First of all, let's look at the twitter account of @Alayna_Moses. The account was created on 14 June 2014 and for the most part "she" complains about how hungry and/or tired "she" is. There are, however, a number of tweets which tend to indicate that the account is US-based. In the following tweets, "she" refers to 'the mall', 'soda' and 'Mom':
If the account is US-based, and given that it demonstrates no other interest in Australian politics, what on earth could have prompted "her" to take such a sudden interest in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation?
You might have noticed that I have placed the female pronouns in inverted commas. That's because I'm pretty darn sure "she's" not real.
Let's take a look at the twitter account of @Marissa_Lester. Also created on 14 June 2014, the two "girls" seem to have exactly the same problems (not to mention the same poor grasp of the English language):
It would seem pretty clear that at least these two accounts are fake. But what of the others?
@dramafarma01 tweets consistent conservative/libertarian messages, so the tweet was not uncharacteristic, nor was it uncharacteristic for @danORoc. @danORoc also recently tweeted this message, which was parroted by another one of our original 'trolls' @SteveHuckstepp:
There is clearly something linking these Twitter accounts. The tweets are identical, right down to the same capitalisation, punctuation and emphases.
Let's take a look at @itsNinty, the most interesting of our original tweeters. He actually admits that he was paid, though it is possible that the 'admission' was facetious. Make of it what you will:
Is it really possible that the LNP paid for these tweets? And if so, are they really that organised that they make payment within one day, and over the weekend no less? I personally suspect that @itsNinty was having a lend with his 'proof of payment', though it was a lot of trouble to go to to fake it. On second thought, it does also equate with another reference I read that the going rate was $0.04 per follower (with @itsNinty having 430 followers as of today, it is possible he had 420 on 19 July and added a few extra since this story broke).
Whatever way you look at it, there is definitely something funny going on. We've got six identical tweets, at least two of which came from 'fake' accounts created on the same day and containing other duplicated tweets. Why do these two accounts also contain identical tweets to the other four? And what of @itsNinty's admission that the tweet was paid for?
The real issues are twofold. Is public money being expended on this social media campaign? And if not, then who is behind it?
Looking at the time/date stamps of the original tweets, three of them appear to relate to the Lateline program which aired on 17 July 2014 and the other three relate to the program on 18 July 2014. If we assume @alayna_moses is based on West Coast USA, then a tweet posted from that timezone at 6:18AM on 17 July 2014 (and the ones posted at a similar time by @marissa_lester and @stevehuckstepp) would equate to 11:18PM on the east coast of Australia, just after Lateline aired on 17 July 2014.
The program on 18 July 2014 would appear to have caused an identical reaction in the three other tweeters. The problem is, however, that the program on 18 July 2014 was dedicated almost exclusively to the MH17 tragedy and the equally terrible situation in Gaza. The only story of a political nature was a short (2:53 minute) segment at the end reporting on the Senate's refusal to pass the mining tax repeal bills (as this would also wipe out the school kids bonus and other low income supports).
What is interesting is that Julie Novak, a Senior Fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) was the guest tweeter for the 18 July 2014 episode of Lateline. A coincidence? I think not. Any tweets with the #lateline tag were going to come up for anyone engaging in debate on the program that night, hence they had a ready audience for their anti-ABC message timed to coincide with Ms Novak's 'apperance'.
The attempt failed, however, as the news was not dominated by talk of the mining tax, which was instead sidelined by events overseas. Their pre-organised claims of bias fell flat because there was no partisan political story - simply tragic events that should never have been used for political advantage (though presumably by the time they realised that, it was too late to call off the dogs). I would therefore submit that it is possible that the IPA was behind this, not the LNP.
Whilst the IPA's sources of funding are a tightly guarded secret, it has been established that much of its funding is received from the oil and mining industries, therefore, a concerted effort by them on 17 July (repeal of the Carbon Tax) and 18 July (extra sitting of the Senate to consider the Mining Tax repeal bills), makes a lot of sense.
Either way, there was very little, in fact I would argue nothing, in the 18 July 2014 episode of Lateline to justify these claims of left-wing bias at the ABC given the apolitical nature of the stories covered. And whilst nothing could be worse than using the tragic deaths of many innocent people to promulgate a political message, the irony of attempting to use a platform given to them by the ABC, to accuse the ABC of bias, should escape no-one.
If wasn't the IPA, and indeed @itsNinty's claim that he was paid by "Media Services LNP" is truthful, then we are certainly entitled to know whether public funds were used.
Whatever the answer, it is a very scary time for democracy in Australia. Sneaky attempts like this to fake opinions and influence public perception via social media are the very reason we need the ABC.
No comments:
Post a Comment