Real Liz Jones mentions Fake Liz Jones

She’s known about it since the beginning but Real Liz Jones has never actually mentioned @LizJonesSomalia in public before – however she dedicates one paragraph to us in her new column The Stasi Paid for the Thought Police, but Trolls Do It for Free.

Yes. That’s the actual title.

When I was on the Somali-Kenyan border, working on a story on the famine, the photographer assigned to my story told me someone was pretending to be me, and was tweeting about how awful it was that my Gucci luggage was getting dusty.

Thanks Liz. We never once mentioned Gucci but there were lots of jokes about Fortnam and Mason hampers.

Hat tip to @zelo_street – his excellent article on her awful article is here. I suggest a read.

In Support of @UnSteveDorkland

We set the @DMReporter account up almost two years ago. In this time we’ve written nearly 6800 tweets and have amassed over 22,000 followers.

In between the tweets we’ve written several articles – some on this blog, others in national publications – calling the Daily Mail sexist, homophobic and racist. We’ve also appeared, in person, at conferences and retold the story of when we assumed the personality of their star writer and used it to raise nearly £25,000 for charity to make the point that she’s an offensive and callous troll.

We’ve also created fake-personas for the rest of their key writing staff…

  • Mel Phillips has become a babbling and incoherant shut in due to her fear that everyone around her is a lesbian.
  • Simon Heffer writes a column called ‘Simon Heffer’s Laboured Point’ where he expands conspiracy theories through poetic non-sequiturs.
  • Peter Hitchens is a biblical tubthumper for whom “a belief in Jesus Christ” is the answer to any question, including “do you want fries with that?”
  • and Jan Moir will only write about how every event in world-history is “another nail in the coffin for the legitimacy of gay relationships.”
  • We also sacked Richard Littlejohn for not having the decency to try to be a real writer.

We’ve run spin-off accounts using the names of Liz Jones and DM editor Paul Dacre and doctored the Daily Mail frontpages to our own nefarious ends. We’ve convinced several legitimate worldwide news organisations to reprint our fake headlines and have duped many a famous person into outrage. We’ve leaked ‘internal’ memos, created the #dailymailmole who spills insider secrets, documented the mental breakdown of the intern who controls “the office Blackberry” and ran a short series where we faked the minute-by-minute reporting of a police raid on the Mail offices (which ended with Dacre executing a turncoat journalist).

We’ve even heard, through the backchannels of Twitter, that real Mail has changed a headline ahead of time because we accurately guessed it a week before. Oh, and we regularly troll the Daily Mail comments pages (but there’ll be more about that in a few weeks).

So, in conclusion, I don’t think it’s unreasonable or arrogant to claim that we’ve kind of set the benchmark for Twitter satire of the Daily Mail. Aside from an incident early on where they asked us to stop using their logo we’ve never once gotten in any trouble. I’ve always assumed this is because…

1) Like or not Twitter supports the right to parody.

2) In the scheme of things we’re really not that important.

3) No-one believes we’re really the Daily Mail and we’re basically tweeting to the converted.

Which brings us nicely to @UnSteveDorkland – a hilarious fake Twitter feed and fellow Daily Mail satiriser who has the target of Northcliff Media Chief Exec Steve Auckland in his sights. UnSteve abides by the Twitter rules of parody far closer than we do, has far fewer followers and is far less blasé than we are – despite all this, Northcliff have launched legal action against Twitter to reveal the writer of the account.

It’s worth noting that UnSteve makes no direct association with Auckland on his page, has a picture of George Clooney as his avatar and, in case you hadn’t noticed, is an entirely new character. As UnSteve points out himself…

If the CEO of a UK regional media company is prepared to instruct lawyers in California to chase the details of a Twitter account which has a maximum of 150 followers then it’s time to announce we’ve found Kafka’s true heir.

There’s UnSteve’s full statement here, plus a few news items herehere and here. Guido Fawkes has also covered the story (here and here) and is currently helping UnSteve out with a US lawyer.

It’s genuinely hard to fathom what the point of this is. Auckland himself, as backed by the Daily Mail’s tax-loving owner Lord Rothmere, claims it’s to protect employees from harassment when all it’s really done is make Auckland and Northcliff look like fools without a sense of humour.

They want to discover if UnSteve is a Northcliff employee, something he has repeatedly denied, or ascertain if he’s being fed information – all the time implying that UnSteve is actually far far far more accurate in his portrayal of Auckland than any follower would have previously believed.

And this is why I’ve listed our achievements at the top – we’re far far worse than UnSteve, yet we remain untouched. This frivolous attack on the right to parody is nothing to do with employee protection, or defence of character, or even silencing complaints – it’s about the old guard, furious at the indignity of being criticised and refusing to acknowledge that they no-longer hold all the cards. It’s about one man – Steve Auckland – failing on virtually all levels to understand new media, and revealing his true character in the process.

Another reason that we’ve remained untouched is because we’re quite popular. 22,000 followers grants a certain legitimacy and I suspect they went after UnSteve because he was, at the time, a relative unknown. Hilariously his account has now shot up by over 1200 followers. Have these people never heard of the Barbara Streisand Effect?

I imagine what will happen if UnSteve’s identity is revealed is we’ll learn he’s a nobody – just like how we’re nobodies – and Northcliff will claim a victory against whatever internet buzzword he’s learned that week. It will serve no purpose other than to have slightly taken the fun out of a situation.

It also means that another one of us will probably bite the dust. This is wrong, flat out wrong – especially when it’s one of us who eloquent, pointed and purposeful.

Either way, we stand wholeheartedly behind UnSteve and suggest the following – if Twitter do release his identity, then don’t mention it on Twitter, Facebook or any websites. Discuss the ramifications of the case, by all means (of which there are plenty – not least the Orwellian legal issues) but leave UnSteve’s real name out of it. In fact, we’d suggest that you change his name to something more anonymous… something like ‘Steven Auckland’.

I’m afraid we’re not currently recruiting

Time: Wednesday June 6, 2012 at 10:36 pm
IP Address: xx.xxx.x.x
Contact Form URL: https://dmreporter.wordpress.com/about/

Name: James XXXXX
Email: XXXXX
Website: XXXXX

Dear Paul,

How do i submit my CV and work samples to be considered for the Daily Mail,

My masters is in broadcast journalism and i have six years experience in radio and tv in the US, UK and Ireland and feel i can bring a more video and audio role to the Daily Mail as well as my print and online work.

James
Principle Target of Hatred: Fat Cat Bankers

Poe’s Law

‘Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.’

Arthur C. Clarke  – Profiles of the Future, 1973

‘ Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won’t mistake for the real thing. ‘

Nathan Poe – Creation & Evolution forum // Christianforums.com , 2005 – Poe’s Law

In 1992 Tim Robbins directed his first feature ‘Bob Roberts’ – a political comedy following the campaign of a fictional senatorial hopeful. The character is a folk singer with political aspirations who cynically exploits his fame for political gain. Tim Robbins (and his brother) recorded several songs for the soundtrack aping the style of, amongst others, Bob Dylan with titles such as ‘The Times They are a Changin’ Back’.

Robbins, being an accomplished musician, made sure that these songs were truthful to the morally dubious character of Roberts without being outright parodies of the ultra-conservative southern folk singer stereotype (the film never explicitly states if Roberts is Democrat or Republican) or even it could be argued, any element of parody at all. Because of the songs’ inability to be distinguished from the real thing out of context, Robbins decided to never release a soundtrack to his movie; fearing that they could be used in ways directly opposite to their intent.

Tim Robbin’s was well aware of the effects of Poe’s Law before it had been given that catchy sobriquet, that snappy tweet friendly shorthand of what is a multi-faceted and  complicated concept.

The law was originally coined by Nathan Poe in response to ‘trolls’ on Christianforums.com, people who would deliberately post outlandish opinions just to get a rise from genuine visitors to the site. He observed that no matter how extreme or fanciful a concept somebody posited, without clear acknowledgement of its own disingenuous joke it would always be read as if genuine. Originally applied to traditional fundamentalist viewpoints, Poe’s Law works with any number of heartfelt subjects that fuel obsession in people.

This leads to a couple of interesting variations.

We all have prejudices whether innate or socially constructed and this can lead us to take things at face value. Sometimes I forget that, as an Englishman, some parts of religious America are as foreign to me as polytheistic areas of Hindu Asia. Yet because superficial similarities of shared race and language differences are heightened I’m more prone to mock the Bible belt than I am to ridicule someone who honestly believes in a blue elephant headed god because of those very prejudices .

