The Decider: The Dangers of Tweeting in the Public Eye

Twitter is great.  I sing its praises like the bird that is its logo, if only it had a voice.  (In my imagination, the Twitter logo bird pecks away at an iPhone to communicate via tweets.)  The service allows people from all walks of life to communicate with each other about any subject in real time.  It has been excellent for our sport because it allows golf fans to communicate with players, writers to talk with both readers and players, and the service itself has turned into a place where news breaks.  Sometimes news breaks on Twitter, though, for something that crosses a barrier and offends a large group of people.

Dan Jenkins experienced that at the Masters and in the week after when his comment about getting takeout from YE Yang caused a stir here, at other outlets, and in the Asian-American community.  Quietly, Ian Poulter made a similar remark last week while watching a soccer match. 

Poulter's a big soccer fan - as almost any Euro that I've ever met - and roots hard for Arsenal.  His boys lost to Tottenham 2-1 on April 14, and Poulter's reaction was a bit on the crude side.  He sent out, "Not talking about football after being beaten by Yids."  Yids is a European epithet for Jewish people.

Poulter apologized soon thereafter, saying, "I didn't mean to offend anybody with my football tweet. Very sorry if I did. I am not racial in anyway."  He deleted the tweet.  Fortunately for us, the American Library of Congress is going to spend tax dollars to archive every tweet ever delivered.  Poulter may not escape suspension from the European Tour.

Anti-Semitism runs rampant in many parts of Europe.  It's a big deal in the European soccer community.  It's common, almost.  The customs of a particular community, though, don't make it ok for a celebrity of Poulter's stature - with nearly a million followers on Twitter - to deliver such a remark.  Frankly, I'd rather him stick to flipping off crowds at golf tournaments.

The examples of Jenkins and Poulter both go to show the kind of scrutiny under which "celebrity" accounts face.  When a celebrity sends a tweet, it can become instant news.  It has on this site - from tournament announcements to major gaffes - and makes news on other sites, too.  Forget worrying about drunk texting (or tweeting, in this case).  Worry more about letting something slip while totally with it, not even realizing that thousands of people could be offended very quickly.

There's a certain line here in these two examples that is probably the most clear cut.  Don't cut down people on the basis of race, religion, creed, or sexual orientation - you know, all of the stuff protected by American civil rights legislation.  Have at it for someone's inability to process a coherent thought, have a rational argument, or something like that. 

It creates a problem.  It does for me.  My moniker on Twitter is solely based on this blog.  I have something like 3,000 followers who get each message that I deliver.  I kind of have to watch what I say.  Limited vulgarity ('cause, really, I'm not going to stop cussing), and definitely have to keep some things private - be it personal information, golf info that I'm privy to but cannot share, or other stuff.  And I'm not going to waste time creating a private, personal account.

There is probably another school of thought here - employed by people from all over the world of notoriety - that says to say whatever comes to mind.  The idea that it is easier to beg forgiveness than ask permission seems to be an accepted one in a number of places.  Poulter seems to have accepted it, and he seems none the worse off for doing so.

That leads into this week's question: