My debate with Stephen Harris: Do Twitter Protests Count?

I met Stephen Harris, Manager of the BC Gov’t Caucus Communications on Twitter this week.

We debated the efficacy of online protest actions through tweets, and direct messages. Our debate ended when he said, after being on Twitter all day, that in his opinion a message tweeted in protest by a constituent to an elected official “doesn’t count”. Deep breaths. Maybe I should back up.

This all started with the NDP launch of the Stop HST Twitter Protest Wednesday morning. I wrote a post Calling All Tweeters to Stop HST and I tweeted a little about the campaign design/implementation. A couple of hours later I searched the Twittershpere for HST activity to monitor the success of the campaign.

That’s when I saw a tweet by stephen_harris, which seemed to intentionally misrepresent the protest efforts. I called him on it by replying to his post on Twitter and sent out a link to what I had blogged about his tweets in my article Politicians: stop dismissing online communication.

He was gracious enough to let me know that my link wasn’t working;) So I reposted it and we got into a back and forth. Here’s the gist of it (sorry, this is a tweet deck screen image – read from bottom to top. The left and middle columns were public. The DM column on the right was not. )

His first complaint about the campaign was that Tweeters were misrepresenting themselves as constituents when they tweeted to multiple MLAs. Aside from the fact that people can protest to any MLA, not just the one representing their constituency, he didn’t realize that many of the tweets were tagged with the first 3 digits of the Tweeter’s postal code. I explained that I understood that to be a transparent design feature of the campaign because it allowed for the MLAs to know how many of the tweets they received were actually voter-to-elected-official communications, and how many were general protest tweets.

Then he posted that he’d read my article Politicians: stop dismissing online communication. He complimented my “thoughtful consideration of social media” but said that he disagreed with my conclusion. Since the article didn’t really come to one conclusion, I asked if he disagreed that Twitter is a valid protest medium. That’s when he moved the conversation out of the public sphere and into direct messages. (Hello, I’m a blogger.)

His first DM suggested that he was questioning whether online protests meant anything. I respect a man who asks a thoughtful question – we need more people asking more questions. I replied by giving him the example of the success of the January 23 protests over Stephen Harper’s decision to prorogue Parliament. Here in Victoria, we had about 600 people click to join our facebook group. 1,500 showed up to rally in person. And as a direct result of the people across Canada clicking buttons, and getting out to protest, the NDP passed a bill to limit the powers of the PMO. Given that example, I respectfully pointed out that it would be naive of him to dismiss all online protests.

He conceded that. But then said, “Fair enough. My complaint is more with anonymous protest tweets. It is like an unsigned letter to editor: doesn’t count.”

That’s when he lost me. I understand why an unsigned letter to the editor doesn’t count.

But the MLAs are not receiving anonymous tweets. The majority of tweets in the Twittersphere link readers to the Tweeter’s name, and in many cases a bio and website address are available. Yes there are people who set up Twitter accounts under pseudonyms, and there are people who use an x to sign a petition, but the majority use their real name.

The argument could be made that protest tweets are very much like letters to the editor, in that some are personally crafted by an identified author, some are written on behalf of multiple people and broadcast to multiple news outlets, and a minority are written by people who refuse – for whatever reason – to reveal their identity.

So, Mr. Harris can quite rightly compare protest tweets that are sent by Tweeters who don’t disclose their identity, to unsigned letters to the editor, but it is fallacious and incendiary to compare all protest tweets with unsigned letters. Unless when he was a newspaper editor, he dismissed all letters to the editor because a few came in unsigned, I don’t see how he can now rationalize dismissing all the protest tweets that came out of this campaign.

So I’m still having trouble with his statement that a protest tweet “doesn’t count”.

He said that he doesn’t like that they are anonymous. They aren’t, or at least the majority are not. He said that he doesn’t like that the Tweeters are misrepresenting themselves as voters. They aren’t. The postal code hash tag makes it easy for MLAs to know if the Tweeter can vote for them. He’s referred to the message as SPAM. It isn’t. The Canadian government defines SPAM as “unsolicited commercial e-mail“. Protesting the HST is not a commercial act. He didn’t seem to like that a campaign tool gave protesters a crafted message to tweet. But again that’s no different from Amnesty International giving people a form letter to mail.

