“I have never used Twitter” Are Politicians ill-advised to let their Advisors do the Tweeting?

Language: English Español Català

News and Press

“I have never used Twitter” Are Politicians ill-advised to let their Advisors do the Tweeting?

Editor: Ande Gregson Posted: Monday, November 16, 2009 Discussion: 20 Comments

It took Barack Obama only 25 characters to shock most of his 2,677, 720 followers to the core. “I have never used Twitter” confessed the leader of the Free World, when pressed on new technology by Chinese students in Shanghai. But, hang on a minute. Wasn’t this the first Social Media Presidency? One of the very first Twitter accounts to be verified? And if Barack says he really is all thumbs, just who is it who is doing all his tweeting?

Australian Federal Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull also got himself into something of a Social Media mess last week, when the Liberal leader’s Twitterer in chief, Tom Tudehope, quit in the wake of a dodgy YouTube video row. Here, Paul Farrell examines the case of @TurnbullMalcolm and wonders whether or not politicians are actually ill-advised to leave Social Media to their advisors.

Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull appeared at ease during the Sydney Media 140 conference in discussion with broadcaster Fran Kelly, leaning comfortably back in his chair. But little did he know that only a few days later, he would looking for a new social media advisor, after his chief on-line strategist, Thomas Tudehope, was revealed to be linked to a version of the popular spoof Hitler “Downfall” video lampooning besieged Liberal politician, Alex Hawke.

The admission that “Tommy Tudehope helps with a lot of it” [Turnbull's tweeting] during the Media140 interview may well have contributed to the startling resignation. But I believe that what these events may reveal is a key danger of the burgeoning use of social media: politicians leaping on the bandwagon and the consequent use of new media tools for more complex political tricks.

What is strange about the entire Tudehope affair is the number of questions which remain unanswered. While the Sydney Morning Herald did report that the email exchange regarding the clip “names a number of other right-wing figures and their private responses to the clip”, they did not publish any of these responses or identify other Liberal members linked to the video.

The newspaper was apparently also content to note that, despite resigning, Mr Tudehope said he “had no involvement in the production or dissemination of the video.”

Mr Turnbull remained unusually quiet for the few days of coverage of the story, and even desisted from Tweeting – although perhaps this was simply because his head ghost Tweeter had just resigned?

One of the key ideas which emerged from the Sydney Media140 event’s Tips for Social Media panel was that users of Twitter and other social media tools needed to be honest. Perhaps, too. the most important thing is to establish a dialogue of trust with your audience. Yet does it inspire trust in audiences when one of Mr Turnbull’s advisors is linked with the Alex Hawke Hitler video? Hardly.

Another curious fact to emerge from the on-stage discussion with Fran Kelly was that Mr Turnbull did not compose all of his own tweets – an admission highlighted by President Obama’s shock admission during his recent China visit that he had “never used Twitter”.

Surely, this raises another series of questions about the use of social media by politicians? Is it still strictly honest to have someone else twittering for Mr Turnbull, when it is the latter’s large, grinning face plastered all over his Twitter background?

Wendy Bacon, the head of the University of Technology Sydney journalism faculty, posted on Twitter that she had: “Tweeted Turnbull questions; had he seen that video? Just yesterday Turnbull chatted about close working relationship with social media staff”.

This is a particularly interesting question, and one to which Mr Turnbull has so far not responded. Mr Turnbull told the Media140 audience that he uses Twitter “as a tool of political communication”, but in the light of his “I use a ghost” confession, the “communication” appears to be some thing of a monologue.

Rather than showing how Twitter and YouTube are being used to communicate with the electorate and encourage debate, the events of last week have exposed how these tools can be used as extra political weapons in an already vast arsenal.

If Mr Turnbull is serious about using social media tools honestly, perhaps he should reply to Wendy Bacon? He might also deign to reply to the questions posed in this post, should it by chance come to his attention, perhaps via Twitter? I am sure many of his 17,000 followers have been asking similar questions and would appreciate his response.

