When critics tried to discredit abuse whistleblower Peter Fox, he turned to social media. The anti-Fox campaign didn't stand a chance, says Suzanne Smith.

Before I start, an admission. I am not an expert at Twitter - far from it. I only really engaged with the medium about a year ago, and I still have a lot to learn.

But the last week has been an extraordinary revelation to me. Twitter is a powerful weapon to protect whistleblowers like Detective Chief Inspector Peter Fox.

The lead-up to the interview with DCI Peter Fox on Lateline was extremely tense. I knew the blowback against him would be vicious. As a reporter, you have a duty to protect these brave people who put their careers and often their personal lives on the line.

Once the interview went to air, you could tell something monumental had happened, just by following Twitter. The mood was poisonous. It wasn't confected outrage; it was real. Peter Fox had exposed serious allegations of a cover-up and criminality in the Catholic Church and the public were reaching out to him.

I knew a campaign to discredit him would start almost immediately. To circumvent that campaign, I put out this tweet straight after his interview on Thursday evening:

@suzipeep: Media peeps I would be keen to know if you get any briefings discrediting DCI Peter Fox from #Lateline.

This was retweeted. It was a way of signalling to the Twitter community that they had a role in protecting this whistleblower. A very important role.

The word got out. The next thing was to get DCI Peter Fox to join Twitter. His son Aaron signed him up with the Twitter handle @Peter_Fox59. Peter Fox now had a direct way to communicate with hundreds of people, including the country's senior journalists. He used it to great effect. He told his followers that journalists were telling him that senior police were claiming he was "mentally ill".

@Peter_Fox59: The police dirt campaign has already started against me circulating rumours I am psych unstable.

Immediately his followers retweeted this tweet. The word had got out that the campaign against Peter Fox had begun.

Every time he heard his critics discredit him, he put it out on his Twitter account. Everyone knew, and he could calmly and rationally dispel the spin. The anti-Fox campaign didn't stand a chance.

But even more importantly were the "heavy hitters" - key people in the Twitterverse - who are also powerful in politics, the law and business. There was a convergence of people from very different walks of life, from all over the political spectrum, that had decided that Peter Fox was the "tipping point" and that nothing short of a national royal commission would do.

By the far the most influential, I believe, was @markatextor, pollster and strategist for the Liberal party. His many years in politics were evident in some key tweets. In a brilliant move, he turned the "spin" used by the Catholic Church on its head, laid it bare, and destroyed any chance of that spin working against Peter Fox. Here is a demonstration:

@markatextor: #CatholicChurch Playbook 1) don't bring this up- it just hurts the victims 2) it's all in the past 3) it's an isolated incident 4) look away

@markatextor #CatholicChurch Playbook 5) say accusers are anti catholic 6) bully the victims 7) bully the media 9) call in favours w/ catholic media men

Ironically, anyone watching Cardinal Pell's press conference on Tuesday (November 13) could see Mark Textor's analysis in full view. Cardinal Pell said the media had exaggerated the problem, that the media's coverage of the stories was hurting the victims. It was the 101 of spin as laid out in Mark Textor's tweet.

Like Mark Textor, there were many other key tweeters during those heady days after the Peter Fox interview on #Lateline. Many of those people are leaders in the community like @toplitigator, @JoshBBornstein @LindaMottram and many, many more. Key journalists such as @Colvinius and @leighsales made their presence known by introducing Peter Fox to thousands of people via their Twitter accounts. Peter Fox now had thousands of supports across all spheres of society. It was an avalanche of kindness and good will.

His own followers come from every stratum of society. The cop who grew up in a housing commission estate at Green Valley in western Sydney suddenly had seriously influential and powerful people following him and urging him on.

This phenomenon coincided with a concerted campaign by many victims and supporters outside social media. It was propelled by the public's mood; they had had enough. Josh Bornstein, a prominent Melbourne Lawyer, started, with others, a petition for a national royal commission. The idea went viral and by the end of the day on Monday (November 12), a national royal commission was announced.

There were many other people who played their part; the so-called "mummy bloggers" were very influential. In the beginning of the campaign on Twitter, Mia Freedman tweeted:

@MiaFreedman: "He was abused by a Catholic priest aged 8. This is his story today on Mamamia: http://bit.ly/QuBENf #mmia

Throughout the next four days, Mia Freedman kept up the pressure with stories and comments, adding her imprimatur to the rallying cry for a royal commission.

As Senator Nick Xenophon so rightly said, Peter Fox's extraordinary testimony was the "tipping point". The public turned ugly and they wanted change. The Twitterverse played a major role in exposing lies and spin against the key whistleblower, communicating any notion of that to thousands of people.

It was awesome to watch and it gave me hope that whistleblowers, like Peter Fox, now have even more protection.

Suzanne Smith is an award-winning ABC television and online investigative journalist who works at Lateline. Follow her on Twitter @suzipeep. View her full profile here.