Buckley, Ct Joe Public, Bowled Agnew 0

My favorite use of new technolgogy at present is what I refer to as LilyAllengate.

It all started when singer Lily Allen tweeted about her love of cricket. The producers of the BBC Radio 4's test Match Special (TMS) saw an opportunty, and got Lilly to be one of their guests on the very light-hearted lunchtime programme hosted by BBC Cricket Correspondent, Jonathan Agnew.

I listened to the show during the lunch break of last week's Test Match. Whenever I have listened to it the show gives the listener an opportunity to find out more about a 'celebrity', and the role cricket has played in their lives. It was a good enjoyable interview, with an obvious rapport (I hasten to use the word relationship) between interviewer and interviewee. If I was being hypercritical it was that Allen came across at times as a big giggly, and Aggers seemed a bit star struck, but overall it was an enjoyable way of passing 40 minutes. However, overall Aggers is a good interviewer who makes his guests relaxed, and I could see him doing the job beyond cricket.

Then the wheels came off. Will Buckley posted a blog on the Observer website, which Aggers took exception to, and asked via his Twitter feed for an apology. Lilly Allen added to the debate by tweeting support for Aggers. Ultimately, Buckley had to make an apology, of sorts.

What I find interesting about this that a) the spat took place in the public domain and b) it took place via new technologies. For me it is further evidence that the role of traditional mass communication media is being fundamentally challenged by the Internet and other ICTs. Commentators and academics have for several years talked about convergence, that rather than having separate technologies they will all come together under one domimant channel, probably the Internet.

I am not totally certain that this is an example of convergence, but it does show the power of the Internet. It also suggest that the Internet opens up a voice for the public. The huge number of comments on Buckley's post were virtually unanimously against his article. It was, therefore, no surprise that he had to back down.

In the past such a difference of opinion between two journalists would probably have been sorted out in private. This makes me wonder if at the next UK general election we will witness similar public outbursts. For example, I could see candidates attacking one-another on Twitter or activists posting negative comments on a politician's Facebook wall.

The other lesson I draw from this example, is the fact that technologies such as Twitter and blogs have become such as normal part of our lives, and that of journalists, that I would expect the Internet to be a more significant communciation platform during the 2010 election than that of 2005.