In this guest post, Tim Burrowes, editor of Mumbrella, responds to Laurel Papworth’s recent post on cyberbullying.*
The story of my experience begins last Saturday morning at 8.30am when my mobile started ringing. It was the first of several calls, emails and DMs from friends to warn me there was something on Laurel Papworth’s blog that I needed to see.
What I read with increasing alarm and (I confess) hurt was a 5000+ word diatribe. I admit I started to shake a little as I read it, which I did my best to hide from my girlfriend. It’s certainly the most personal attack about myself I’ve experienced.
(By the way, do not see any of this as a complaint about the treatment I received – journalists give it out and it’s never very edifying for them to complain when they take it. This is simply about putting the record straight.)
But the words chosen were calculated to inflict maximum damage to my reputation. I was, she alleged, a cyberbully because over the previous year on Mumbrella I had regularly criticised her dance-on-the-grave views on “heritage media” and mocked some of her more extreme moments.
She listed every single post written on Mumbrella that had even peripherally mentioned her, as evidence that not only were we cyberbullying her, but that I was a cyberstalker too. She claimed that she had never attacked me,
The attack came in waves. She tweeted and retweeted her post to her 20,000+ Twitter followers. She @messaged bloggers with bigger followings than her own, presumably in the hope that they would reply and take it to a wider audience. Others told me that she had privately messaged them and asked them to retweet it. She’d emailed the link to a selection of industry people. She urged advertisers to not support our site.
The post concluded with a message urging anyone reading it to retweet it.
As a keyword stuffed piece of SEO, it was exquisitely written. It was clearly designed as a Googlebomb designed to connect the words Mumbrella and bully. Looking at Google she’s had some success with that.
All while I was still in bed. It was certainly a well planned and executed campaign designed to ruin my name. It is of course a deeply unpleasant thing to be labelled a bully. And much like being accused of being a racist, it’s very hard to respond to in a convincing way.
For the record though, let me try. When your adversary has just as much influence and audience as you it’s a debate. It can be vigorous, it can be grumpy, it can be downright bloody rude. But it’s not bullying to honestly disagree with someone’s publicly expressed ideas – even to poke fun at those ideas if they’re the ones who put them out there for debate.
More on that later, but for now, let’s go back to the beginning of the feud.
The first thing I need to be clear about it is that I started it. I was the first to openly criticise her.
I found her blog entertaining but used to find the regular attacks on technology journalists grating. Journalists she disagreed with were labelled as “linkbaiters”. It was a tactic she would later apply to me.
The first time I wrote about Laurel Papworth was when she attacked the media for failing to write about her teaching trip to the Middle East. It seemed spectacularly ill-informed on what actually consists of news.
I gradually noticed she was starting to refer to me on Twitter as “Mumbles”. Most of the Twitter archive of those has gone now but a couple I can find:
“ Mumbles always misses the main story & goes for the “if it bleeds it leads”. Antagonize a human being, get a quote, lead with it.”
“*curious* do you really think Mumbles has the depth to write a post like that? I mean, not a press release with gossip?”
And so on throughout the year.
Which was okay – she was entitled to her view and to comment on my professionalism.
There were a couple of odd incidents too. At one point I was in the audience at an event. Without my knowledge, she took a photograph of me and posted it online with the message: “it’s Tim “Mumbles” Burrowes of Mumbrella. Heh.”
Stalking behaviour? Of course not. I found it a bit odd, but it didn’t make me think I was being stalked.
I, meanwhile, was regularly writing, both seriously and playfully, about some of her (in my view) more foolish pronouncements. Obviously I was seriously antagonising her.
Where she really started to put the boot in was in a comment on a news.com.au blog posting in which she effectively suggested I had some sort of corrupt PR relationship I was hiding from my readers.
She suggested I’d “sold” the conference idea to my “agency mates” and the venue.
I’d moderated an event about Twitter as a favour to the agency involved – there’d been no fee. For a journalist though, that’s a pretty direct attack on their integrity.
