Who's the April Fool?

Stuart Corner
Saturday, 04 April 2009 13:30

Opinion and Analysis

A spoof article published in Computerworld Australia on 1 April claiming that Telstra had agreed to a retail/wholesale split if it were to win the NBN went badly awry and precipitated a flurry of trading in Telstra stock. Recriminations and regrets are flowing thick and fast and ASIC is rumoured to be investigating, But who is really to blame? First and foremost, the author. The unwritten rule of April Fool's jokes is that they have to be too preposterous to believe. Unless you are reasonably close to what is happening in Australian telecoms that rule did not apply in this case.

And this unfortunate incident holds some salutary lessons about news in the era of the Internet. You the author have absolutely no control of your story once it hits the net. You don't know where it will appear, how much of it will appear or how someone else will take it, twist it and rebrand it as their own.

This one apparently made mischief on the ASX after finding its way to the US and back again minus a few crucial few last words. It ended "more to follow" instead of "more to follow on this on April Fools Day 2009." Also, of course, thanks to time differences it hit the Internet a day earlier in the US, March 31. The article was given extra credibility by quoting iiNet carrier relations manager, John Lindsay, and telecommunications industry 'guru' Paul Budde, both of whom were in on the joke.

After the proverbial hit the fan, Budde was reported regretting not having asked to see the final article before it went to press and saying: "The idea Telstra would agree to separating its wholesale and retail networks was so preposterous that everyone would realise it was a joke."

Well actually I think it's preposterous to believe that "everyone" is so finally attuned to the nuances of Australian telecommunications and so up-the-minute on the machinations of Telstra that they would be capable of immediately dismissing the idea of Telstra embracing the idea of a split as preposterous.

CONTINUED