This is, however, not just about Malcolm Turnbull. This is about every politician who decides to broaden his or her appeal, by signing up to Twitter or using other social media devices like YouTube or Facebook. There is no wonder that President Obama’s Twitter admission during an interview with a group of students in Shanghai rocked the blogosphere; his account has over two million followers.

The rules of engagement are changing fundamentally and swiftly in the new media age and, with these changes comes the acutely heightened risk that the new tools will be used to further distort or spin the message. We ought to demand more transparency from politicians, about who really has the log-in and passwords to their myriad online accounts.

Pingback: “I have never used Twitter” Are Politicians ill-advised to let their Advisors do the Tweeting? « Paul Farrell
http://inside.org.au Peter Clarke

To give @turnbullmalcolm his due, when I asked him via Twitter to read the Peter Mares refugee story now online at INSIDE STORY, Malcolm responded and we actually did DM back and forth a little. A conversation? Barely. He seemed to allocate very little credibility to any view but his “own” but at least it seemed some advance on his position at Media140: “It is the MESSAGE that counts no matter the MEDIUM”. He has clarified since also how he will indicate when he is tweeting and when the “T Team” has done the job. Slowly , slowly …
http://twitter.com/TommyTudehope Tommy Tudehope

Having been on the inside its rather unrealistic to imagine that politicians should do all their own tweeting. Some are, plainly, not technologically confident enough to dive head first in to social media while others still question the benefits it may have.

Malcolm and Kevin both now indicated when a tweet is no their own or not directly authorised by them. This is a prudent approach.

The ultimate yardstick for any politician using social media is how sincere are they to the medium? For twitter users this means not just broadcast but a genuine dialogue, answering questions, engaging in conversation and, of course, taking a few humoured barbs!
http://inside.org.au Peter Clarke

QUESTION FOR TOMMY TUDEHOPE: Tommy, what do you mean by “how sincere they are to the medium”? Isn’t it the case that most politicians, including Malcolm Turnbull at Media140, see Social Media as just another way to “broadcast” their MESSAGE? Your point about the time burden is obvious but how would you assist a politician/leader prioritise whom she/he engages with via Twitter or other Social Media channels if , as you say, this is intrinsic to using the medium in the first place?
http://twitter.com/TommyTudehope Tommy Tudehope

Peter,

You are correct in asserting most politicians use social media to “broadcast” their message. You only have to look at Rudd’s twitter to see how often he replies to people. For him its broadcast only. I think there is more political capital to be gained when there is a real balance between broadcast and interaction, hence my point about being sincere to the medium.

In terms of assisting politicians who they should engage with I certainly didn’t set any specific parameters when I was with Malcolm.
http://paulfarrell.wordpress.com/ Paul Farrell

Tommy,

While it may certainly be unrealistic that politicians should do all their own tweeting, do you really think that their advisors should be tweeting on their account? I would say that it is certainly not sincere, as you say, to be writing with a ghost twitterer, even if it is disclosed that the tweet is from an advisor.

Is there is so much information that Mr Turnbull wants to tweet but that he cant do himself, why not simply start up a separate ‘Team Turnbull’ twitter profile? Don’t you think that’s the most sincere way to engage with tools like Twitter?

And on the topic of answering questions and establishing genuine dialogue, I’m sure we’d all love to hear if Mr Turnbull knew about this Hitler video? Is he aware of it? Did you tell him about it? And if so, at what stage? And perhaps for the record you could clear the air on this blog what involvement you personally had regarding this video?
Pingback: uberVU - social comments
Wendy Bacon

As everyone seems to pretty much agree, twitter is just another communications technology which is used for a wide range of social purposes. For politicans, it’s an extension of public relations. It moves faster and is interactive so it’s a lot harder to sustain than carefully crafted press releases, refusals to answer questions and door stops. However, if half the electorate is on Facebook, you have to get with it. MT is now making it clear when he is using a ghost to twitter – by they way, who is the new Ghost? I don’t follow Malcolm so I have not had time to check.