In a comment on the A Digital Perspective blog she wrote:
“Mumbles is establishing a “snark” blog – a negative groundswell or anti-PR site. By that I mean, he copy and pastes press releases and tacks on a negative comment or puts a negative spin. If he’s really pissy, he takes a tweet to 30 people, out of context and spins it into ‘anti -news’. This can be amusing, outraging, provoking, engaging, and I’m not suggesting that there is no place for such a blog, but that we need to recognise it for what it is – no surprises, there is a long history of linkbaiting in media.”
By that time it had become a team effort. Papworth’s partner Gary Hayes, an occasional poster, began to comment more regularly suggesting Mumbrella was an invader or that I did not understand social media.
Papworth uploaded to YouTube a video of her giving, in my view, a particularly misleading presentation at Media140 in which she appeared to be arguing that unlike bloggers, editors positively encourage errors. I took the piss.
In language that was to become familiar, Hayes posted: “I am seriously beginning to pity Tim that, like a school ground bully, he has to pick on Laurel this way. I suspect it’s because she has come to represent the social media ‘camp’ and is an easy target for him. His fascination also borders on stalking.”
Meanwhile, the fights Papworth was beginning to pick with others on Twitter began, it seemed to me, to take place more regularly. In short succession, there were rows with @stilgherrian, @shepherd, @scottrhodie and @warlach.
When I wrote about one of those incidents, Papworth claimed on Twitter, it was because of misogyny:
“Why does @Mumbrella always post negative inane things about me? *puzzled* Is that cyberbullying? He does it to women in general, no?”
(To answer that point – I suspect I’ve annoyed many, many people – but of both sexes in roughly equal proportion.)
Others were also beginning to notice the fights with those who questioned her.
One of the commenters agreed, suggesting that Papworth’s own behaviour “verges on bullying”
When Papworth responded, she turned back to Mumbrella, claiming: “Mumbrella has been blocked for about 6 months for consistently bullying me online and Mumbles now blocks my comments on his blog AS IS HIS RIGHT.”
Which isn’t true, by the way. I’ve never blocked her comments.
There have, of course, been other exchanges.
The reason I’ve gone into the level of detail I have is to make the point that this has been a two-way street
Through her Twitter following and blog readership, Laurel Papworth has the power to give as good as she gets. Indeed, she’s escalated all of this from a robust (very robust) debate on the rights and wrongs of social media into something much more deeply (and painfully) personal.
The comment stream in her posting about me went mostly in my favour. Some posters pointed out that we were both at fault (which is a fair enough view). But few who looked properly at her claims would accept that it was bullying. A few suggested that her own behaviour amounted to bullying, to which she replied:
“Call me a bitch – but not a bully.”
More than one pointed out that by attaching herself to the issue she was doing a disservice to those who are genuinely bullied.
I’ve so far held back from writing anything myself. Most of the advice I’ve been given has been one of two things – to either say nothing, or to sue for libel. Personally I’m not much of a fan of journalists taking that latter course unless they’ve no other choice.
But on Friday came the final straw.
She posted: “I (sic) just been asked to speak at a Government conf on cyber bullying and cyber rascism (sic) to address these issues. It’s in a couple of weeks. Will keep you posted.”
Funnily enough, it’s a threat she once used on another journalist who’d annoyed her: “Oh and someone tell him I am presenting at PANPA on Wednesday – you know, the conference for media proprietors and CEOs of newspapers, opened by Kevin Rudd? Sheesh. Noice case study for my preso 
“
That promise to speak at the conference is to me a signal that she’s not taken on board any of the many comments pointing out that that’s not what she has experienced. And she’s not going to let it go. Which is why I’m responding.
To avoid any suggestion that I’m rigging the debate by putting it in front of my larger audience, I’ve sought a neutral space and offered this as a guest posting to the Digital Citizens blog.
So let me spell it out.
Laurel Papworth has built herself up as a social media expert, and as a Twitter persona called SilkCharm. When you constantly publish your thoughts, you put them up for debate and criticism.
Mumbrella writes more about this subject area than any other outlet, so of course, Laurel Papworth crosses our radar regularly.
She’s highly polarising.
Laurel Papworth and her partner Gary Hayes can and do criticise Mumbrella. They’re entitled to do that.
