Governing in the age of social media

[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.