Is it reasonable to think that perhaps he has a problem with the protest message and that he’s taking it out on the protest medium? Times are changing. People aren’t just writing letters to the editor, sitting in and carrying signs on the street. They are doing all of that and they are blogging, holding tweet-ins, and creating facebook pages.

I have to wonder, when he said that Politicians: stop dismissing online communication demonstrated thoughtful consideration of social media, did he scan the part where I wrote:

Voters who are making an effort to engage with the political process via Twitter are not going to be pleased when officials say publicly that they aren’t taking them seriously. And anyway, why bait the folks with the megaphones? The current arrogant dismissal strategy is going to back fire. Social media is where people spread information now. There’s no dismissing it any more. (Note: he tweeted about reading this post before he messaged me his opinion that protest tweets don’t count.)

Dude, I have a megaphone. A lot of people do now. Politicians and their support staff need to understand that the people with whom they are communicating can go out in the world and communicate en masse these days.

I hold out a lot of hope that social media tools can help to reduce the democratic deficit, and increase our ability to advocate for things we believe in. I want to live in a world where the tools help us better align our words and deeds. Where questions are rewarded. And where false promises and misinformation are called out. I’ve said it before but this is an exciting time for politics and I’m really encouraged by the people who are getting in the game like @denisesavoie @keithmartinmp @jacklayton @M_Ignatieff @ElizabethMay

Here’s my final thought. The fact that I can open my lap top and enter into a debate with the Manager of BC Gov’t Caucus Communications is a sign of the times. He’s not in my circle of friends, I’m nowhere near his circle of influencers, and yet there we were, sharing time and ideas via social media. Could I get a meeting with him? No. Could I get his attention for an afternoon. Yes. That alone makes me think Twitter protests count for something. What do you think?

Politicians: stop dismissing online communication

Regardless of the postal code hash tag issue from today’s Stop HST campaign, the BC Liberal MLAs may not take today’s Tweet-in seriously.

So far they are mistakenly referring to it as SPAM. Campaign messaging isn’t SPAM. When Amnesty International gives people a form letter to send a message to their MP or MLA it isn’t called SPAM. It is called an awareness raising campaign.

The truth of our communications culture is that form letters are not as effective as personalized letters, and likewise automatically generated message sent via Twitter probably don’t hold as much weight as personal tweets. But they aren’t SPAM.

Letter writing campaigns are as much a part of our democratic system as voting. Changing the media from pen and paper to Facebook and Twitter shouldn’t invalidate the act of contacting your elected official, or relegate the communication to junk mail.

Yes there is something to be said for the effort behind an action and it doesn’t take much effort to Tweet an automatically generated message, but one of these days we will have the option of voting at home on our computers, or at the beach on our iPhones. We will be able to do our banking, order organic veggie deliveries and vote in municipal, provincial and federal elections without having to line up anywhere.

Will a vote cast online count for less than a vote cast on a little scrap of paper behind a cardboard wall on election day? Why should a note to your elected official sent via the internet be taken any less seriously than something sent via the postal service? The constituent request is what should matter, not where they had to go to make the request.

More and more companies get that they have to meet and respect people online. Can you imagine if the banks said to online clients, “You don’t put as much effort into banking with us as the people who come into the branch. We can’t take you as seriously. You get less interest”? The banks moved online years ago and now they know that it is where they are going to win or lose clients.

Our government officials have some catching up to do. Voters who are making an effort to engage with the political process via Twitter are not going to be pleased when officials say publicly that they aren’t taking them seriously. And anyway, why bait the folks with the megaphones? The current arrogant dismissal strategy is going to back fire. Social media is where people spread information now. There’s no dismissing it any more.

Do I think that a Tweet carries the same emotional weight for a politician as a letter, a phone call or an in person meeting? No. We live with a communications hierarchy, which has something to do with our familiarity with the media and something to do with the ease with which we can ignore the media.

We’ve been talking person-to-person the longest, it is extremely difficult to ignore a person standing in front of you – and it would be socially unacceptable to do so. We have been Tweeting the least amount of time and it is extremely easy to ignore Tweets since unless you stare at your feed all day you are bound to miss most of what is said in a day – and it is socially the norm to opt in and out of Twitter when ever you like.