Which leads us to The Landover Baptist Church Forum.

It took me a long while to workout that this was indeed a fake forum, yet one that was populated in part by users ignorant of its true purpose; both believers and otherwise. It is a perfect case study in Poe’s law as it demonstrates the two essential elements:

  1. People opposed to viewpoint not getting the irony.
  2. People who are sympathetic to the viewpoint not getting the irony.

The LBC forum is a near perfect parody of fundamentalist Christian beliefs which also, whether by design or by accident, highlight non believers attitudes towards people of faith. Take this “Down’s Syndrome is a lifestyle choice” thread -   – quite obviously a joke, but it evokes responses of indignant rage and incredulous accusations. Anyone on that forum agreeing with that particular original post I can only assume is in on the joke but the site is littered with many taking sides with the outrageous claims or even backing them up with further scripture .

While clearly set up to parody fundamentalism, the LBC forum brings out a kind of knee-jerk response from a lot of liberal users, Christian or otherwise, who are more than willing to accept that there are genuine lunatics out there who really believe that Down’s Syndrome is a choice . Both parties expose themselves to ridicule, and yet the forum was initially set up to spotlight the inherent insanity of fundamentalism. It ultimately shows that we’re all as biased and an uninformed as the next person. People’s readiness to take offense at something says more about them than those who they believe they oppose.

The perpetrator of the deceit is like the arsonist – that most easily captured of criminals – who must be present to observe the effects of their crime for it to have meaning. If no-one knows it’s a joke, then it didn’t happen and it just got lost in the white noise of on-line unfiltered thoughts. Even a Poe’m (yeah I just coined that, deal with it) as beautifully staged and internally self affirming as LBC still has tell-tale sign of fraud; it must, or it would just be the very thing it tries to expose. Something that Tim Robbin’s songs could easily have become.

The problem isn’t when a Poe’m is misinterpreted as the real thing but more if the genuine article is considered to be fraudulent; the flip side of Poe’s law is also as likely. The Moon landings have often been bound up in conspiracies saying that they were faked, and the Holocaust of WW2 is often denied – both examples that are so unlikely that, as with the reactions to fundamentalist points of view, they are  immediately met with skepticism.

A long-held belief shared by us at the DMReporter is that ‘no joke is funnier’ – that is to say the more deadpan and straight-faced you are, the more conceptually perfect the joke is. This is why the first Naked Gun movie is better than it’s sequels – the character of Frank Drebin never realises that he’s in a comedy, but by the third in the franchise he’s a gurning buffoon deliberately playing up the laughs.

We’ve long abandoned the premise that we are in any way a legitimate news source or in any way affiliated with the Daily Mail. One reason for this is that there are only so many templates for that format we can use to mock the Mail, the other was that the sheer number of people not ‘in’ on the joke began to mean that what ever underlying point we were making would often go unheeded. It’s also sometimes hard to compete.

Satire eventually defangs itself as it becomes to more and more similar to the real thing. Case in point is the movie Forrest Gump. Is this a tale of a disadvantaged young man with learning difficulties who overcomes the bad box of chocolates that life gave him to triumph in the face of adversity and become the embodiment of the American dream? Or is it a cracked reflection of the lost hopes of a nation that repeatedly tries to deny the horrors of its own being? Is America made flesh as a retarded cripple or a good ol’ boy and true hero? I still haven’t worked out what the film maker’s intentions are; if truly a satire then it’s the most perversely insidious misinterpreted example of the form.

Lines can still be blurred even more – recently we tweeted a fake headline during the final minutes leading up to the verdict of the sensationalised Amanda Knox trial. We used a reliable comedy format of posting both possible outcomes, one for guilty and one for innocent, and then asking that tweeters to only read the appropriate one as and when.

Twenty minutes later the real Daily Mail jumped the gun and put up a story saying that Amanda Knox had been found guilty when she clearly hadn’t. Their article had interviews with people commenting on the verdict which could only have been fabricated. We’d anticipated that they would have pre-written both outcomes rather than have reported the events – but not to the degree that they did. No matter how hard we try to make it obvious that we’re primarily just trying to make people laugh and maybe take a swipe at a right-wing institution, the reality of the situation keeps catching up with the parody.

Even with a knowing wink, it is impossible to distinguish parody from the real thing.