The thing with twitter is that PR/ Journalism/ Fiction – it’s all mixed in together. But this is increasingly the case with the mainstream media as well. I have noticed lately that some of those twitters that seem so personal – ” I am hanging out at Sunset Bar tonight” are just another form of product placement.

A bit more on MT

On November 7, I was up very early and read this in the SMH:

“STAFFERS for Malcolm Turnbull and the NSW upper house Liberal MP David Clarke have denied disseminating a scathing YouTube attack on the federal Liberal backbencher Alex Hawke, despite an email chain that appears to link them to the clip.

The email chain, which came into the hands of the Herald, has Mr Clarke’s media adviser, Charles Perrottet, apparently informing a junior Turnbull staffer, Thomas Tudehope, ”There is a massive meltdown over this clip”.
In response Mr Tudehope allegedly replies: ”Hold firm. What a little girl … If you take it down it will be obvious that we are connected to it.”

I thought this was interesting, indeed far more interesting than all those ghost twitters. Was this an insight into the real atmosphere inside MT’s office.? It seemed more like a sexist all boy university college than the hip vibe of the ghost twitterers. So I direct messaged MT some questions at 6 am – but as far as I am aware, MT or whoever picked up the twitter, decided to ignore it. Peter Clarke says he was luckier so I guess this is not the sort of sincere interaction they are looking for. Later I posted the questions on twitter so my few followers could see I was trying a little bit of journalism on twitter. I had attended Barry Saunders contribution to Media 140 and although I agreed with much of what he said, I could not understand why he would not be encouraging watchdog journalism when surely PR merged with journalism is far more serious issue than journalists over playing their investigative role. Yes, journalism is about providing context, as he argued, and about discussion and opinions, but it should also be about holding power accountable.

If you consider that nasty UTube Hitler video attack on Alan Hawke from the point of view of discussions about social media , its a handy reminder that social media can be used for anonymous political tricks. So embrace that ‘sincere’ interaction but keep an eye out for Fake emails, Bogus twitters, anonymous blogs and orchestrated comments on blogs
http://colinlieu@wordpress.com Colin

Love it. So true. I love how many think social media is just another way to talk AT their target thinking we’re (if/when i consider myself a generic consumer/voter) receiving their information blissfully with open arms.

Transparency is key and many fail at it. Some celebrities etc Tweet heaps often and are transparent in their sign off if it’s them or their minders etc but when you know that there’s a possibility it’s not them – that’s just boring and time to hit the “unfollow” button.

It’s all about being a genuine value-add in one’s daily social media routine. And well, some just aren’t that valuable…
http://inside.org.au Peter Clarke

Just a quick thought about Obama: he seemed strangely maladroit taking that question from a Chinese student during his China visit. We have to assume every one of those questions was carefully vetted and pre-arranged (even then the authorities did not live telecast the event). My memory of the question was that it was seeking some response from Obama about restrictions on Social Media applications such as Twitter that the PRC authorities regularly switch off/censor. I wonder what tactic the Chinese were using in allowing this question to the US President? Whatever, he didn’t handle it well and included his now notorious “never twittered” and a self deprecating throw-away about clumsy thumbs etc. This from the Blackberry President? Obama did manage to tie in a diluted reference to freedom of use of the internet but the waters were by then very muddied. A mystifying sequence really. Surely the US Presidential minders would have had every base covered? Maybe not. But he succeeded in revealing the hollowness of his vast social media approach to communicating with supporters.
http://twitter.com/TommyTudehope Tommy Tudehope

Paul,

I think its totally understandable that advisors tweet on behalf of or with the authorisation of their boss. How much different is it to having a speech writer? But again, the distinction needs to be made clear. On having a separate Team Turnbull account I don’t think that would be advantageous for the broadcaster or the audience. Politics is often about message and having that message come from one consistent source is ideal. In any case do you know of any examples, politically, where this occurs?

