Late last month, when the whole Gov. Blagojevich indictment situation was threatening to taint Barack Obama’s transition, two writers at the Politico put together a list of “five rules of scandal response” that the president-to-be had intentionally, or unintentionally, imposed on his staff. Rule No. 1 was simple: “Be transparent, to an extent.”
Sam Adams didn’t get that memo. As the opening days of the Breedlove scandal unfolded, Adams hid. He hid from the press, from his critics and from his city. And it’s too bad, because whether you support the mayor or not, he had an incredible communications tool at his fingertips: his Twitter account.
Five hundred and eighty people follow the mayor on Twitter as of today. That number isn’t important if you think of it as how many people Adams could have announced things to (which is how he currently treats his account). What’s important is that he could have talked with that many people. He could have talked about his his fears and hopes; he could have listened in return. And I guarantee you that with that kind of two-way dialogue, his number of Twitter followers would have exploded. Portland would have found a virtual town square where they could interact with their mayor. Communication, even in Twitter’s limited 140 characters, is a potent force.
Using Twitter doesn’t automatically infer transparency. Take Israel. Its consulate held a “citizens’ press conference” earlier this month on Twitter. But at the same time its army blocked foreign journalists from entering Gaza during the recent assault. Nor am I implying that transparency is about being wrong or right — history, not the ephemeral content of social media, will condemn or vindicate Adams.
What I think is true is that he had a powerful tool in his hands that he could have used to interact with the people who elected him when they were at their most angry, confused and scared. And he didn’t use it.
Or am I wrong? Would reaching out through Twitter really have done anything or were people too angry to care what he would have said?
Opinions expressed in this post belong solely to the author, and do not represent the views of the author’s employer.
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 6 comments }
I agree that Sam Adams missed an opportunity to really connect with his constiuents. However, I can also understand why he chose not to: There were so many emotions swirling around PDX, exposing himself even through Twitter could have generated a firestorm of vitriol spouting at him. I know I’d rather not subject myself to that. Was it the right choice? I don’t know. I tend to think that as a public official, he should have swallowed the bullet and reached out, in any way, to the community.
Honestly I feel that could have acted as a double edged sword. His tweets could have been taken out of context or have a bad spin put on them. Anything posted also could have been used by the press against him.
I’m almost 100% sure not every Portlander on twitter is a supporter of Sam either. So along with praise and support he would have received hazing and insults.
But him hiding away completely was not a great idea. Missing a town hall is even worse. He is being payed by the tax payers and needs to be working.
I agree it would have been risky. His detractors would have mobbed him. But I think that’s the point. Without Adam’s voice during those first few days, vitriol, anger, and confusion swept across the blogosphere unchecked. Twitter would have given him a controlled way to answer back, even if it was just to reassure the public that he heard their concerns.
Would it have been the absolute best way to reach out? I don’t know. But I agree with both of you that as a public official he had the responsibility to do so.
This could have been great. We could have learned when he was going to bed. What he was eating for lunch. If he was tired. If he had a lot of emails to catch up to. You know, anything nobody cares about…
I kind of think official statements and/or press conferences might be a better fit in these situations.
But I guess it could be Government 2.3 beta rc 3.
Politicians at this stage in media saturation are kind of damned if you do, damned if you don’t. He probably would have needed one of his high priced lawyers sitting behind him as he did it, but I think you are right that the only way to combat the spewage of coverage would be to utilize all tools at his disposal. Twitter being a very direct and powerful one. Plus the twitterers that spewed hate, probably already hated him anyway. But how he handled these haters may have one over some followers who were on the edge.
I think he handled himself just fine. However, you have a valid point that he could get more out of his twitter account. But does he have time for that? : D
Comments on this entry are closed.