Fake twitter ITK bull

[Baleforce]

he would have been when he was getting threatened

 

[jts1882]

nothing stopping selling club to "buy" the services of an influential blogger/tweeter. all part of new marketing and pr devices available to sales and marketing folks to create brands and sell stuff.

But this would be different. You are not allowed to use false information in advertising (except political ads in the US). Surely getting someone to publish false information should be covered by advertising-style laws, although hard to enforce. No doubt friendly journalists in the print media are used this way, which is why they need to relearn journalistic standards.

 

[Danners9]

But this would be different. You are not allowed to use false information in advertising (except political ads in the US). Surely getting someone to publish false information should be covered by advertising-style laws, although hard to enforce. No doubt friendly journalists in the print media are used this way, which is why they need to relearn journalistic standards.

Clubs offer certain journos access, on the record and off the record, in public and behind the scenes, to develop relationships and maximise positive coverage.

There is no doubt that misinformation has been leaked by the club (every club) to the press and appeared as a story, this happens in most industries.

There are also relatively few instances of a club suing a newspaper for publishing false info. 10 pages of sport, say 10 publications a day, every day. It isn't worth the hassle for one tiny apology a few weeks later.

If the twitter thing is as presented, LFC and Chang in particular have massively overreacted. The guy stumbled upon something that had already been on the forums and in the press, but he got lucky with the timing. I guess this story has already done the rounds on the LFC boards and the bad feeling it will have stirred up is a massive PR own goal for the new Director of Communications at that club who now comes across as an insecure bully who has insulted fellow Liverpool fans. Nice one!!

 

[Superhudd]

Clubs offer certain journos access, on the record and off the record, in public and behind the scenes, to develop relationships and maximise positive coverage.

There is no doubt that misinformation has been leaked by the club (every club) to the press and appeared as a story, this happens in most industries.

There are also relatively few instances of a club suing a newspaper for publishing false info. 10 pages of sport, say 10 publications a day, every day. It isn't worth the hassle for one tiny apology a few weeks later.

If the twitter thing is as presented, LFC and Chang in particular have massively overreacted. The guy stumbled upon something that had already been on the forums and in the press, but he got lucky with the timing. I guess this story has already done the rounds on the LFC boards and the bad feeling it will have stirred up is a massive PR own goal for the new Director of Communications at that club who now comes across as an insecure bully who has insulted fellow Liverpool fans. Nice one!!

Ultimately what you say above is what it will all be about, control of what they want released and what they don't.
I'd imagine that they don't want to go after ITKs, but want to get to the root of where they are getting any sort of information from.

People have there own agendas to get info out, whether at board level or whether its at admin level. But it does come down to whilst working at the club, everything that happens should not be discussed outside the club.

If I went to a solicitors to get my business done, I'd expect total confidentiality, yet when I read ITK I often read this ITK came from documents received via a certain situation (9/10 I know its made up). Both situations should hold the same confidentiality agreements, but no one cares about old me. So today we see people, under an anon basis releasing delicate information that shouldn't be.

Where will that end, imagine if someone released figures of a bank suggesting that they had no profits this year but had lost 2 billion, they did this under an anon banner on social network sites. But previously they had built up a reputation of someone that had got lots of stuff correct in the past. Imagine the share price. Shouldn't this sort of information be released by the bank when releasing its yearly or quarterly figs, thus giving the bank ample time to prepare about the bad news, or enable to bury the bad news on a day that is engulfed with other news

Would the bank not want to know where the guy was getting his info, or whether the shareholders would want to know how the info got out.

 

[milo]

The very existence of this thread and its related article

I have little intention to try and convince you otherwise, seeing that you've made up your mind already. But I strongly believe there will be considerable 'amendments' to the online media exchange landscape in the future as it has been hinted already.

I haven't said what I think, so you don't know whether I have made up my mind. I have just been asking you questions because you seem very certain on something that would be quite difficult to do.

