I think it’s clear what that theme is. So I present the following without comment. Matthew Franklin on Twitter.
Sep. 7 @johnvacy ah come on you conspiracy theorists. U get more depth in political coverage from the Oz than any other paper.
Sep. 26 @oneplanetmikey So Gamut exists only as a counter to the Oz? Absurd. I like Gamut. But your Oz conspiracy theory is pathetic
October 1. @Pollytics Also sometimes wrong, not based on facts and often motivated by hatred or irrational conspiracy theories.
October 2. @thewetmale agreed. This is why people who attack Oz journos as tho we r all part of some conspiracy r wrong.
October 2 @thewetmale fair enuff. But the oz’ harshest critics constantly misrepresent, verbal and fall for the great conspiracy theory.
October 3. @silvermullet Correct. Time to dump the bullying, bile and conspiracy theories.
October 6 @jayrosen_nyu You don’t really buy into the big News ltd conspiracy theory do you? Don’t you know how newspapers work?
October 6: @beardoc There is nothing for us to fear dude. That’s just a conspiracy theory. What do I care? why would I care?
Finally, Matthew Franklin, October 6: Actually, I don’t go for conspiracies and am not into attacking critics. U don’t know me, do u
UPDATE, Dec. 6: There were some replies from the account of Matthew Franklin.
Dec. 5 @jayrosen_nyu happy to stand by those comments. They weren’t discourteous. Pity u won’t engage on issues.
Dec. 5 @jayrosen_nyu I only urge u to engage on fact. If anyone calls u on that, u attck them.
(I had asked Franklin, “Would such be an example of the courteous, unassuming reply to criticism you urge upon me?” with a link to the post you are reading now. You see, to Matthew Franklin a post like this is an “attack,” just as normal criticism of the Oz is a charge of conspiracy. There, now I have commented.)