The subject line on the email from my friend in Australia was intriguing

"I see you major POed Joe Thornley"

The email consisted of a link to the Twitter feed of Joe Thornley, CEO of Thornley-Fallis Communications, a large Ottawa-based PR firm. I had never met him, but I knew Thornley to be a player in the world of Canadian public relations.

Twitter forums attract as many as 1.9 million unique visitors a month as of January 2009. (Associated Press)

Earlier that day, I had given a speech at a conference of public relations people in Toronto. Thornley was the conference co-chair. The subject was PR and social media.

I'm all in favour of blogs and Facebook, and Twitter, but I think they have to be handled with care, perhaps especially by people who work in PR.

I didn't expect my position would be universally embraced. I had even said at the beginning of my remarks "you're certainly welcome to disagree with me and raise those disagreements after I'm finished."

What I hadn't anticipated was that people like Thornley wouldn't wait until I had finished to start disagreeing and rather than raise those disagreements with me and others in the room, Joe was sitting in the back raising them with the world.

Twitter-trashed

"It would be easy to get angry at the odious caricature of public relations Ira Basen presents. But it is too extreme to be credible."

That was one of the remarks I discovered when I looked through Joe's comments later on Twitter.

"You can ask questions without propagating simplistic, misleading stereotypes. Ira Basen fails that test."

That was another. Then, he accused me of saying "provocative things without quoting sources." And then there was this curious comment. "Ira Basen gets people talking. But so does a car crash. Is that a good thing?

Clearly my friend in Australia was correct. I had major POed Joe Thornley.

Twitter is a public forum

Now if you're not yet familiar with Twitter, it's currently the hottest social media utility in the universe. It began in San Francisco in 2006 as a way for people to find out what's up with their friends.

But it has now expanded far beyond its original roots. Marketers, politicians and journalists have all fallen in love with Twitter because it's an easy way of instantly becoming connected to large numbers of people of a certain age and way of thinking.

Think of Twitter as a combination of blogging and instant messaging. Like IM, the messages are short. None can exceed 140 characters. And like blogging, you can share links of photos, text and video with the world.

But on Twitter, you can also sign up to be a "follower," which means you will receive every message that the person you are following writes. Even if you're not a registered follower, you can still read anyone's messages simply by going to their Twitter page.

So while on one level Twitters messages are private correspondence, in reality they are very public. Which is why I was rather miffed when I found out that I had been twitter- trashed.

Words carry weight

It's not like I'm not used to being criticized online. During the last two election campaigns I wrote "Reality Check" columns for this website and was slagged by all kinds of people with user names that may or may not be real (personal favourite: Hugh Jass).

But that online commentariat is a remarkably egalitarian and non-hierarchical place. Because everyone is anonymous, everyone is created equal. Your reputation is based on what you have to say, not who you are.

But when you are being professionally attacked by someone with their own substantial Twitter following, it can feel more like a school-yard whisper campaign than a conversation. Is that really what social networks are for?

And besides, what's the rush? What's the point of attacking someone — or promoting them for that matter — before they've finished speaking?

I began to wonder what might have happened if Twitter had been around during some of history's greatest moments? What if someone had been twittering the Gettysburg Address in real time?

Lincoln: Four score and seven years ago… Twitterer: Prez just said 4 score and 7 yrs ago @ Getburg. Why didn't he just say 87? What's that about? This speech sucks.

You get the idea.

Pushing back

After stewing over this episode for a while, I felt the need to push back. So I wrote Thornley an email and proceeded to outline all the reasons why I thought what he did was wrong.

Joe responded promptly and offered to put my comments and my original speech on his blog. Since then, our exchange has provoked quite a stir on his online site and others.

The entire incident, though, has me thinking that perhaps we should be considering some rules of engagement if we intend to use these new social media as public forums.

First (common courtesy), before attacking, wait until a speaker is finished so you can hear and reflect upon everything that person has to say. Then perhaps you want to consider writing your comments in a medium that allows for more than 140 characters at a time, like an email or blog.

At many of the conferences I go to these days, there are so many people live-Twittering, blogging, texting and emailing during the proceedings that it seems no one is actually paying attention to the speaker.

On his blog, Thornley defends live-Twittering by saying "we can profit from other people's thoughts in real time, deepening our understanding and providing validation or challenge for different perspectives."

I don't buy it. But several online commentators have suggested that live-Twittering is just like taking notes during a lecture. One person pointed out that studies have shown that people retain more information when they take notes, so Twitter would simply add "a sharing dimension to note-taking."

That assumes, of course, that you are actually noting what is being said, not merely editorializing or trying to impress your friends.

More civility needed

Rule two. If, after reflection, you decide that a speaker deserves to be criticized, be inclusive.

If you disagree with something someone says in public, and if you're going to do that disagreeing in public, then find a way to include that person in the discussion.

Remember, Twitter is a public conversation and public discourse today needs all the help and civility it can get.

Finally, don't pretend that none of this matters.

One social media blogger in San Francisco wrote that, like it or not, live-Twittering and blogging are here to stay and people like me who find it offensive, or rude, or unfair or incomplete, simply need to get used to it.

"Your complaints and arguments — and their validity — don't matter," he proclaimed.

Actually, they do matter. Social media is in its infancy, and we still have much to learn about its upsides and downsides. But one thing that seems pretty obvious, even at this early date, is that just because you can behave badly, doesn't mean that you should.