Really a campaign like today’s is less about making the MLA read every note and more about people taking what I’m sure the Stop HST campaign team hopes to be the first of many actions.

That said, what I liked most about the Stop HST Tweet-in is that the Provincial Opposition party initiated it. By doing that, they not only engaged their supporters, they essentially went on record saying your Tweets matter. That means they have to listen when people Tweet them.

Will the Government, or HST supporters try to launch their own Twitter campaign? Will they try keep their heads down and pretend their voters aren’t also members of the Twittersphere? Or will they come out even more strongly dismissing the Tweets and risk alienating Tweeters on both sides of the HST divide?

I’ll let you know what I see – you let me know what you see.

UPDATE: I just searched Twitter for HST and #HST.

Right now there are about 25 tweets that oppose the HST  (or have something of a warning tone). Some are the automatically generated message, about 25% are not for example this APTN Tweet: Some northern Ontario First Nations are planning to put up toll booths on July 1 in protest of the HST, APTN… http://bit.ly/b9tJz4 .

There are currently only 3 tweets for the HST. One is a bcliberalparty retweet of a pretty loaded Tweet by stephen__harris, (he suggests that people tweeting their disapproval over the HST to more than one MLA is a form of voter misconduct. FYI there are no ballots on Twitter, just voices yearning to be heard. Yes, the American Idol’s version of voting has unfortunately taught people that they can vote early and vote often on social media, but I think the people participating in the Tweet-in are clear they will only get one real vote on election day.)  And one (I’m stretching here) is a tweet about a successful seminar teaching accountants how to deal with the HST. That’s it for positive HST messages right now.

Calling all Tweeters to Stop HST

OK this is new. The NDP launched a Twitter campaign today to stop the HST in BC. Whatever side of the issue you come down on, this campaign was very well executed and there are definitely some good social media campaign take aways here. (Congrats to the good minds behind this campaign.)

The call for a Tweet-in went out to party supporters via email and also via Twitter this morning. Supporters who received the email were given links to send BC Liberal MLAs a Twitter message, urging them to stand up for their constituents, because their job is on the line. The emails also included a link for people to sign up to Twitter,  and a call to forward the email campaign so others can spread the word.

Interestingly, when you click on the forward link, instead of getting the usual “forward to a friend” tool that allows readers to forward the email without changing the formatting, readers are sent to the Twitter campaign page on the BCNDP site. There, they have the opportunity to share the campaign via Twitter or Facebook, which is a great way to broadcast the message. However, by not giving people the usual forward to a friend via email option they are missing out on the one on one personal communications that people who tend not to use Twitter and Facebook prefer.

The campaign page has a few strong design elements. Seeing the Twitter stream works well to suggest the high level of activity they have on this issue. (Not sure what it will look like tomorrow post-Tweet-in but today it is very strong.) That design call was a bit of a risk – what if people didn’t Tweet? – but it definitely paid off because right now the speed of the feed is down right frenetic!

Another design point for the page is that there are a lot of options for people who want to do more to support the campaign – possibly a few too many options. It can be good to keep these things simple and focused but everything on the page is campaign related and they get points for not muddying the water with a donation request.

Also it looks to me like the team behind this is nimble. I think they made an on-the-fly-fix. When the campaign launched this AM it didn’t have any hash tags in the  automatically generated Twitter message. I commented on it on facebook and I saw a few other comments and now (within 2 hrs) I see they have not only added a #HST tag but if you click through from the email, the message includes the first 3 digits of your postal code so the MLAs can’t dismiss the tweets and say that they had no way of knowing if the tweets were from their riding. Brilliant!

The Twitter message reads To MLA @DonMcRaeMLA I won’t forget the HST on election day. Stand up for your constituents http://bit.ly/9KrwQ4 #hst #bcpoli #V8T

All this is to say that I think this campaign will stir the HST pot on Twitter today. I’m inspired by the campaign design. And I’m curious about how people will talk about it and what the story will be tomorrow. What do you think?

They showed up!

The question that everyone was asking before today’s rallies was, “How many people do you think will show up?” People wanted to know if the 200,000 people on facebook would translate into feet on the street.

In Victoria, Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament Victoria chapter has just over 500 members and just over 500 people confirmed to attend the rally. Did they show up? Yes they did and they brought their friends.