For what it is worth, I am sure that most Premier League clubs (like most multinational companies) monitor social media. Social media is an excellent free market research and promotional tool. Football clubs are luckier than most companies in that they have very ardent and loyal customers which makes social media even more powerful.

I'm sure at some stage a club will try getting their lawyers to send threatening letters to people posting inaccurate information about them on social media (as we have seen with message boards in the past). One or two might try and take legal action but it would be a very risky policy and could backfire by alienating fans (like we saw when Sheffield United sued some of their fans for what they had posted on a message board). I cannot see any changes to UK law to cover areas like this. The law is already adequate and I don't think that there is much appetite for a change.

I agree with everything that Danners has said on newspapers and clubs relationships with them.

 

[jts1882]

It looks like the story is true. I doubt Ian Herbert would have published the following without solid foundation.

Ian Herbert: Mystery tweeter Duncan Jenkins doesn't deserve this treatment from Liverpool

Duncan Jenkins was funny – a Harry Enfield funny – and hardly straight

Ian Herbert
Tuesday 16 October 2012

This piece feels like a risky one, given that its subject is someone who finds himself on the wrong side of Liverpool FC and that the unspoken threat to sportswriters who consider articulating what clubs don't want to be told is the removal of access and privileges.

The Duncan Jenkins story is too extraordinary to ignore, though. When all's said and done, it is about social media, the manic search within it for people who are ITK ("In The Know") and about the futility of clubs attempting to control it, now that the old news models have broken down. But it has a dark edge, too.

It all started out as a rather excellent joke. The protagonist did not exist until one night in the winter of 2009, when "his" creator Sean Cummins – a 35-year-old copywriter from south Manchester – was bored of posting on his Liverpool FC forum about the club he has supported since he was a boy. He decided to invent "Duncan Jenkins" – a Facebook character who would be inept, delusional and obsessed with The Bill. When The Guardian wrote about the crime drama's demise in March 2010, "Duncan" expressed his concern on a forum and – in an echo of what would follow – immediately found The Mirror seizing on his words. The paper reported: "Speaking on forums yesterday Duncan Jenkins said: 'It is an absolute disgrace. For a police drama that pushes all the buttons, reflects reality and a regular Joe can connect to, you can't beat The Bill.'"

"Duncan" established a small Facebook fan club, with 150 "likes", and it was when the jokes seemed to evaporate and the character fizzled out in June last year that Cummins decided to relaunch him on Twitter last November as the equally delusional @DuncanJenkinsFC – the hapless "perspiring journalist". "Duncan" was the same as he ever was, only football journalism was his latest attempt at making it. It was slow going in the early days – 1,000 or so followers – but "Duncan", with his malapropisms, misspellings and Colemanballs, was very, very funny.

And then he stumbled on a gold mine. Posting on the Liverpool FC forum, est1892, he discovered how, two hours before kick-off someone was repeatedly reporting the correct Liverpool starting XI – that holy grail of football writers. The 11 names and no more were posted. The aspiring, breathless "Duncan" immediately republished it each time.

Suddenly and remarkably, the fantasist with the ridiculous hairstyle on his avatar was credible, ITK, flooded by followers as football tweeters generally tend to be and wondering where to take the joke next. Transfer stories being the vital currency of the self-respecting football writer – and devoured by readers whether they've a 50 per cent chance of happening or five per cent – "Duncan" decided to "put my head above the parrot pit" – as he described it in one of the columns analysing Euro 2012 which goal.com invited him to write. There was Climp Dempsey, Cheery Begiristain (spelt differently every time). And, since Duncan's creator was a fairly obsessive Liverpool season-ticket holder, his hit rate was OK. Andre Villas-Boas, Gylfi Sigurdsson and Gaston Ramirez to Liverpool were all wrong, but who cares when you're ITK?

