Why MPs shouldn’t tweet.

Today in South Australian politics, member for Finniss Michael Pengilly became embroiled in controversy when he called the Prime Minister a dog in a tweet. This is the second Twitter instigated scandal in recent months, following Tom Kenyon’s night out at the lizard races. Social networking technology is a relatively new phenomena, and the great potential and possibilities of this new medium are yet to be fully understood. Some celebrities, such as Conan O’Brien and indie-songstress Amanda Palmer have utilized social media deftly. It is my argument, however, that politicians would be much better served by ignoring this media outlet, for the following reasons;

1. Followers are not fans

Generally speaking, a public identity will be followed on twitter by people that are either fans of their work, or fans of what they have to say. Justin Bieber, for example, would be followed predominately by pre-pubescent girls, whilst pro fighter Wanderlei “The Axe Murderer” Silva would predominately be followed by men between 18-34 with a penchant for syndicated violence. Politicians, however, are different, because a very high percentage of their followers are likely to be “hostile”. I guarantee that every SA MP with a twitter account is followed by almost the entire SA media contingent, as well as staffers from rival political parties. These people are looking for slip-ups, and they will pounce on them, with haste.

2. You are not Kanye
One of the great draw cards of Twitter is that it can give you an insight into the personality and mental state of a public figure. By letting us into their crazy lives, we feel like we understand them more completely. Kanye West was notable in the early days, with his emotive, obsessive compulsive, narcissistic and controversial tweets. Controversy is not necessarily a bad thing for rock stars. Publicity sells records. Infamy can be as good as fame sometimes. Eccentricity and controversy, however, for politicians is death. So while there is no great harm in John Hill MP letting us know about the trials and tribulations of his vegetable garden, a sister’s birthday, with accompanying lizard racing, caused a fortnight long headache for Tom Kenyon. I guess the point of this section is, it is fine letting the public into your private life if you can guarantee there is nothing in there that they shouldn’t see. Determining where that line lies can be difficult, especially given the capacity to tweet thoughts immediately, 24/7.

3. The middle man is there for a reason
One of the great criticisms of modern politics (and perhaps one of the areas that social media is attempting to address) is that everything is media managed and sterile. The spin doctors and advisers, however, do serve a purpose, especially given the modern decline in merit based pre-selection. On both sides of politics, there are people elected to Parliament that are well over their heads, intellectually speaking. Without middle men and women checking, scripting, coaching and planning their MPs and Ministers, there would be chaos. Twitter basically removes the middle man, giving the public an unencumbered view of the inner workings of an MPs mind. This is not always a good thing.

4. The only way is down.
Social networking can be a wonderful medium for an artist, band, or public figure seeking to build their career. It allows access to a wider audience than would otherwise be possible. I also foresee that it could be a very useful tool for political candidates to gain greater exposure. I question, however, what an elected MP has to gain from use of social networking websites. Sure, they may argue that it allows them to better interact with their electorate, but do they need this added layer? Between an electorate office, mail-outs, street corner meetings, door-knocking and so on, there are a multitude of ways in which a member of the public can raise their concerns with an MP. Unlike international rap stars, MPs are amongst the most accessible people in public life. Most of these alternative methods of contact are private, and can be acted upon in due course, upon advice, without the risk of controversy or balls up.

5. The Dalai Lama’s Twitter is Dalai Lame
When I clicked the follow button on the Dalai Lama’s twitter account, I had a brief giggle at the thought of him pulling his iPhone out of a specially stitched pocket in his robe, ready to tweet. But of course, he doesn’t write his own tweets. This, I predict, will be the eventual path that most politicians take; delegation to PR department. I never read Julia Gillard’s tweets, because it is the same message delivered in every other medium. It isn’t personal, it isn’t providing any insight, it defeats the entire purpose of twitter. Tweeting in this way provides no political benefit. If people have tuned out, they will tune out from this as well.

Some MPs, notably Mike Rann and Kevin Rudd, have made excellent use of Twitter. Both of these men, however, are 24/7, obsessive professional politicians. Whenever they speak, they are on message. They never let anything out into the public sphere which could convey an adverse or unintended political message. This requires an excessive amount of self-discipline, which most MPs are not capable of exercising on any long term basis. It would be my advice to any curious MP to set up an account under a false name, and just play the voyeur. They won’t lose out on any votes that way.