And when I criticise her ideas, even when I’m scathing in the way I do it, it’s not cyberbullying and it’s certainly not cyberstalking. And the same is true when they attack me.
This feels like an attempt to swat an annoying critic through a character assassination.
It was a tough week. At Tuesday’s Digital Citizens event, everyone I chatted to was sympathetic, but they all wanted to talk about it and I didn’t really enjoy being defined by her words. As I say, it’s a deeply unpleasant thing to say about someone. I hope my family never sees it.
So here’s what I suggest. Let’s all stop calling each other names and stick to debating the issues. Let’s do it thoughtfully, angrily, amusingly, cleverly or even rudely. Let’s be vigorous, or even scathing when we talk about these ideas. But let’s not get personal.
Tim Burrowes
*N.B. A member of the Digital Citizens organising committee, Scott Rhodie, is mentioned in the article. Scott had no part in the creation and submission of this article.
.jpg "269126_10150227865373424_309792548423_7510329_6231730_n (1)")
Very disappointing, nasty behaviour by somebody who should be giving a lead in this space.
Clearly this was not the oneway traffic that she claimed. ironic that if anyone was doing the cyberstalking it was her. Secret photos is a pretty bad look if you’re accusign someone else of stalking.
Remind me which one the cyber stalker is again?
Laurel , time to withdraw your comments, I think
Dare I say this was despicable action mainly because of the sheer hypocrisy involved in Laurel’s moral positioning.
It’s fair to say most of the considered replies were in your favour despite reading the skewed ‘evidence’ presented against you.
The sheer level of organisation that went into publishing and publicising the post shows serious intent to defame your character, unjustly and illegally.
Tim, I think you’re owed a sincere apology and the chance at open dialogue that isn’t bogged down in the emotionally misguided attacks on your character.
Tim,
Congratulations on a very considered, measured and mature response to what would be a highly distressing and damaging accusation and time.
Firstly, I want to apologise for being one of those people that when I *finally* met you for the first time on Tuesday night, spoke of the ‘bullying shit’ to you. I’ll at least buy you a drink next time
I stand by my comment on Jonathan’s post that Laurel’s behaviour online with @warlach and @eoor verged on bullying. The echochamber that is Twitter is a dangerous one, and reminds me of a saying my mum used to say “don’t throw stones in glass houses”.
Stand tall, Tim.
Karalee,
Thanks for the kind words and please don’t apologise! The alternative would have been everybody wanting to avoid the topic, and that would have made me worry ecven more…
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
Come on guys… grow up!!
Both of you dish it out… how about being man [woman] enough to take it??
Robust debate is what journalism is supposed to be. Having looked at both sides of this argument, it seems to me that the Sydney Digital Media have a false sense of their importance and therefore think the world really cares… it does but in a funny sense, it really doesn’t!!
So, Tim, you dropped the ball by answering the jibes… they were better left unanswered, You lost the high ground mate!!
JJ
Tim, a measured and fair response to what must be a difficult experience.
Regarding the accusations of bullying, I suspect we will see more of this as self-selected experts come up against the realities of critical journalism and scholarship. Academics are usually trained in the appropriate methods of engaged debate, media personalities, politicians and talking heads learn the cut-and-thrust of critical journalism.
As more bloggers and social media celebrities get exposed to the realities of critical journalism and parody, some will resort to personal attacks rather than measured, appropriate response. For a group of people committed to radical transparency, honesty and engagement, some of us are remarkably bad at being challenged.
I can’t help but suspect that your journalism – covering an industry that is used to being the makers of news, not the objects of it – is also helping draw out some of these issues.
Joseph,
You’re may well be right, of course. It was hard to decide whether to leave it or not.
And of course, I’ll never know for sure.
Cheeers,
Tim – Mumbrella
When I first came across Laurel’s accusation (via a twitter RT) I went (completely open-minded – I know little about either of them) and read her blog post, checked out the links (to her credit it was very well referenced) and that was enough to make it very clear that (a) she was inexplicably making an apple out of an orange (I couldn’t help feeling that it was some sort of paranoia engendered by envy); and (b) if anything it was SHE who is the bully. Every blog comment expressing tenacious disagreement invited nasty, overly personal retorts from Ms Papworth. (I was reminded of them by following the links in the above. Laurel’s nasty responses to criticism on the Second Life/Uluru post would get her sacked if she worked for me.)
