It seemed like an event worth passing on. In fact, I’ve tried to pass on many of the government 2.0 conversations of late, but last week’s Congressional Tweeting during Obama’s speech last week was flat out disturbing. While Congressional tweeting from 50 elected officials highlighted how hot Twitter has become, it also demonstrated an irresponsible use of power and taxpayer-paid salaries, and one of the worst cases of Shiny Object Syndrome I’ve seen to date (image: Capitol Building by mbell).
In discussions on Twitter, several folks thought it was wrong to take issue with the elected officials. I thought the media’s criticism was dead on. See, it’s great that the Twitterati love to see their tool spread, but what the hell did the tweeting have to do with effectively legislating and governing this country? Especially during one of the most challenging times the nation has faced?
Just an example of some of the Tweets (as reported by the Post):
“One doesn’t want to sound snarky, but it is nice not to see Cheney up there,” Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) announced as Obama entered the chamber.
“I did big wooohoo for Justice Ginsberg,” Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) broadcast, misspelling the name of the ailing Supreme Court justice. McCaskill could be seen applauding with BlackBerry in one hand.
“Capt Sully is here — awesome!” announced Rep. John Culberson (R-Tex.), spotting the US Airways pilot in the gallery.
Then there was Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.), in whose name this text message was sent at about the time the president spoke of the need to pull the country together: “Aggie basketball game is about to start on espn2 for those of you that aren’t going to bother watching pelosi smirk for the next hour.” A few minutes later, another message came through: “Disregard that last Tweet from a staffer.”
Nice astroturfing, Barton! And what a wonderful discussion of the actual speech and issues from Obama. I’m so glad we’re paying these clowns six figure salaries to run dysfunction junction on the Hill and now ALSO Tweet. What a wonderful conversation they’re providing to the American taxpayer about the recession, environmental issues, international affairs, etc., etc.
Just because a social media tool is exciting and hot, does not mean it should be used, regardless if the digeratti love to see it happen. Social media is a two-way relational media form. It requires meaningful conversations. From an organization like Congress, clowning around during a major speech versus opening policy decisions with your constituents are two very different things.
Instead of broadcasting crap on Twitter, Congressmen and women should explore how to engage and involve their stakeholders — and no, not the lobbiests — but the people they represent in policy discussions. They should use Twitter to engage them on what they think about Obama’s speech and policies, on how they would like them to represent them as their Trusted Servants, not ridiculous observations worthy of the Real Shaq.
Congressmen and women have a serious job. Their demeanor on and offline during a speech of this nature, during a time like this should reflect that. Period.
Social media offers governments — federal, state and local — a fantastic opportunity to do better work, to change the way government works, and to offer a new level of transparency. There are great barriers to this, as the Obama administration is already finding out.
It doesn’t help when our public servants, our government rushes to be hip, slick and cool to be seen adapting conversational media without any strategic thinking. We’d be better served if our paid representatives put their nose to the grindstone and work on ending issues like pork barreling bills, and oh yeah, that economy thing. Social media can help, but only if government uses it to achieve it’s mission. Otherwise, it’s just going to be the same old, same old.
Thank you, Geoff. Once or twice a week, I witness an instance in which someone confuses Twitter with the note they’re going to sneak to their best bud when the teacher isn’t looking. Call me naïve, but never did I imagine our nation’s leaders would make that mistake during a presidential speech. I could go on but would simply be echoing what you have articulated so well.
P.S. You might need to fix the link from Shiny Object Syndrome.
Totally agree it’s a tool which should be used to achieve a mission, and have some level of thought behind the implementation – at the same time, it’s pretty early days, and even using Twitter for fun may be an introduction into technology, internet, communication and collaboration which could lead to big changes in the minds and plans of those elected officials.
After all, most marketing, advertising, editorial and tech adopters took a little while to decide how they personally wanted to use Twitter, so it’s probably wrong to expect every politician to get it right from the off.
Frustratingly the UK Govt is looking to appoint someone to focus on correctly integrating social media tools, and there’s a press and public backlash over it being a waste of money.
Thanks, Robin. I appreciate that and have fixed the link.
Dan: I disagree on the experimentation bit. There’s experimentation and common sense. Common sense is that when the America President addresses Congress during a major economic crisis they should not be tweeting. It’s called good manners, and it’s their bloody job to listen. I guess it only makes sense that Congress would get busted executing the most vapid form of social media out there.