An estimated 1,500 people came out to cheer, “Whose house? Our House!” and “Pro-democracy, no prorogue”  – three times the number of people who clicked a button.

People drove from Gabriola, Nanaimo and Duncan. People took the ferry from Salt Spring Island. They came to be part of something. They came to remind our politicians and our Prime Minister that we set the political agenda for our country and we will not be taken for granted. They protested peacefully and forcefully, demonstrating that we know that we have to do more than vote on election day to maintain the integrity of our democracy.   More thoughts when I have rested  but I had to get some of this out of my head…

Lead with your strongest statement

Sometimes people think that they should write pitches, web content or press releases the way they tell ghost stories. They try to build anticipation and save the big reveal for the end.

Sorry folks, that works around the camp fire when you have the rapt attention of your audience but on the page, and even in a speech or presentation you can’t assume you have that. You need to give people the best you’ve got off the top. If it catches their attention, you might be able to hold onto it to the end. But if you make people work for something, without so much as a promise of payoff, you lose them pretty fast.

Here’s a great example of a strong lead for a press release. The Federal Liberals are playing with us here. The headline suggests Ignatieff is calling for a fall election. Anxiously, the reader then scans the entire release looking for the word. Instead, we see language that suggests he’s getting ready for an election (like we didn’t know that). There’s not really anything new or newsworthy in this release but the headline is so strong we think we might just have something. So he’s got us hanging on his words again…

Ignatieff: “The Liberal Party of Canada cannot support this government any further.”

September 1, 2009 – SUDBURY ONT , Canada

For Immediate Release
SUDBURY – In a speech to Liberal caucus, Michael Ignatieff declared that Canada can lead in a changing world, but only if we dare to act – by holding the Harper government to account and opposing it in Parliament.

“We can do better,” said the Liberal Leader. “We can be the smartest, healthiest, greenest, hardest-working, most open-minded country there is – but only if we choose to be.”
Echoing caucus concerns about Stephen Harper’s record, including the worst unemployment in two decades and the worst deficit in history, Mr. Ignatieff also cited the government’s failure to meet four benchmarks he set in June as factoring into his decision.

“Mr. Harper, you have failed all four tests,” Mr. Ignatieff said. “You’ve failed to protect the most vulnerable. You’ve failed to create jobs. You’ve failed to defend our health care. You’ve failed to produce a plan to restore our public finances.”

The Liberal Leader invited Canadians to choose a big Canada, generous and open, that leads the world by example and makes us all proud – as opposed to the diminished, mean and petty version of the country put forward by Stephen Harper.

“Stephen Harper doesn’t get it,” said Mr. Ignatieff. “He doesn’t get that Canada’s in a race – that we’ve got to position our country to compete in the 21st century. We’ve got to make Canada a world leader again – and we’ve got to do it now.”
As part of his vision for rebuilding the Canadian economy, Mr. Ignatieff announced his plan to visit both China and India as part of an effort to open new markets for Canadian exports, and called for an expansion of the G8 to a G20 with a permanent secretariat hosted in Canada.

Committing to bring forward legislation to protect Canadians abroad, Mr. Ignatieff also said he would stand by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and make it illegal for the government to pick and choose which citizens it protects.
“Stephen Harper leads a government that doesn’t care. We can do better and we will do better.”

- 30 -

Contact:

Press Office
Office of the Leader of the Opposition
613-996-6740

Interestingly, the press release is quoting from a speech Ignatieff gave to the Liberal Caucus this morning. In the speech he actually did use the word “election”.  After what would have been about 20 minutes of building anticipation in his speech he said,

Mr Harper, your time is up.

The Liberal Party cannot support this government any further.

We will hold it to account. We will oppose it in Parliament.

And if elections are called, we will be ready to offer a better future for our country.

So he has made an announcement and hedged an announcement at the same time. The person writing the press release cleverly left out the ambiguity of this final thought, and that omission of course draws those who want to know what was actually said (like me) to read the whole speech. Nicely done. You got me, and in the getting I still don’t have any more information than I had yesterday.

By the way, this post isn’t intended to advocate teasing the public, nor is it intended to advocate for the Liberal Party for that matter, but the way the press release was constructed has some valuable lessons for grabbing people’s attention. That’s the real take away here.