My comparison of details published by football writers and subsequently tweets by "Duncan" – which was the crux of the dispute which was about to follow – suggests that "Duncan" simply took an educated guess on transfer targets the papers were writing about. Fabio Borini tallied with a tweet from a respected Liverpool Echo writer. A very confident prediction about Nuri Sahin came literally seconds after a Times tweet. Joe Allen was based on an Independent report and Johan Cruyff as sporting director came from a well-connected BBC Liverpool writer. "Duncan" also said rumours of Darren Bent arriving were nonsense and was early on to Brendan Rodgers. Good calls. Lucky calls.

His Twitter followers soared towards 40,000, which is perhaps not surprising since the world of fact and fiction all morph into one in the social media environment. The Twitter handle @FootballAgent49 – who reached 43,000 followers – has recently unmasked himself as an 18-year-old. "I feel my Twitter experience has been very successful with some of my 'stories' even trending fifth in the world. I'm proud to say that I haven't had even one transfer scoop in my time yet people still say I'm more reliable than Sky Sports News and the BBC. Laughable," he said when he came clean. @EPLAgent007 also reached 20,000: "I p**s myself laughing. 20,000 followers from chatting absolute s**t that I made up. Brilliant."

But Jenkins/Cummins was funny – a Harry Enfield type of funny – and was hardly masquerading as straight. Which is what renders particularly bizarre the decision of Liverpool's communications director, Jen Chang, to drive to Manchester in late August and spend two hours with Cummins at the Evuna restaurant on Deansgate seeking to establish the name of his Liverpool "mole".

Liverpool are entirely justified to investigate if someone, on the inside of their club, is betraying secrets. But with the absence of an explanation to counter the incredibly detailed and explosive blog which "Duncan" published on Friday, detailing what happened at the Evuna, it is difficult to appreciate why Chang dealt with it as he did. There has been no response from Liverpool to "Duncan's" claims that an infuriated Chang, who allegedly hired investigators to find Cummins, told him that unless he came clean there would be "dog s**t coming through your letter box" and he "might even have to move house" because "football fans are crazy". These are not comments which any supporter or journalist would welcome.

Cummins' records are very, very detailed and he is now in possession of CCTV images and a video from the restaurant which show him meeting the Liverpool director at 13.03pm on 22 August and the two of them leaving at 14.49pm. His account of this meeting has gone unpublished for the past two months as he sought an apology from Liverpool. And then, perhaps fittingly for the social media age, he eventually told all in the blog which began: "This is me – not Duncan. Duncan Jenkins is a character everything he said or did on Twitter was in character…" It has been an internet sensation.

However, Cummins lacked the foresight of an established media organisation, which would have prevented his oversight of publishing just as the Independent Police Complaints Commission discussed its Hillsborough investigation. Now he stands alone; a pariah to many fans, fielding a torrent of internet abuse and being accused of disrespect to the Hillsborough campaign.

The days of "Duncan" are over, needless to say. This feels like very strong punishment for what – unless there is sudden dramatic evidence to the contrary – seems like the offence of spinning a joke which at least 40,000 people enjoyed. Liverpool, a club who profess a desire to be at the cutting edge of communication for a social media age, have not looked terribly modern in this matter. The old attempts to control information have long gone. A public apology seems the least that is owed.

"Perspiring journalist", "put my head above the parrot pit", "Climp Dempsey", "Cheery Begiristain" ...

How did Chang take this so seriously? What a joke. Surely the Liverpool owners could have found an equally competent communications director without importing one from the US.

 

[Jordinho]

Chang is pictured on the left in this CCTV image taken from a Manchester restaurant, where he met Sean Cummins - the man behind the Twitter feed that has caused a fresh headache at Anfield.

It is the latest PR crisis to engulf the club after their handling of the Luis Suarez and Patrice Evra race row last season.

Managing director Ian Ayre is due to speak to Cummins as well as Chang and others involved in an unseemly episode which began when Jenkins started publicising information Chang believed must have come from inside Anfield.

Chang describes Jenkins’s allegations about threats made at a genuine meeting in Manchester as ‘fictitious nonsense’ but his position looks vulnerable if Ayre decides otherwise.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2218464/Jen-Chang-Duncan-Jenkins-CCTV-image-Liverpool-investigate-harassment-claims.html

 

[Superhudd]

Did he at any time say his account was a parody account.

