The Three Types of Government Blogger
As more and more civil servants, government employees and politicians dip their toes in the rolling sea we like to call social media*, they are separating into three schools of behaviour:
- advocates for social media
- advocates for increased transparency in government
- advocates for advances in policy and programs
It’s that last group that can find themselves in real trouble. The first two are just blowing smoke and talking sweetness, in most citizen’s eyes.
Take the example of Owen Barder, currently the Director of the Global Development Effectiveness Department at the U.K. Department for International Development.
His personal blog is down after a right slagging in the Daily Mail. The Mail excerpted from his blog posts, concentrating in particular on an entry that apparently drew ties between Tony Blair, George Bush and Adolph Hitler. (commenters on LGNewMedia point out that his post was actually quoting from a piece published in the Guardian)
Now, Barder is not a neophyte to communications. He’s a senior official in the British government, and among previous positions was Director of Information, Communications and Knowledge at the same Department.
I haven’t been able to read his blog, so I won’t make any assumptions about its content or his judgment. Several commenters note that the Mail may have been motivated, in part, by Barder’s past work for Labour PM Tony Blair.
But civil servants have to be aware that their online musings may be exposed to much greater criticism than normally expected online. The freewheeling and bare chested mannerisms promoted by most pioneer bloggers are inconceivable for government bloggers: they will targeted for greater scrutiny and will be allowed less room for error.
Government blogs, podcasts, and other social media experiments will likely be researched to death for evidence of:
- political bias
- poor theoretical judgment
- poor political judgment
- selective use of information
- levity and lack of timbre befitting a civil servant
- lack of empathy for the common man
As Che Tibby points out, a “hot-heated morning with too much coffee can, and will, become a permanent record. If you’re a public servant who wants to blog, try to avoid typing anything at all around heated events in the political cycle.”
Most civil servants are used to tempering how they express their actual opinions when speaking in the pub, at conferences and around crazy Aunt Mae the libertarian. Maybe we need to remember that caution when working online.
At the very least, civil servants have to remember to provide context, clearly identify sources and ring fence their arguments. Oh - and remember the role civil servants always play in relation to their political leaders.
*(wow, really beat that metaphor to death, didn’t I?)
May 24th, 2007 17:14
thanks for the link!
yeah, a few of us here in new zealand have been kicking roudn the idea of policy-makers using social media to communicate with the public, but it’s such a fraught area we’re thinking it’s too hard.
there is some interesting work going on to investigate ground rules for public participation, but they’re still in the development stage.
essentially, you might be able to use web2.0 (or “govt2.0″) to educate and engage the public, but it seems very tricky. and in policy development? only under specific circumstances, and with BIG disclaimers about outcomes.
but, we’re hoping that these types of questions will one day be resolved.
May 25th, 2007 03:08
thanks, Che! that is the problem, isn’t it? Sometimes government has to make the decisions people don’t like - and how do you structure a “govt 2.0″ discussion or debate to prepare for that outcome?
May 25th, 2007 17:16
[…] video posted is indexed and stored – possibly forever. What are we doing about that? Che and Colin McKay have some pretty good suggestions for public servants, but what about the way public sector […]
May 30th, 2007 00:24
Its true, and rightly so, that civil servants playing the social media spaces will come under greater scrutiny than others to ensure that they are playing by the rules. That goes with the territory, was always thus and helps to understand why online conversations are viewed with unease by us working in government - the potential (as has been recently demonstrated) to be exposed and ridiculed is high.
But your three examples suggest agendas that not all civil servants will want to pursue. What about those who recognise the opportunity to use social media to have genuine conversations with interested people that might subsequently inform policy development? Would you regard them necessarily as ‘advocates for advances in policy and programs’? They may find out that the public do not want advances or change in a particular area. That would be a legitimate use of the medium.
June 7th, 2007 11:25
Hi
I really disagree with this:
‘civil servants have to be aware that their online musings may be exposed to much greater criticism than normally expected online. The freewheeling and bare chested mannerisms promoted by most pioneer bloggers are inconceivable for government bloggers: they will targeted for greater scrutiny and will be allowed less room for error.’
Why? Why is it one rule for public servants and another for all other workers? Why don’t the same sort of rules for public servants about writing a letter to a newspaper also apply online?
You conflate Government blogs - which are or should be seen as promotional - and personal blogs, which just happen to be by Government workers.
I realise full well the strength of The Mail et al. and undoubtedly someone will tell me to ‘wake up + smell the coffee’. But there are also such things as Free Speech, Rights and Unions.
I am careful. But so should anyone who blogs, and Works be. I just don’t talk about Work. But that’s because it is Work.
Why is my right to have an opinion as a citizen and put it in writing dictated by the Daily Mail?
I’ve been catching up with blog posts post-Barder and it sounds to me like the Mail’s won with barely a shot fired. Can nobody else see this?
June 10th, 2007 09:37
I agree that Barder’s been unfairly slammed. I also agree that most countries have basic or legislated rights of free speech and expression.
In the current environment, though, where the civil service bureaucracy is still adjusting to a new more connected world, it will remain difficult for a blogger who is a civil servant to avoid unjust accusations and characterisations.
As a civil servant, if I choose to prepare a personal letter to the editor I give it tremendous consideration and tailor my words carefully.
Unfortunately, most bloggers don’t exercise the same care with their words.
And in a parliamentary government like the UK, Canada, New Zealand and elsewhere, there is an expectation of civil service impartiality.
Any momentary lack or judgement - or personal certainty - may produce a backlash.
Unfortunately, that’s the environment we live in now.