Doug's Blog

Earlier this week I was interviewed on CBC's The Current.  It was a good interview in all, but it was somewhat frustrating that there was not enough time to have a vigorous debate on the benefits and pitfalls of Twitter with my counterpart on the program, Stephan Marche.   I want to address some of the comments he made that I never got a chance to rebut or discuss. I find it ironic that he claimed 140 characters was meaningless since you couldn't say much, though, on the show there wasn't time to say enough either. If you would like to hear it before you read on go to:  and">http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2009/200903/20090316.html and listen to Part II.

1. The argument was made that the Twitter is the opposite of the coffee shop (while I had suggested that it was similiar) because only people who agree with you follow you, whereas in the coffee shop you get a variety of opinions.  Indeed, when I suggested that Twitter was the Socratic evolution of social media, he suggested that Socrates sought out people with opposite points of view, while I seek those with the same point of view.

The Response: Socrates went to the market and engaged in discussion with young men to help them evolve their opinions through a process of asking questions. He didn't specifically seek out opposite opinions, he sought out undeveloped opinions.  If he had sought out only those of like mind in the market place than the conversations would have been useless, and he would not be considered the father of modern philosophy.  Some politicians may seek out like minds on Twitter, but I, and many others actually actively seek out and are sought out by people with differing opinions.  I seek out people who want to engage in a discussion of issues, ask tough questions, get tough answers, and share opinions.  Therefore, this IS the Socratic evolution of social media if it is used to its true potential, and just because a few people don't use it to its full extent doesn't make that less true.

2. The argument was made that nothing of value can come from 140 characters or less, and that again, its not like a real discussion since you only have 140 characters. 

The Response: I challenge Mr. Marche to come out and sit in a coffee shop with me.  Most conversations are exchanges of 140 or so character sentences.  Sit in the coffee shop, and speak much longer than that, and it becomes a lecture and most of the folks in my coffee shops will kick you out as an arrogant know-it-all because you spend all of your time talking and no time listening.  I usually go into the coffee shop and ask a very simply question and listen to the discussion in which I see people exchange brief sentences that somehow still seem to change others minds (without the need for long winded diatribes.)  As well, I would have liked to ask Mr. Marche why he finds no meaning in an 140 character sentences, such as, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country," or "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall," or "You cannot help small men by tearing down big men," or "Hating people is like burning down your own house to get rid of a rat."  All valuable quotes.  All under 140 characters.  It is positive to have meaning in short sentences.  Many of the short ones have the most meaning.

3.  The argument was made that we all may start to elect people based on the funny twitter posts, and that we risk turning our vote to the guy we would rather have a beer with then the good policy maker.

The Response: I really can't believe that anyone would say this.  Is the suggestion that voters are not smart enough to choose based on merit, or that they are easily persuaded and duped?  If anyone was to suggest that funny twitter clips would be why I won an election I wouldn't consider it an insult to me but rather an insult to those that voted for me, but I would still be upset. It is possible that some voters would chose someone they feel they 'know' better because of their personal details or revelations that come across social media.  In fact, many people already vote for someone they can personally identify with.  I don't believe there is anything wrong with that.  That personal identity and connection is what is the foundation of trust, and people want to vote for someone they know, but more importantly, trust.

There were many other strange and frivolous claims made against Twitter, but none more strange than the accusation (NOT made by Mr. Marche) that Twitter might so distract politicians that we won't spend time working on policy.  In case anyone hadn't noticed I spend a lot of time going to fairs, parades, rodeos, birthdays, anniversaries, graduations, as well as meet constituents regularly, handle their phone calls over a wide range of issues, write letters, read correspondence, and meet with the 40 other elected bodies within the constituency as regular as possible, whether they have issues or not.  This job is filled with distractions that pull us from the central premise of what we were each elected to do, that being working hard on the sound development of government policy and law.  The public expects us to communicate and to be seen, however, and so we must.  I actually enjoy all of it.  The point is, the balance between what we are supposed to do (work on policy and law) and what people expect us to do (be around and visible and communicating) are always at odds, and it is necessary to learn to balance the two.

I still assert what I said at the very beginning of the radio show is true, "A hammer is no good unless you know what a hammer is good for."  The same applies to social media and to Twitter.  Social media and Twitter are no good unless you know what social media and Twitter are good for.  Those that aren't on it and don't use it won't get it and won't see its potential to politicians or the public in dialoguing, just as someone who has never been to a graduation ceremony might wonder why a politician would go there, or someone who has never sat in the coffee shop to talk would wonder why a politician would want to drop in there, or someone who has never used an ambulance would wonder why they are so necessary.  Few great people, ideas, or inventions get recognition until after they have already been proven and the history books are being written. Perhaps that will be the situation for the advent of social media, but some of us will brave breaking new ground.