All praise FleetStreetBlues and #savethefieldproducer

Sky's decision to clampdown on how its employees used Twitter provoked a strong, if rather predictable response on Twitter yesterday.

Within seconds a hashtag had been launched to #savefieldproducer, in reference to Sky's popular Digital News Editor, Neal Mann (nearly 40,000 followers).

If anyone missed Sky's announcement it is as follows. Employees must not:

- repost information from any Twitter users not employed by Sky

- retweet rival journalists or 'people on Twitter'

- tweet about non-work subjects, or even stray from their own beat

- break news from their own beat on Twitter before passing it to the newsdesk

Thousands of tweets followed on the #savefieldproducer hashtag - @elanazak has helpfully Storified the pick of them.

I even waded in myself:

An incredibly short-sighted decision by Sky. One that seems to have been brought in without thought #savefieldproducer

Then I read a blog post by FleetStreetBlues. It argues, like myself, against Sky's new policy as nonsensical, saying:

At a stroke dozens of active, interesting Twitter accounts are going to become pretty much useless - if all you're going to get is the latest news as reported on Sky News anyway, why not just follow the Sky News Newsdesk account and have done with it

But the post went on to consider the other side, to point out the logic in Sky's decision.

It makes no sense for Sky News to pay journalists to break stories through another medium. It makes no sense for them to pay journalists to amass personal social media followings by promoting rival news outlets.

And they're good points.

Look at the Storified #savefieldproducer hashtag. One Tweet from @PunksatonyPics, in support of Neal Mann, went as follows:

Never noticed @fieldproducer worked with Sky. I know now because Sky is being particularly daft. Leave the man alone. #savefieldproducer

That kind of Tweet will be held aloft in the Sky boardroom as showing they have done the right thing. If Mann's followers don't realise who his employer is, what benefit will it bring Sky - one of the most commercial journalistic outlets in the world.

Consider also, for example the furore when Laura Keunssberg moved from BBC to ITV. In the stroke of key, she went from @BBCLauraK to @ITVLauraK and the audience she had built up utilising the corporation brand unwittingly switched allegiance.

On a personal level I have little problem with this. It is an inevitable consequence of Twitter and to make the most of the medium journalists need to freedom to interact in a more personal than corporate manner.

What I am celebrating is FleetStreetBlues and the desire to look at the other angles. There is too much blind following and assumption on online journalism at the moment and not nearly enough interrogation of the issues.

Twitter was alight with people attacking Sky and this post stood out as a well considered and open-minded beacon. Remember, Twitter isn't always right you know.

So less celebratory slaps on the back for everyone and more consideration to other ways forward please. I might not like the Times behind the paywall or agree with the new Twitter rules but I am glad some people are prepared to break away from the flock.

UPDATE: Just as I hit publish, I saw this blog by Tom Phillips which also takes a view of the Sky rules and suggests how they might 'de-stupid it'. Well worth a read.

Leaders' debates

So now they're over. We've had three debates and ITV, Sky and the BBC have been given a crack of the whip at giving the Tories, Labour and the Lib Dems a crack of the whip. I think it's fair to say that these US style debates are here to stay but has the experiment been a success?

1) It got people talking: It most certainly did. And not just talking but tweeting and blogging and Booing and Facebooking and YouTubing and all other kinds of social mediaing. There is always a buzz of excitement around a general election but it has been more pronounced this time with water-cooler talk straying from Glee, football and the latest meme to the leaders' debates. And lets face it, after the apathy of 2005 when somewhere between 45 per cent and 60 per cent of the population voted. #success

2) It brought the politicians to the people: Previously to see a leader in action you had to watch carefully edited clips or an interview from a journalist who quite frequently had an agenda be it political or simply the furthering of their own public image (yes that's you Paxman). #success

3) It highlighted the difference between the parties: Certainly each leader was given a soapbox to display their ideologies and opinions. However, they often couldn't agree on what that was. How many times did we hear a leader say 'that is not what our manifesto states' or my personal favourite from Clegg to Cameron: 'Let's assume that every time you talk about our policy, you're going to be wrong'. This did not help with clarifying the parties' stance on issues, if anything is muddied the waters further and identifying exactly what a leader's opinion was became almost impossible. #fail

4) It highlight the opportunity for choice and change: There clearly was choice in that there were three parties represented but two of those parties have swapped power in the UK since 1918 and the third held power before that and has been third ever since. What these debates did was reinforce the prominence of these three parties to the detriment of the wider political democracy and the anger of the SNP, Plaid Cymru, Greens and UKIP. I fear that votes for the minority parties will fall further this year as they struggle to make their voices heard. #fail

So on those four points it would appear to be in the balance but in my opinion, the first two are relatively superficial in that they are involved largely with engaging the electorate with the principle of the election, not with making and informed decision.

As I have already stated, these debates are here to stay - any leader not wanting to talk part would be hideously ridiculed and branded a coward. But perhaps a change to the format would be preferable.

Why wasn't the debate taken to Scotland and Wales with Alec Salmon and Ieuan Wyn Jones given a voice in parts of the UK where they enjoy huge support

Why haven't the Greens and UKIP been given a chance to get themselves heard? Surely that can only add to the opportunity for democratic choice.

Also do we need a referee and not just a facilitator? How many people are going to listen to Clegg and Cameron disagree about what it says in their respective manifestos and then scurry away and see who is right? I would have loved Dimbleby to step in and say "Actually David it does say on page 98 of your manifesto that blah blah blah, are you telling us that is incorrect?" I’m not naïve enough to think there is never any ambiguity in a manifesto but at least it would help us make an informed choice.

Still, it has really livened things up on the comedy front with Twitter abound with cracking jokes and comments. Of course some people tried a little to hard but here's a selection of some of my favourites:

@sugarshamen: "90 billion pounds on Trident missiles? Thats hardly enough for even a small nuclear holocaust! We'll be a laughing stock."

@charltonbrooker: "Bloke sitting to the left of questioner has a beard like one of those iron-filing magnetic novelty face things"

@markclapham: "How did all these people see the version of the #leadersdebate where Cameron was remotely convincing? Special 3D glasses with the Sun?"

And then of course you get this great screen grab (although it as, as far as I am aware, taken and circulated by Conservative campaigner @TimMontgomerie before being picked up and used by virtually all media outlets today)