What a TikTok account on liberals tells us about who’s ‘fair game’ in the media

Going viral doesn’t always mean what you think it means, says Dave Maclean

TikTokers are sometimes stunned to find the media’s glare pointed at them (PA)

Who is newsworthy? It used to be an easy question to answer. At one point – just a couple of decades ago – you could make a case that there were about 100 solid household names in the UK or the US.

A box-office movie star was known worldwide. You don’t get that anymore. A game show host in the 1980s had more fame and name recognition than any of the new breed of Hollywood actors.

Andy Warhol probably didn’t say everyone would one day be famous for 15 minutes – but if he had, he’d have been onto something.

But as well as those viral stars who burn brightly for a brief period, there are people who, in various niches, have influence, power, and renown for longer periods of time. Warhol might have described it as being famous, to 1.5 per cent of the population, all of the time.

The definition of where that line is drawn became a topic of intense debate this week – and it all surrounded a Twitter account called ‘Libs of TikTok’.

The account collates TikTok clips of what it categorises as liberals, often with negative commentary, and often focused on monologues from teachers and educators about LGBT+ topics.

Many on the left see these clips as perfectly reasonable takes; some on the right see the agenda behind them as having no place in school.

Washington Post’s new big-name tech hire, Taylor Lorenz, tracked down the person behind the account – and the Jeff Bezos-owned newspaper ran a detailed article outlining the account controller’s line of work, after Lorenz turned up at her and her relatives’ homes seeking comment.

Would my parents know what Libs of TikTok is? No.

Did my fiancee when I asked her? No.

Even the reporter I assigned to write an explainer piece needed to do detailed research to get up to speed with the topic. In other words, this isn’t Taylor Swift we’re talking about.

But on the other hand, the Post argued, with some merit, this is an influential account followed by powerful political figures and setting the terms of debate online.

Set aside this current row, and I personally take a maximalist view of who’s ‘fair game’ in the public arena: if you enter the public debate space, you accept the scrutiny that comes with it. That goes for people on all sides of the political debate.

Publishing opinions to thousands on Twitter and other platforms comes with the opportunity for others to respond with their views on your takes. Fierce responses, provided they stay on the right side of the law and don’t constitute hate speech, seem a fair price to pay for the ability to influence a national debate.

This is an issue that goes beyond Twitter. TikTokers are sometimes stunned to find the media’s glare pointed at them, after a quick video they posted before they went to sleep accumulated millions of views during the night. Sometimes, when the story is negative, the subject is furious that there’s media coverage at all.

The power of the algorithm was underlined when I, bored during the pandemic, uploaded a dumb clip of me trying to figure out how much ice was in a Dunkin’ Donuts iced coffee. I posted it, forgot all about it, and came back to find millions of views.

Thankfully, that was a banal post about a dull lockdown activity. A passing political thought or bit of cultural commentary could have fared very differently.

Your phone is a portal to posterity or infamy whether you like it or not. If you’re not on board with that, buy an old Nokia – the most dangerous thing on there is Snake.

Yours,

Dave Maclean

US features editor