Governing in the age of social media

[Belsnickel]

Not sure if anyone saw how NK is taking some of Trump's tweets: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41391978

Now, my immediate thought is "how stupid is that? Obviously he can't declare war with a tweet." But this brings up a more general question about the role of social media and how to use it when governing. What are your thoughts on the social media use of government agencies, from the local sheriff on up to the federal account? How official should tweets be considered? We saw Trump tweet out something and it get ignored by the policy community until something official came out, so on the domestic side we see that check. However, with foreign affairs it can be a more delicate situation. Even with domestic affairs, a social media post being misinterpreted can have serious consequences.

So what do you all think about the use of social media in government?

[GMDino]

(09-25-2017, 02:16 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Not sure if anyone saw how NK is taking some of Trump's tweets: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41391978

Now, my immediate thought is "how stupid is that? Obviously he can't declare war with a tweet." But this brings up a more general question about the role of social media and how to use it when governing. What are your thoughts on the social media use of government agencies, from the local sheriff on up to the federal account? How official should tweets be considered? We saw Trump tweet out something and it get ignored by the policy community until something official came out, so on the domestic side we see that check. However, with foreign affairs it can be a more delicate situation. Even with domestic affairs, a social media post being misinterpreted can have serious consequences.

So what do you all think about the use of social media in government?

I was listening the the Nerdist podcast with Max Brooks yesterday.  I think it's a week or so old but I'm just getting to it.  Anyway, one of the points he made about NK was the only thing that could really cause a war would be to insult Kim Jung-Un publicly.  And that Jung-Un would use any personal insult and turn it into an insult on the country.

So here we are.

As to social media overall:

I had this discussion over lunch yesterday.  The beauty of the internet is that you can find anything.  The flip side to that is you can also find anything that supports your point of view.  I love that we can have (theoretically) direct, instant contact with and information from our elected officials.  I hate that public discourse can be reduced to 140 characters.

[*michaelsean*]

Social media should be used for fluff and emergencies.

[Benton]

In Kentucky there's been an issue with Gov. Bevin prohibiting people access to his Facebook & Twitter. Which brings up some interesting points about official communication and who has a right to access it. Does a lawmaker have the right to exclude someone from public communication because he doesn't like them or their party?

I guess the biggest difference now is that someone with no impulse control can say things and they're out there long before they can be handled.

[6andcounting]

I like that messages can be delivered directly to the people instead of waiting until you sit down in front of a tv to see the news play a short clip in the context they choose. People complain you can only get 140 characters out of a Tweet, but deliver it as a speech and the news only plays a short clip with 140 characters worth of words anyways.

Trump is the first world leader to utilize it in this way so there hasn't been much opportunity to see how it will influence foreign policy and relations. "Rocket Man" may have been the first real instance of this when anything at all was at stake, but Trump used it again in front of the UN so it's more than just a Tweet anyways.

[*bfine32*]

President Trump should be censured and told never to post on twitter again until he is no longer POTUS.

[6andcounting]

(09-25-2017, 04:49 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Social media should be used for fluff and emergencies.

Do dank WWE and golf memes qualify as fluff?

[BmorePat87]

(09-25-2017, 06:09 PM)Benton Wrote: In Kentucky there's been an issue with Gov. Bevin prohibiting people access to his Facebook & Twitter. Which brings up some interesting points about official communication and who has a right to access it. Does a lawmaker have the right to exclude someone from public communication because he doesn't like them or their party?

I guess the biggest difference now is that someone with no impulse control can say things and they're out there long before they can be handled.

Our Governor is going through the same thing. 

[BmorePat87]

Official twitter accounts should be considered the voice of the person who posts it.

[StLucieBengal]

(09-25-2017, 06:09 PM)Benton Wrote: In Kentucky there's been an issue with Gov. Bevin prohibiting people access to his Facebook & Twitter. Which brings up some interesting points about official communication and who has a right to access it. Does a lawmaker have the right to exclude someone from public communication because he doesn't like them or their party?

I guess the biggest difference now is that someone with no impulse control can say things and they're out there long before they can be handled.

There would be a valid point if he didn't have a press office. Does Joe Kentucky need to see the governors family vacation photos?

[Benton]

(09-25-2017, 08:27 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: There would be a valid point if he didn't have a press office. Does Joe Kentucky need to see the governors family vacation photos?

No, these are official accounts, not personal. I don't think any rational person would have a problem with him blocking people from his personal account.

If he is going to use official twitter or facebook accounts to address the public, he can't ban hundreds of users.