So sorry that you have had to endure such a full on attack Tim, and full marks to you for handling it with such grace and aplomb without backing down.
[...] 27. Digital Citizens Blog Laurel Papworth Mumbrella and Me The attack came in waves. She tweeted and retweeted her post to her 20,000+ Twitter followers. She [...]
My problem with Laurel is not just that she repeatedly misuses her position and influence for her own agenda, but that she sets the entire industry back as well.
I understand that her income is heavily dependent on her having a high profile (both in social and traditional media) but the methodology she uses to achieve this profile is at best questionable, at worst flat out illegal.
The reality is that Laurel is a cottage industry educator with a vastly trumped up opinion of her importance on the broader stage. I actually agree with her half the time, but that’s not the half that worries me. She is misinformed and contrarian to the point where I’ve suspected a mental illness. Social Media is an industry in its infancy and consequently there is little regulation and a large disparity between the cowboys and those diligently trying to get a return on their clients investment (we probably fall somewhere in the middle). No one has all the answers at this stage, which is part of the fun, but the reality is that there are a lot of people working hard to get it right every day. Laurel acts as the self appointed “Pope of Social town” and that makes it bloody difficult for the rest of us to do our job.
I’m a director of a well known agency and social campaigns are a part of the digital projects we conduct. I don’t expect it to be easy, but I also don’t expect to have to call my clients to apologise and quell their fears every time Laurel mouths off on Sunrise. We’re working at it, we learn from our (not infrequent) failures and celebrate our successes.
Laurel’s myopic approach, self-aggrandisement and outright hypocrisy is a stain on an industry already struggling to establish credibility. I hope that she’s learnt a lesson from the outpouring of condemnation she’s received over this issue, but realistically she doesn’t have the capacity to assess it accurately and will only see it as justifying her questionable approach. I’ve watched on as a number of people I respect (@stilgherrian, @kimota etc) have reached out to her in a balanced way only to see them vilified and attacked.
Not that Tim is blameless, but in fairness part of his job description is to rake the muck.
As a side note in September last year Laurel started using Spam/Churn strategies to massively inflate her twitter following. She took 2.5 years to organically amass ~3000 followers and then drastically changed her strategy to spam follow and churn as many as she could. For the most part it worked. Following large numbers, waiting briefly and then unfollowing those that didn’t follow back.
http://twitterholic.com/silkcharm/
The link tells most of story but doesn’t go back to the beginning when it’s even more obvious. Take a look at dates like the 29th of January when she unfollowed ~800 people or the 27th of December when she churned another ~1,500 people, the pattern is also visible on the 29th of November when she churned ~1100 more people she was following.
So much for transparency and honesty in the social space.
WOW, Tim you need to have her on the Mumbo report and talk this shit out. Or have a 3D re-enactment (ala Tiger Woods scandal) which is much quicker than reading these long posts.
If there was a “principle of the internet” you’d both be banned from Facebook or Twitter for 3 months and your parents would have to pick you up from work everyday.
Normally I’d say “just get over it and make up” but we can’t all be friends so just ignore each other.
This definitely needs an online poll or a hastily thrown together web game where players can pick sides and throw shoes at the person they deem most guilty.
I posted something interesting in this thread but it doesn’t seem to have made it past the admins. Oh well.
Got picked up as Spam. Should be visible now
Any first-year anthropology or human behaviour student can point to this as a perfect case study of the differences between male and female conflict in a social context.
If Lauren were male, “he” might have confronted Tim to his face. Probably would’ve called him a dickhead. Maybe challenged him to step outside. Punches might have been thrown. Beers might conceivably have been bought afterwards.
But Lauren is female, and female competition doesn’t work like that. So she works the networks. The gossip. The implications and namecalling – oh, but with a smile, of course – aimed at reinforcing and enhancing her own status among a critical peergroup while marginalising Tim, while never ever confronting him to his face. It’s “Mean Girls” writ small.