Very disturbing; it is like if frat boys ran for Congress.
Geoff: excellent move calling this out. Not only do we need posts like this to expand the conversation about the tools themselves, we need to shine a bright light on the perps (the congresspeople in question) and challenge them to think about their brands. We are all protected by but a fig leaf these days — and those in public office should do better understanding what that means for them in all media.
I say “Right On!”. Regardless of what you “think” Twitter should be used for – the relevance of Social Media is about engagement – “pushing tweets” out into the world is not engaging and in the case of celebs and politicians – it begs the question “who is really tweeting?”.
Twitter: amckinnis
I totally understand where this is coming from, but I can’t agree.
If congressmen want to use a tool that allows them to share their thoughts in real time with their constituents, then more power to them.
Unfiltered thoughts from the Representatives and Senators themselves are refreshing. (Barton gets two demerits – one for letting a staffer ghost the account, and another for the message itself.) Why is this information any worse than the pundits who try to fathom the body language of Speaker Pelosi? (Did she really sit mute during the mention of charter schools on purpose, or was she just tired of popping up and down?)
Maybe this is exactly the sort of transparency that will allow voters to see who is and is not mentally fit to serve.
Now… how many people were live-blogging and live-Tweeting the President’s speech? Is it not just as rude to do it then?
How many people live-Tweet various conferences and speeches? Have we not seen a number of articles talking about how speakers ought to embrace this, as it means the audience really is more engaged by wanting to interact with the information?
Transparency in government is a good thing. So is decorum.
And this whole thing would be unnecessary if we took my suggestion to move Congress out of DC.
http://occamsrazr.com/2008/11/20/capitol-punishment/
Hmm.
I’m going to try to be as neutral as possible here, because I sense a lack of drill-down here, not by you, Jeff, but maybe on the part of the press reporting on this story.
First, and foremost, let me make the rather obvious observation that the Congress-people tweeting must be newbies! A little bit of slack should be allowed, yes, but isn’t a good time for the rest of us to be fully interactive and relational and advise them as to best practices?
1. I’m noticing that the tweets in the example did not use hashtags, for one thing. Or, if there was a conversation going on that was focused, it’s not noted here.
2. The comments that remind us of notes passed in class are a prime example of what many more experienced twitter users would send in a direct message, discretion being the better part of valor. Again a great opportunity to discuss best practices and the reality of the “permanent web” where records of our actions and words remain indelibly long after we’ve spoken or acted.
While the tweet examples used in this piece illustrate our silliness, our shallow-ness and our immaturity as human beings, I’m glad to see them using the technology. Some of us forget that twitter still isn’t 100% mainstream, and despite the enormous growth of its use, that we’re still at the beginning of its hyperbolic rise.
And I LOVE Ike’s premise of inviting our Congress-critters back into the town-halls, lunch-counters and offices local to their constituents. It’s green, it’s real and what a huge impact it would make on the electorate and its participation in the political process. Let’s find out how much pork exists in D.C. by exposing what is unnecessary: driving to meetings, spending money on extravagant events (food, wine, etc.), even the electricity to run the lights.
Tweet away, I say.
*edit for lack of attention span: I misspelled your name, Mr. Livingston, apologies. Of course I meant Geoff!
Ike and Mariana: I guess we’re going to agree to disagree, because I don’t want to see naked thoughts from Congressmen in the middle of a major speech about our country’s future. I want them to use social media to do their job. This was not it.
And the newbie excuse is crap, they need to be held accountable for failing to do their job, as they have failed repeatedly over decades. Mission, mission, mission! The only way I could see Tweeting during a major speech like this being worthwhile is if they were asking people what they thought, and discussing the real issues.
“…last week’s Congressional Tweeting during Obama’s speech last week was flat out disturbing.” I’d call it refreshing.
In attempting to dismiss Congressional tweeting as something purely inane and worthy of ridicule, the writer loses sight of Twitter’s incredible capacity to inform with lightening speed and to provide often unguarded insights into the twitter’s sentiments. This added medium for instant information is healthy for America.
Along the way, I am certain that we will meet not only the inane, but also the sublime. Those who tweet, will be judged by what they tweet, for better or worse. Let the Congressional tweeting continue!
http://Twitter.com/TrendTracker
Geoff, thanks for this passionate rebuke of our elected leaders.
