In the Media

How I tweeted the Vincent Tabak trial | Steven Morris

PUBLISHED November 2, 2011
SHARE

Tweeting from the courtroom can be tricky, but it offers readers unprecedented insight into a trial In the old days the newspaper court reporter listened, scribbled down the salient points and the best quotes in shorthand before dashing out to a payphone to file a report. A neat precis of the proceedings, tidied up by a subeditor if necessary, appeared in the next edition. During the trial of Vincent Tabak , the Guardian, Telegraph and some of the broadcasters did it very differently, sending thousands of tweets from the press benches that described the evidence and speeches in real time. Rather than ending up with a tidy summary of proceedings, Twitter followers had access to a raw, running report of what was going on in Bristol crown court. And the majority appeared to appreciate it. "It was the closest thing to actually being there," tweeted one follower. "A great sense of drama, esp during Tabak's evidence." "Felt I was in public gallery. Very tense whilst waiting verdict," said a second. Followers seemed to feel they were getting an unmediated, unedited version of events. "It's quite reliable as you write as they speak," said one tweeter. "You gave detailed unbiased facts ? I got more from you than the news and formed my own opinions from what you said," reported another. Followers were not confined to disinterested observers. Crown Prosecution Service staff who were not present at Bristol crown court followed the Guardian's tweets. So did friends and family of Tabak's victim, Joanna Yeates. A 700- or 1000-word newspaper or news website story inevitably leaves out much of what has happened in court. A two-minute TV or radio report condenses five hours of court time even more brutally. The Twitter versions of the case may have offered less artful, fuller versions of the written or recorded pieces: Guardian readers had the benefit of both traditional reports and tweets. It turned out that the Twitter format ? 140 characters a tweet ? was not as problematic as it might seem. Reporters are used to transforming long-winded sentences into pithy paragraphs. The format seemed to work particularly well for courtroom exchanges. Here are some examples taken from the heart of the case: Tabak's six hours in the witness box. "Prosecutor asking why Tabak wanted to kiss Joanna Yeates. 'It's nice to kiss someone' ? Tabak." "Tabak: I didn't want to hurt her, I didn't want her to die. I didn't want to cause her any harm." "Prosecution: Were you looking in her eyes? Tabak: I can't remember." But what of the dangers? When you tweet, no second pair of eyes is looking at what you write before you send it. It is all down to you. Members of Tabak's defence team certainly monitored tweets carefully and, no doubt, would have made great play if something prejudicial to their client had crept out. And we courtroom tweeters did help each other. Before I tweeted the guilty verdict, I double-checked that I had heard it correctly with a friend from a rival newspaper. Another decision I made was to try to make sure that each individual tweet would have stood up to a lawyer's scrutiny for contempt of court: each had to be legally self-contained. This probably ended with many more "allegedlys" than was necessary, but it seemed better to be safe than sorry. The fact that Tabak had admitted manslaughter helped a little but the central point of the trial ? his intention when he killed Yeates ? was a subtle and tricky one. This had to be borne in mind before every tweet was sent into the ether. Another question was how much detail to put in about sensitive subjects, such as the injuries that Yeates suffered. Julia Reid, a Sky correspondent who tweeted from court, said she found it a challenge to judge how much of this material to tweet. "If you're doing a live blog, how much should you edit what you're feeding?" she said. Should it all be thrown in, or do you have to be mindful that young people might be following you? A difficulty for a reporter taught to take verbatim notes was striking a balance between getting what was said down on paper and still having time to tweet it too. I wasn't just tweeting but also filing a written piece for the website at lunchtime and a roundup for the web and next day's newspaper later in the day. I felt I had to have most of it in shorthand as well in the form of a Twitter message to do those "old-fashioned" reports. That doubled the workload. The other challenge is making sure you don't miss anything ? a reaction from Tabak or Yeates's family, for example ? because you are looking at your BlackBerry rather than the dock or public gallery. It is fortunate that lawyers like their dramatic pauses. In most cases, reporters tend to drop in and out of court and get on with other tasks. I began to feel I had to be in court to make sure my followers were getting as good a service as possible. For the most part I used a BlackBerry, but ITN correspondent Rupert Evelyn probably had the best setup ? an iPad linked wirelessly to a keyboard. He tweeted relevant pictures of locations mentioned, too ? extra value for his followers. At one point Evelyn was blocked for sending too many tweets in a single hour. Who knew there was a limit? He increased his followers from 1,500 to 3,500 in three weeks. I think mine quadrupled. I'm still trying to answer all the queries that followers have sent me ? again, it's a lot more work but worth it, I hope, for the relationships formed and extra service offered. Joanna Yeates Twitter Internet UK criminal justice Contempt of court Media law Crime Steven Morris guardian.co.uk © 2011 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

CATEGORIES