Robert Gibbs recently used Twitter to give a shout out to a local bike store. Here is the original tweet, which reads:
#FF @CraigatFEMA so you know the latest @RevCycles a great bike store & special thanks to Ken and others there for helping me with my bike
This has been spun as an abuse of power by the right, of course, and i haven’t taken the time to see how the left is spinning it, but leaving the power issue aside for a minute, this gets me thinking about fluency.
Generally, when people do something which looks like it violates a norm or a rule, there are three different reasons for it:
- They are not fluent in the norms or rules, and accidentally violated those norms or rules
- They are fluent in the norms or rules, and intentionally violated those norms or rules because they don’t really agree with the norms or rules
- The are fluent in the norms or rules, and intentionally violated those norms or rules to undermine the norms or rules
This tweet on the official white house Twitter account seems to me to be a violation of a norm if not a rule that people in a position of power, as we currently conceive of the notion of governmental power, should be extremely careful not to promote one commercial enterprise over another when speaking/writing/tweeting on behalf of the institution (it might be a similar violation for me to promote one of my students’ side business ventures on an official university website).
Assuming for a moment that it is a violation of a norm or a rule, which of the three reasons do you think accounts for it? And if it was a lack of fluency, was this a result of a misunderstanding of Twitter as an official channel? Or do you think it was not a violation of a norm or rule at all?
Chad Camara
May 17, 2010
Well, one could easily take the “he is just some fuddy-duddy who doesn’t know any better” route. This would be the “not fluent in the norms or rules, and accidentally violated those norms or rules” option, but to even say that requires that we define the rules. And to that is not really possible.
When it comes to Twitter as a place for (perceived) harmless chatter, or open communication, then he didn’t break any rules.
When it comes to Twitter as a place for the White House to represent the message of the government and all that it stands for, then he did break some rules.
Robert Gibbs likes that bike shop. Is there a difference between him saying that from behind that podium with the U.S. crest on it and sending it out on Twitter? Yes and no. I think it depends on if society decides that Twitter as a communication medium, and the choice of language used in the message, construct the same authoritative entity that the podium and microphone do.
The question becomes, “Is Twitter the proper place for White House representatives to communicate with others?” And if they do so, do they need anonymous accounts, or accounts that come with a disclaimer that “The White House does not endorse the messages from this account in any way.”
My new favorite word for the world that we live in is “disorienting.” I think that this issue is just another example of everyone trying to orient our understanding of what is proper or right to do in this new frontier of digital space and openness. Robert is just like the rest of us – he hasn’t figured it out yet. Or he has a sinister plan to leverage the authority of the White House to make RevCycles a nuclear power.