W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-egov-ig@w3.org > November 2011

Re: Twitter use by elected officials

From: John Erickson <olyerickson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 10:21:48 -0500
Message-ID: <CAC1Gg8Q-sOb8XWCxzSH_QronkyJCjYvrM+w63g0asv2MQeqA9w@mail.gmail.com>
To: "eGov IG (Public)" <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Apologies for not (yet) having the mental bandwidth to contribute to
this discussion --- even though I was one who helped light the fire
during our F2F!

I'm doing a bit of background on this, on the theory that surely
someone has thought about this before (shocking, I know!). I found
this wickedly outdated report (Feb '10) from the Congressional
Research Service that might be of interest. I'm much more interested
in finding a Berkman Center-style analysis, however...

"Social Networking and Constituent Communications: Member Use of
Twitter During a Two-Month Period in the 111th Congress"
Matthew Eric Glassman (Analyst on the Congress) <mglassman@crs.loc.gov>
Colleen J. Shogan (Senior Specialist in Government and Finance)
<cshogan@crs.loc.gov>
Jacob R. Straus (Analyst on the Congress) <jstraus@crs.loc.gov>
February 3, 2010
<http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41066.pdf > (PDF)

"...This report examines Member use of one specific new electronic
communication medium:
Twitter. After providing an overview and background of Twitter, the
report analyzes patterns of
Member use of Twitter during August and September 2009. This report is
inherently a snapshot in
time of a dynamic process. As with any new technology, the number of
Members using Twitter
and the patterns of use may change rapidly in short periods of time.
Thus, the conclusions drawn
from this data can not be easily generalized nor can these results be
used to predict future
behavior.

"The data show that 205 Representatives and Senators are registered
with Twitter (as of September
30, 2009) and issued a total of 7,078 “tweets” during the data
collection period of August and
September 2009. With approximately 38% of House Members and 39% of
Senators registered
with Twitter, Members sent an average of 116 tweets per day collectively..."

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Dan Bevarly <dbev@bevarly.com> wrote:
> While we focused on the "public tweet" which does raise a number of issues
> and challenges for reporting and archival purposes, there is another
> challenge around private tweets, or the DM feature of Twitter, between those
> who follower each other --with one of them an elected official.  Just as
> with text messaging or Blackberry PINs, for example, these types of
> communiqués when engaged during official proceedings should be captured and
> reported or not allowed to transpire IMO. Thanks all. Very insightful
> comments here.
>
> Daniel Bevarly
> Public Communications Management Strategies
> Direct:   239.823.1811
> dbev@bevarly.com
>
> What is public communications management?
> http://www.aheadofideas.com/?page_id=986
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anne L. Washington [mailto:washingtona@acm.org]
> Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2011 8:56 PM
> To: Bjoern Hoehrmann
> Cc: eGov IG (Public)
> Subject: Re: Twitter use by elected officials
>
> Bjoern,
> Thank you for the interesting descriptions of what happens in your
> parliament.
>
> I suspect that not all MPs are on twitter so a tweet is an interjection that
> is both oddly private and public. It is public because it is said in an open
> web page and ideally intended for the press and constituents.
> However it is also a private interjection if the MP tweets but does not
> speak. The contents of the remark would not be a part of the "public record
> of debate" and certainly not available to everyone on the floor at the time.
>
> Letters and other paper documents are considered public records and are
> archived with legislative documents but emails are not. By asking how to
> archive social media, I was implying that they need to accompany other
> legislative records. While the Library of Congress has been archiving all
> tweets (not just U.S. Congressional Members), last time I checked it is a
> dark archive not open to remote scholars and it certainly does not accompany
> other legislative documents. There is still much work to do in the field of
> electronic records management for public institutions.
>
> I agree that until some of these other issues are worked out, the news
> agencies might have the most complete public (and electronic) record of our
> legislative process.
>
> Food for thought, indeed.
>
> Anne L. Washington, PhD
> Standards work: washingtona@acm.org
> Academic work: George Mason University
> http://policy.gmu.edu/washington
>
> On Sat, 12 Nov 2011, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>
>> * Anne L. Washington wrote:
>>> The U.S. equivalent of the Hansard is the Congressional Record, if I
>>> remember well. They are both official records of what is said on the
>>> floors during legislative debate. A tweet is an interesting artifact
>>> but not an official part of the debate. Should it or can it be
>>> regulated differently?  I suppose it depends on what the situation is.
>>
>> A possible development is that representatives in parliament actually
>> start to discuss some matter currently being debated in parliament on-
>> line instead of in parliament directly, in which case there would be a
>> de-facto versus de-jure situation whether that is "official". Here in
>> Germany interjections go into the official protocol; whether the
>> representative shouts it out alound or via some online service is not
>> all that different if you consider that some news organizations that
>> cover debates are experimenting with showing the video feed alongside
>> online discussions in a single interface on their web sites. For the
>> citizen watching, the online comment may actually be more real than
>> what is spoken out aloud, as that is often much harder to make out.
>>
>>> Given the difficulty in establishing email as part of a legislative
>>> archive, I imagine that establishing tweets is much further down the
>>> road in terms of records management policy.
>>
>> E-Mail would seem to be much more difficult as it is private, in the
>> immediate access control sense, by default, while this would primarily
>> concern communications that are public by default, I would think.
>> --
>> Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de ·
>> http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681
>> · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
>> 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 ·
>> http://www.websitedev.de/
>>
>
>
>
>



-- 
John S. Erickson, Ph.D.
Director, Web Science Operations
Tetherless World Constellation (RPI)
<http://tw.rpi.edu> <olyerickson@gmail.com>
Twitter & Skype: olyerickson
Received on Tuesday, 15 November 2011 15:22:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 15 November 2011 15:22:27 GMT