[Matt_Crimson]

(09-25-2017, 02:16 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Not sure if anyone saw how NK is taking some of Trump's tweets: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41391978

Now, my immediate thought is "how stupid is that? Obviously he can't declare war with a tweet." But this brings up a more general question about the role of social media and how to use it when governing. What are your thoughts on the social media use of government agencies, from the local sheriff on up to the federal account? How official should tweets be considered? We saw Trump tweet out something and it get ignored by the policy community until something official came out, so on the domestic side we see that check. However, with foreign affairs it can be a more delicate situation. Even with domestic affairs, a social media post being misinterpreted can have serious consequences.

So what do you all think about the use of social media in government?

I believe that if any government has a problem with what a leader tweets whether it's the POTUS or someone else, I think their should be a period of clarification before immediate conclusions are drawn to avoid acting on mistaken beliefs. With that said.....

I find it funny how everyone is all hot and bothered and suddenly scared of North Korea because they say Trump "declared war on them". Well for anyone who actually paid attention to the news before Trump became president they would know that North Korea has accused us of declaring war on them before multiple times, and this is not something that has just popped up out of thin air now that Trump is president.

Most recently in 2016 when Obama was still in office the US announced sanctions against Kim Jong-Un for human rights abuses and he responded by saying the declarations were a "declaration of war". Kim has also called our joint military exercises with South Korea a "declaration of war". They also called sanctions against their nuclear program in 2013 a "declaration of war". North Korea also called Obama a "nuclear war maniac" when he visited Hiroshima in 2016 and said he wanted to take over the world with nuclear weapons.

American's need to step back for a second and realize that what's going on is what North Korea is about. People want to say that Trumps tweets and comments at Kim Jung Un are going to start a war....... but North Korea has literally said in the past before Trump was ever in office that they consider any sanctions against them as a "declaration of war".

I believe what we are truly witnessing right now is the Trump hysteria our media has created with Trump and the people who hate him. People who have barely ever watched the news or even picked up a news paper are now being fed these shock stories and further causing divide amongst  their very own citizens and I believe the North Korean's are actually starting to use this to their advantage.

[Dill]

(09-25-2017, 02:16 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Not sure if anyone saw how NK is taking some of Trump's tweets: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41391978

Now, my immediate thought is "how stupid is that? Obviously he can't declare war with a tweet." But this brings up a more general question about the role of social media and how to use it when governing. What are your thoughts on the social media use of government agencies, from the local sheriff on up to the federal account? How official should tweets be considered? We saw Trump tweet out something and it get ignored by the policy community until something official came out, so on the domestic side we see that check. However, with foreign affairs it can be a more delicate situation. Even with domestic affairs, a social media post being misinterpreted can have serious consequences.

So what do you all think about the use of social media in government?

Obama had a Twitter account, didn't he? But Obama understood boundaries of government and office and had a sense of the consequences of presidential speech--not to mention civility and decorum.

But we are having this conversation now because the current president has been using Twitter in demagogic fashion, beginning with his revival and expansion of the Birther movement before in office, and in office now extending to singling out individual NFL players and urging owners to fire them.

When a local, state or federal official makes pronouncements from a PRIVATE account, then he or she ought to respect the boundaries of his/her office. A tweet about transgenders may be initially ignored by the military, but it generates uncertainty about both policy and application because it appears erratically, outside what were previously legitimate channels of communication. So it may be "checked" but its over all effect is negative, signalling to every military member in harm's way that we have an erratic leader who doesn't know how to operate the chain of command.

Trump's irresponsible tweets about NK convey similar concerns about proper channels and chain of command, but with much greater consequence. They appear to be tanking diplomacy which might have worked and disconcerting our allies as his base cheers him on.

Till now, presidents have understood it is their job to consider the consequences of their statements in ANY media before mouthing off.  Many different audiences, from his own supporters to foreign allies and enemies are always listening and drawing conclusions.  Across such differing communication contexts, the same words can have very different and differntly consequential meanings.

Whatever a president says about policy will be considered "official" no matter what the medium it is expressed in.  I think that, to a lesser degree, this carries all the way down to the local level.  A county sheriff who tweets about "Mexican" judges or disparages women's facial surgery before the public on his private account is still a sheriff. His contempt for some of the people he is supposed to serve will be communicated even if he is off duty.

Ergo, any public official communicating to the public through social media is representing his/her office.  Whether people consider the tweet "official" or of official consequence will always depend on what the official is tweeting about and how it relates to office.  One could pass a law limiting the use of some official accounts to dissemination of official information. But there would have to be some other form of accountability if officials exhibit bad judgment on private accounts.  If the public is amused by or approving of poor judgment, then there is no accountability.