When you think about it, it’s Lauren’s behaviour that most closely fits our mental image of the bullying that drives kids to suicide.
Relational aggression:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_aggression
Female social aggression:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=bitch-evolved-girls-cruel
One of the most well-known recent texts on the subject:
“Aggression, Antisocial Behavior, and Violence among Girls: A Developmental Perspective”
http://amzn.to/953SoW
The thing is, given that we are talking about an impersonal clash via social networks, Tim can’t possibly win. In this environment Lauren has the home-field advantage, because masculine conflict-resolution techniques are best suited to real-world confrontation. When it comes to a conflict where the weapons are gossip and innuendo delivered with a sweet smile on one’s face, males just aren’t wired to do it effectively. Tim, you’re bringing a knife to a gunfight if you try to continue this.
SMILEY FACE! SMILEY FACE!
Lauren’s comment is telling: ““Call me a bitch – but not a bully.” She knows she’s being a bitch, and she’s proud of it. Because in a female power dynamic, being acknowledged as a bitch by her peers is like a guy being acknowledged as being tall and strong by his peers. In her mind, being called a bitch is a compliment.
I have very little regard for Mme Papworth and see her only as a self-promoting whiner. If it came to shoe throwing I’d be throwing shoes at Papworth [who I don't follow because she bores me] and barracking for Mumbrella who I do follow.
i was hoping this would just go away (as no doubt you were), but can see why you’d want to address it. well done for doing so on neutral territory, and not turning it into a ‘mumbrella vs silkcharm’ thing. neither of you were really being bullied, and it does devalue the experience of people who are actually experiencing it. nothing you’ve written falls outside of your job description and if you stopped doing it (criticising people, calling out bullshit etc), mumbrella wouldn’t be half as good. asking advertisers to consider stop using mumbrella was pretty ropey. using a conference to air your grudges disguised as social media ‘insights’ is even shabbier
I have been following Papworth’s activities only very recently, and I have to say that after reading everything I am just totally disgusted at her behaviour and the damage she does to the entire profession.
The quicker she crawls back into the hole from whence she came the better.
Ash, I’m with you on that. Ha.
Tim & Laurel – it’s been an average rollercoaster ride for you both.
Here’s hoping you can both bury the hatchet and move on. I’m sure you have better things to do.
As I said to Laurel, “stop giving this bloke oxygen, he’s nothing without you”
I can’t help but feel you’ve missed every nuanced and overt attack on Tim’s character.
Purely rating the two on conduct: Laurel’s actions are deplorable and epitomise bullying.
Rating the two on responses: Laurel’s comments are disengaged from the issues at hand and far too emotive to be taken at face-value.
Rating the balance of responses on either side; those who question the validity of Laurel’s arguments also produce better written responses.
“Stop giving this bloke oxygen, he’s nothing without you” – means zilch in a dispute that’s producing carefully crafted and considered responses that by sheer, overwhelming statistical coincidence, support Mumbrella.
‘Parrots don’t exposit, they repeat meaningless sounds construed as statements.’ – me
[...] Last week I drew attention to a post by Laurel Papworth, the social media consultant, in which she accused Tim Burrowes of the media site Mumbrella of cyber-bullying. Today, Burrowes responds. [...]
I don’t know you, but I’ve read both sides.
The woman seems unbalanced.
barry makes a few good points, and I was all ready to agree with Diffuse, SHD, and vomiting and be done with it. However reading through Laurel’s post, I came across one particular post of Tim’s: http://mumbrella.com.au/naked-boss-rubbishes-papworth-4105
That really is quite an unnecessary post for a site trying to carve out some sort of professional readership, isn’t it? Whether the other attacks are justified or not, and whether Laurel’s attempts to claim some sort of social media leadership position make her fair game for continued criticism, the sort of childish nastiness in the “Naked Boss Rubbishes Papworth” post makes me feel Tim’s claim to be hurt by Papworth’s response rings a little hollow.
