more than I do reading the paper — but that’s another matter.
Anyway, until very very recently, the fake Daily Mail account had the username of @dailymail_uk. Now it sports @Notdailymail_uk. So what gives? Did the Daily Mail come down heavy on this impersonator? Were the fake account’s opinions (“@tom_watson You put pics of your kids online? Are you mad? Don’t you know the internets are full of perverts? Do all Labour MPs hate kids?“) too similar to that of the actual paper?
I find it hard to believe. After all, the Daily Mail doesn’t hold Twitter in very high regard. So why do they care? (Note to students: Try to avoid starting your articles with the words ‘How boring’…). If Twitter is used by sad, time-endowed losers, then surely they don’t need to bother forcing the tweeter to change his name?
So that’s mystery one: Have the Daily Mail stepped in?
Mystery two is: Who is he?
I say ‘he’, because there have been plenty of tweets alluding to male-dom. Most noticeably: “Thinking about having a quick “Power Wank” before heading in to the office. It’s excellent for relaxation AND helps flavour the porridge.”
I’ve not heard (m)any women use the phrase ‘Power Wank’ lately.
And I think he’s an insider at the paper. The tweet: “Fuck! We’ve got an injunction saying we can’t say anything about the Scientology involvement with Travolta’s son. May print any way,” was backed up by a (non-Twittering) Mail colleague who confirmed: “It is true about the Travolta thing, I was working there today and the story got pulled for just that reason!”
Of course, this doesn’t mean he works at the Daily Mail — he could, in theory, work anywhere within the UK media. Or even, I suppose, be an avid follower of media news. But he seems a little too close to the newspaper to not have some involvement. He also seems to post using mobile Twitter site Slandr a lot more than than any computer-based Twitter tools. Much sneakier in a work situation 
Update: @Notdailymail_uk has just posted this:
[Meta: twitter renamed me to @notdailymail_uk & changed my password. They didn't contact me or offer any redress. How safe is your account?]
Does this mean, then, that the Daily Mail got in direct contact with Twitter demanding the change?
Notdailymail_uk saga: Associated Newspapers step in
January 12th, 2009Mystery one has been solved.
Associated Newspapers Limited have, according to the fake Daily Mail blogger, got Twitter by the short and curlies and demanded they rename the ‘dailymail_uk’ account. So they did.
He writes:
Ouch. He pressed Twitter for a reply and got this explanation:
(The bold is added for emphasis.)
So the question is: Would a reasonable person be aware that it’s a joke?
Tricky. One commenter pointed out that of the massive Daily Mail readership, there aren’t too many reasonable people to pick from. And, chances are, they’re not on Twitter either.
He expresses concern that Twitter cannot be trusted when they have the power to just tell you to clear off. But I wouldn’t be alarmed. Most businesses in the world operate with a ‘Management reserves the right to not serve/sell’ etc get-out in place — and this doesn’t seem to be any different.
But it begs the question: How do you measure satire?
1 comment »
Posted in Blogs, Comment, Newspapers, Social Networking, Tabloids, The Web
Tags: associated newspapers daily mail notdailymail_uk twitter