[StLucieBengal]

(09-25-2017, 09:01 PM)Benton Wrote: No, these are official accounts, not personal. I don't think any rational person would have a problem with him blocking people from his personal account.

If he is going to use official twitter or facebook accounts to address the public, he can't ban hundreds of users.

Does he put out news on these sites that isn't available to the press via his press office?

[Belsnickel]

So a couple of interesting topics brought up here that I'd like to maybe expand on.

When it comes to the difference between a government official's private versus "official" account, how do we really draw that line? I ask this, because an elected official, whether POTUS, a US Senator, a governor, what have you, is never truly off the clock. They represent the people 24/7, and so how do you differentiate? Should governments look to enact policies for elected officials that their personal accounts are considered official while they are in office?

Lucie brought up the press offices, and we can all be honest and say that the "official" accounts are often maintained by a staffer in such an office, but if a personal account is being used by the elected official to discuss anything related to their job, would that not also become an official account, then?

Just a lot of questions regarding this. There is a lot of discussion among public admin nerds like myself about how to effectively use social media in government, but also how to effectively craft policies related to it. You would be astonished at the lack of policy surround social media use in government agencies.

All in all, this has been a good discussion so far. Kudos to everyone in here.

[Benton]

(09-26-2017, 11:00 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Does he put out news on these sites that isn't available to the press via his press office?

Yes.

If it's the official social media, it's taken that anything he says or posts is an official statement. So if he Tweets "I love pancakes" that's an official statement, even if he doesn't make that statement available through a press secretary or on a web site or mailer or whatever.

Where the issue is, Bevin started blocking people who would comment "I don't like pancakes." Which has brought up the issue of him disseminating official statements in a mode that is now prohibited for some constituents. 

[Benton]

(09-26-2017, 11:54 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So a couple of interesting topics brought up here that I'd like to maybe expand on.

When it comes to the difference between a government official's private versus "official" account, how do we really draw that line? I ask this, because an elected official, whether POTUS, a US Senator, a governor, what have you, is never truly off the clock. They represent the people 24/7, and so how do you differentiate? Should governments look to enact policies for elected officials that their personal accounts are considered official while they are in office?

I'd say it's just common sense. Public officials are never off the clock. Anything they say is fair game. So whether they're using their personal account or public account, any comment on public business should be made available to the public. Now, if they are using a personal account and not making comments on public business, then it's not fair game.

Take Bevin. If he posts a Facebook photo of his family on a personal account and says "Merry Christmas from the Bevins," that's not public purview. If he posts a family photo on his personal account and says "Merry Christmas in Kentucky where you have the religious freedom to say that, from the Bevins" then, yes, he's making a public policy statement, and that should be available to the public. 

Quote:Lucie brought up the press offices, and we can all be honest and say that the "official" accounts are often maintained by a staffer in such an office, but if a personal account is being used by the elected official to discuss anything related to their job, would that not also become an official account, then? 


Just a lot of questions regarding this. There is a lot of discussion among public admin nerds like myself about how to effectively use social media in government, but also how to effectively craft policies related to it. You would be astonished at the lack of policy surround social media use in government agencies.

All in all, this has been a good discussion so far. Kudos to everyone in here.

To the bold, yes.

[StLucieBengal]

(09-26-2017, 12:24 PM)Benton Wrote: Yes.

If it's the official social media, it's taken that anything he says or posts is an official statement. So if he Tweets "I love pancakes" that's an official statement, even if he doesn't make that statement available through a press secretary or on a web site or mailer or whatever.

Where the issue is, Bevin started blocking people who would comment "I don't like pancakes." Which has brought up the issue of him disseminating official statements in a mode that is now prohibited for some constituents. 

So he is blocking people who are just trying to stir up trouble and waste everyone's time.

I can see why there would be an issue for people but he should have the right to clean up the comments on his page.

Tough issue really.

[BmorePat87]

(09-26-2017, 12:57 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: So he is blocking people who are just trying to stir up trouble and waste everyone's time.    

I can see why there would be an issue for people but he should have the right to clean up the comments on his page.  

Tough issue really.

The King having his men clean up the streets of Boston where people were just trying to stir up trouble and waste everyone's time.

[Benton]

(09-26-2017, 12:57 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: So he is blocking people who are just trying to stir up trouble and waste everyone's time.    

I can see why there would be an issue for people but he should have the right to clean up the comments on his page.  

Tough issue really.

Having a different opinion doesn't constitute stirring up trouble and wasting time. If people are so fragile they can't handle another person having an opinion, they should get out of public service.