I think Wendy’s last sentence is an excellent summation of pitfalls social media.
http://inside.org.au Peter Clarke

Tommy, of course we know about the necessity of having support from a team for a hard-pressed political leader. But the evolving use of Social Media in practice does, in my opinion, distinguish it fundamentally from the practice of using speechwriters. Of course you are asserting the political orthodoxy about staying on message. This view seems to be under real challenge over the next period. The current SM theory at least points to collaborative construction of meanings, understandings and attitudes. You use the term “broadcast” and “audience” clearly based on the one-to-many model that is being transformed into the many-to-many model as I am sure you have noted. Please elaborate on what you mean by “not advantageous for the broadcaster or the audience”? How? What is the nature of that disadvantage in terms of authentic communication? I don’t think you have satisfactorily addressed Paul Farrell’s basic question of making it clear when a team is posting on SM and when the actual person is doing so. Simply citing Rudd’s Twitter practice is not very convincing. So I ask again, what is the problem, in your view, with setting up a TURNBULL TEAM Twitter account and leaving Malcolm to operate a personal account to develop his own communication approach/style via Twitter?
http://paulfarrell.wordpress.com/ Paul Farrell

Tommy,

As Peter put so well, I don’t think that social media tools are analogous to speech writing – A speech is a one-way information transfer, whereas social media tools operate as tools of dialogue – If I sent a Twestion to Mr Turnbull’s profile, I would expect that he himself would respond to it, I wouldn’t be interested in getting a response from an advisor. That is of course the great thing about social media tools, they allow direct communication and dialogue to and from audiences.

With regards to the ‘message’, politicians have to traverse multiple media platforms and still maintain this message. What difference would it be to traverse multiple twitter accounts and maintain the message? It doesn’t seem like this would be a very complex way to manage the message.

I admit that I cant think of any other politician who has their own advisors/team account, but that’s because political engagement with social media tools is still in its infancy. Right now politicians like Mr Turnbull and Mr Rudd have the opportunity to become political role models for the use of social media tools, and to establish some ethical and honest approaches to their use. Don’t you think it would great to see Mr Turnbull leading the way in the charge of social media use?

Peter’s analysis and also most certainly deserve a further response.
http://twitter.com/TommyTudehope Tommy Tudehope

Ok, will try and deal with all the points raised by Peter and Paul, and they are very valid ones at that.

Firstly let me make an overarching point about politicians and social media; obviously from a social media perspective we would like our politicians to conduct themselves in the same way we do and be governed by the same online rules as we adhere to. However and as Paul put it “political engagement with social media is still in its infancy”. For me, this should mean some give and take. Yes, politicians shouldn’t endlessly spam their audience with political diatribes but they should also be encouraged, in whichever means possible, to better understand and use social media.

Now, to the issue of the Team Turnbull account. Politically, you want your message as loud as possible and to as many people as possible. Having two accounts dilutes that message. I don’t see any insincerity to the medium in having one account which make the distinction where tweets are written on behalf or with the authorisation of the nameholder or in this case the politician. In Malcolm’s case most of his tweets are written by him or given the ok by him. He has twitter on his phone which should be evidence enough that he does them himself.

Further, having an advisor post tweets doesn’t, for the most part, detract from the authenticity of the tweets. You might say “well I want to hear from Malcolm not from some two bit advisor I don’t know”. But practically this inst who it operates and it comes back to my point about speech writing. Staff are direct representatives or their bosses and when dealing in the communications sphere of need to be “of one mind”.

There plenty of discussion going on here so if I missed something or haven’t explained myself properly I will come back and address it further.
http://twitter.com/TommyTudehope Tommy Tudehope

Let me add one more thing.