Can still sympathise with Tim, as I have a similar view on the digital industry here in Australia. There seems to be a lot of self-appointed experts who are doing quite well running with the moniker of ‘social media expert’ and it’s tempting to call them out at every chance. However this little episode serves as a reminder that I shouldn’t get too caught up in hating the chancers, and should instead focus on getting down to business. Maybe more of that from you too Tim (though perhaps not too much that you lose all your bite!).
In closing, I can’t believe I spent time commenting on this sideshow. I feel dirty.
Having known Laurel for around eighteen years I would suggest she has a mild personality disorder. She has always indulged in trolling behaviour – pissing many of my acquaintances off in the process – and now IMO it’s getting out of hand.
I am not in any way medically trained, btw – this is just an opinion.
I don’t know Tim at all beyond his writings.
Building polarised, disdain-filled online communities for 20 years.
Neither party has arrived at this conflict with clean hands. Time to get back in your boxes and focus on what you do best. As for the associated rhetoric over choosing sides – seriously there are far better contributions to be made to the digital industry. Frankly both of them have had more than their fair share of attention recently without contributing one iota back to the community.
Hehehe, someone respects me at least… (Ta Diffuse)
What I find lamentable is not so much the back and forth name calling and schoolyard carrying on (part of me was glad you hadn’t responded before, Tim, although your post does do you credit) but the fact that the issue of how to represent a personal ‘brand’ in a professional space seems to have been lost on certain people.
As social media blurs the line between the personal individual and the media brand – as more of us become citizen journalists with our blogs and other acts of self-publishing (yes, publishing Laurel! Even a tweet counts) – we need to adopt more of the professional attitudes we advise brands to use when dealing with criticism. Criticism of a ‘brand’ isn’t a personal attack. If someone were to criticise one of my articles or ridicule my argument in a professional debate, I would take it in exactly the same way as I would if it was a criticism of my business. Ie; not personally! When your ‘product’ is your ideas and opinions, criticism of those should be no different to me criticising Australian brands for not being able to create a decent jelly baby! (Yeah, I think I might need to work on that analogy a little, but I think you get my point…)
I’m not convinced that Papworth has made her case. However this article fails to mention some of the claims she has made, and the “she did it too” examples do not prove in themselves that Burrowes has not bullied Papworth. The bahaviour of Burrowes and Papworth might prove that neither, one OR BOTH of them are bullies. IF Papworth has bullied Burrowes, that does nothing to excuse Burrowes IF he has bullied Papworth
In particular, this article fails to address in any way Papworth’s claim that Burrowes has incited others by creating an environment on his blog that welcomes and encourages comment hostile to her.
After reading the posts on Burrowes’ blog where Papworth suggests this has happened, I’m not convinced that this is the case. Indeed one comment that Papworth complains about was removed quickly by Burrowes. However if Burrowes was serious about defending his position here, why is that point not even mentioned in this article?
The idea that other people can tell someone “No, you haven’t been bullied” is rather unpleasant too. It reminds me of people rushing to defend Asher Moses on Twitter last year after his vile victim-blaming “skanky ho” comment regarding the woman who made sexual assault allegations against Matthew Johns.
Another point Burrowes hasn’t addressed is Papworth’s enquiry about how many other bloggers have received so much attention from Burrowes’ blog. That certainly makes me wonder if Burrowes has Papworth listed as an easy target.
I’m leaning towards the opinion that Burrowes hasn’t bullied Papworth. Yet I’m still wary of the behaviour of Burrowes’ supporters. There seems to be a fair bit of automatically assuming that Papworth was wrong to even say what she did. How will people who think like that act if someone makes a stronger case of cyberbullying in the future, against Burrowes or anyone else?
I also note that Papworth claims that she has received a number of emails from female bloggers supporting her position, saying they have had similar experiences. Without knowing more about this I can’t say anything meaningful about how this affect’s what Papworth has to say, but if true it indicates that for some women at least there is an online environment hostile to them. Even if you think Papworth hasn’t been bullied, the meaning of that is well worth thinking about.
Let’s be healthy reivals not enemies. There is plenty of cyberspace to go around.
She’s an utter nutter