It’s clear to me that Twitter is not frivolous, but people do frivolous things with twitter in situations that are anything but frivolous, regardless of party line. It would be good to know if anyone there was tweeting to their constituency things like “I disagree/agree with the President on the _________ issue. What do you think?”
But even then I would agree the time to use social media for communicating might more properly be post-event, when the real dicussions should begin for all Americans.
Cheers,
Joe “Giuseppe” Zuccaro
My point is that this fiasco becomes an opportunity point of engagement. No use calling them out on it without a discussion of how it could be put to better use. I don’t think you win friends and influence people (or even effectively hold their feet to the fire) by crying epic fail…. Was it good? No, I don’t disagree with you on that.
My point is let’s let this be a way to bring best practices to light and connect people. Criticism is only effective if its constructive. And don’t get me wrong – I don’t think the majority of the comments should have been so fluffy and off-point. I also feel failed by congress. Heck, Geoff, I’m an anarchist from way back. I don’t see the point in damning a group when you can connect with individuals. Judgment is counter-productive in my experience.
Negative judgments, especially toward a group or collective, only strengthen the “reactivity” of that group and their collective desire to cling to their position. Engaging with individuals, looking at how we can all best benefit is a more positive way of inviting them into the process.
“Trend Tracker” and Mariana: Congressmen are not paid to Tweet, they are paid to legislate and govern. This is an egregious error. Public information tools are one thing, slacking off on the job during a major event in a time of crisis is another. Sorry, I feel totally spot on with my assessment and scathing criticism.
beautifully stated Geoff…
Geoff, yes, Congressman are paid to legislate and govern. Governing includes engaging with constituents. The #nsotu event was, at its heart, another grandstanding speech. The Congresspeople all knew what would be said before Obama said it. I think that makes it a perfect opportunity for elected officials to directly engage with the public.
Whether they are, as individuals or as a body, using this particular tool in the most effective way is questionable, but as pointed out by others, at least they are getting started. Though Barton is obviously not getting it, McCaskill engages in real dialog.
If twitter is a lightweight way for elected officials to talk directly to the people they represent, in real time when important events are happening, I am all for it.
Well said. I may work for a different brand of the Fed Govt, but I would never advise my superiors to tweet away at such a time conveying such garbage. If no one calls out, we harm the greater whole – reputation of communicators and social media tools. I was disgusted. However, it did prove as a great lesson and conversation starter for my class last night (their midterm is using and evaluating Twitter).
To play Devil’s Advocate here – remember how we all jumped to Colleen Graffey’s defense when she did some “personal” tweets?
If Congress’s tweets were all business and all polished, do you think we would be judging them for not being transparent enough and taking an “old” traditional media approach to this nice and shiny new medium?
Although I agree with you all that partisan snarkiness is old hat and so unhelpful, and Congress should be using Twitter to engage in more conversations with each other and with their constituents, instead of as a soapbox.
Geoff –
On the one hand I agree with you. Congress tweeting while the President is speaking to the body is a bit disrespectful; like a new date taking a text message or even cell phone call while your waiting for desert to be served.
However, I think the address to congress by the President is really and address to the people of the USA. Congress is in tight quarters in the beltway and it’s nice to see some information leak out in a democratic way such as on twitter, even if during a heightened time of crises.
What if for example there were no websites for congresspeople, or phone numbers to call to reach them to voice a concern, or if there were no C-Span to show us what goes on during congressional and senate sessions? This creates for a lot less transparency.
Even though many tweets (I’ve not reviewed them all) seem to be anecdotes and cheezy, silly updates from the congresspeople, still it represents and opportunity.
The opportunity for more communication with the FLOOR of congress is something that I would welcome any day.
What if we could gather flashmobs on twitter to call out votes we did not like on the floor of congress, and the congress person actually listed and watched the tweet, perhaps we’d have a whole new level of democracy? (I’m dreaming a bit there) :-)
Great post Geoff – keep it coming!
Jake
Emma and Jake: It’s not that they’re tweeting; it’s when, how and why. Consider the position, the fact that they are on the clock, and the gravity of the situation before you casually defend the use of a tool. Americans deserve better representation than this.