IMO this is the problem. I have no problem at all with him having or any ITK saying its a parody account, as long as they do say. IMO this is where twitter and other sites need to stress that this is a parody account, totally fictional so people are not being dupped.

This crosses over with the wronguns on the internet as far as I see, a deception.

 

[ArcspacE]

Did he at any time say his account was a parody account.

IMO this is the problem. I have no problem at all with him having or any ITK saying its a parody account, as long as they do say. IMO this is where twitter and other sites need to stress that this is a parody account, totally fictional so people are not being dupped.

This crosses over with the wronguns on the internet as far as I see, a deception.

Exactly

 

[Superhudd]

Its funny, you wouldn't accept someone on your doorstep saying they are your gas man when he isn't, yet on the internet.. fudge it.. its for a laugh.

I expect an ID at the very least from the gasman. On the internet, fudge it don't matter.

 

[jts1882]

Did he at any time say his account was a parody account.

IMO this is the problem. I have no problem at all with him having or any ITK saying its a parody account, as long as they do say. IMO this is where twitter and other sites need to stress that this is a parody account, totally fictional so people are not being dupped.

This crosses over with the wronguns on the internet as far as I see, a deception.

He described himself as a "perspiring journalist". That is the first clue that its not to be taken seriously. Then as mentioned in the above article he included things like "put my head above the parrot pit", "Climp Dempsey" and "Cheery Begiristain". Its either a parody or an idiot. Either way you can't take it seriously.

Besides he set himself up as an IDK, one with a twitter account and information on lots of stuff. These are all frauds, the real ITKs only have occasional stuff or stuff on one topic.

 

[Jordinho]

People need to be protected from their own gullibility.

 

[Superhudd]

People need to be protected from their own gullibility.

Interesting. I'd say it was protecting people from those wishing to lie.

 

[Superhudd]

He described himself as a "perspiring journalist". That is the first clue that its not to be taken seriously. Then as mentioned in the above article he included things like "put my head above the parrot pit", "Climp Dempsey" and "Cheery Begiristain". Its either a parody or an idiot. Either way you can't take it seriously.

Besides he set himself up as an IDK, one with a twitter account and information on lots of stuff. These are all frauds, the real ITKs only have occasional stuff or stuff on one topic.

Plumber doesn't have the right ring about it does it, he used journalist in order to give credence to his deception/lie.

 

[Jordinho]

Interesting. I'd say it was protecting people from those wishing to lie.

People are stupid. Why do you think almost everything you buy comes with a long list of things you should not use it for? Some of them quite frankly ridiculous.

 

[Superhudd]

People are stupid. Why do you think almost everything you buy comes with a long list of things you should not use it for? Some of them quite frankly ridiculous.

I agree, but you seem to be defending those that take advantage of the stupid, and then say they are the victim.

 

[Jordinho]

I agree, but you seem to be defending those that take advantage of the stupid, and then say they are the victim.

I have no problem with someone posting crap on twitter. Whether it's a fake or real journo doesn't really make a difference to the credibility of the info IMO.

Why is someone pretending to be ITK a problem, but garbage sites like caughtoffside and tribalfootball not?

 

[ArcspacE]

I have no problem with someone posting crap on twitter. Whether it's a fake or real journo doesn't really make a difference to the credibility of the info IMO.

Why is someone pretending to be ITK a problem, but garbage sites like caughtoffside and tribalfootball not?

They are all a problem which is what Superhudd is saying. How can you possibly support lying, attention seeking vermin who only seek to deceive and cheat?

 

[milo]

They are all a problem which is what Superhudd is saying. How can you possibly support lying, attention seeking vermin who only seek to deceive and cheat?

In this instance no one has sought to deceive or cheat, quite the opposite, they are taking the tinkle and having a giggle.

 

[jts1882]

In this instance no one has sought to deceive or cheat, quite the opposite, they are taking the tinkle and having a giggle.

Probably more tinkling and less giggling in this case.