If you could volunteer one piece of advice to Malcolm (or Kevin) on how to better use Twitter what would it be?
http://inside.org.au Peter Clarke

One piece of advice? Actually engage in dialogue without giving the enquirer/critic/supporter the clear impression that whatever “opposing perspective” they are offering is worthless or not on target or simply irrelevant. Avoid perfunctory dismissal. Malcolm certainly did that with the refugee issue to me and human rights lawyer, Brynn O’Brien. Many of these contacts come from a sincerity I believe and having a mind open and agile enough to deal with the nuances, straight opposite views or skewed enthusiastic support is part of the deal as it is evolving. So my advice? See the social media for what they are and are becoming, deeply human interactive channels with quite different attributes from traditional mass/”broadcasting” media of any kind. They are challenging but potentially deeply rewarding too.
http://paulfarrell.wordpress.com/ Paul Farrell

I think a perfect way to illustrate why a Team Turnbull or Team Rudd acct is necessary has just emerged – Mr Rudd has just put out a few tweets:

“Sad chapter in our history. Time for healing to begin. KRudd 5 minutes ago from web”

“The numbers of people affected is staggering. Nearly half a million Australians and child migrants who were forced to come here. KRudd”

But guess what? Mr Rudd is currently also in Question Time. Did he really tweet these comments himself? They’re signed as from ‘KRudd’. It seems like it would be rather hard for Mr Rudd to be standing up answering a question while shooting off a tweet at the same time.

As @overingtonc so amusingly tweets: “There is more than one Kevin Rudd?! or else he’s an octopus, hands everywhere. Shudder.”

The point is that we clearly cant trust politicians to honestly note whether they or their advisors are tweeting. I wonder, has Mr Turnbull’s team ever tweeted something and signed off as him?

And one piece of advice? Actually start responding to questions (mine will do for a start, seeing as Ive tweeted @TurnbullMalcolm about 15 times in the last 2 days, with perfectly reasonable questions about social media). Engage in a serious two way dialogue.
Dominique Jackson

Even from distant Blighty, I am finding this a really compelling discussion. Thanks all for thought-provoking comments, Peter, Tommy, Wendy.

Of course, it is not just KRudd and TurnbullMalcolm under the spotlight here. Any politician with an eye on the main chance is eyeing up Social Media with, at this early stage, widely differing degrees of success, viz Gordon Brown’s woeful YouTube appearances.

The SocMed audience is nothing if not savvy and transparency is, I believe, justifiably, a key mantra of the new media age. To date, the only account I have personally seen approaching the challenge rationally is the @downingstreet account, which is managed by no 10′s head communications honcho Ian Green. He is the only individual authorised to tweet which at least makes for a clear voice, which is actually enhanced by the occasional personal details he slips from time to time.

Also echo Peter’s thoughts on Obama. Shurely something not quite right going on here? Anyone any illumination?

Planning on another post later in the week, bringing this all together. Any volunteers? DM or @deejackson! Thanks again all for great debate.
Pingback: Stilgherrian · Links for 08 November 2009 through 18 November 2009
http://twitter.com/eatpolitics Scotty

Absolutely agree. However, if they go the path of ‘ghost tweeting’ they should be up front. Much like Gordon Brown who has the account @downingstreet rather than his name etc. That is how you gat off the a sense of credibility on twitter. Then if he chooses to ‘personally’ tweet maybe there can be a hashtag to specify it. But at the very least beup fron on the ghost tweets and I suspect the social media respect will go their way.

Sydney
May 28th
Mobile Technology Revolution & The Customer
Smartphones, Tablets and Mobile Technology have changed the lives of consumers. They use them in every part of their life; communication, connection, shop, information sourcing, entertainment, working etc. They have transformed they way people connect and live. They expect to be connected and spoken to directly by companies and brands.
Register to attend

6th & 7th June
The BIG Science Communication Summit
Inspiring Australia, TechNyou and ScienceRewired are excited to announce a 2-day hands-on summit to map out the next challenges for science communication in Australia and to collaboratively address best-practice solutions.
Register to attend