Skip to main content

Life in the Shop Window


By now most of us are familiar with the case in which Governor Larry Hogan was cited for blocking constituents on his social media accounts. If not, you can learn more here. Something I read online yesterday got me to thinking.

What about candidates? Are candidates obliged to allow continued trolling by bad actors on their social media platforms? By law they are not. But of course there is a judgement call between those who are expressing opposing points of view, even vehemently, and those who would be labeled as trolls and bad actors. That’s why candidates have social media teams. How much do you leave up? How much do you engage? What crosses the line?

Once the candidate is elected, how does that social media policy evolve? Perhaps it was focused primarily on selling; now it needs to be about communication and interaction. Our elected official wants to be hard at work, sleeves rolled up, doing the things that create good policy. But someone else, or a group of someones, are tasked with informing the public, responding to constituent inquiries, and keeping a watchful eye over situations on social media that may need further attention.

Social media then moves from selling a product to providing good constituent service. I would argue that clear communication and responsiveness to constituent needs are also the best “selling”  towards re-election, whether on social media or not. These are pillars of public service which existed long before Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram. Social media is new, connecting with the public is not.

Oh. Now here’s another conundrum. What responsibility does an elected official have in dealing with anonymous social media accounts? I would argue that legally, there is none. If you do not vote as, say, “Colonel Gateway”, the owner of that social media account cannot claim to be a constituent of whatever public servant represents the Columbia Gateway area. It’s just dirty pool to hide behind an alias while slinging zingers and then claim ill treatment from someone who is required to attach their face, identity, and opinions to everything they do. (Truth In advertising: our esteemed Col Gateway has nothing to do with this story, I’m just using him as a well-known local example of an anonymous account.)

There’s quite a bit to navigate when moving from a political campaign to public service. Social media is only a part of that. But it’s right there in the shop window, so to speak, for passers-by to gawk at.

Gosh, I’m glad I’m only a lowly blogger.







Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Teacher Gifts

Today is the last day of school before the Winter Break. It’s a good time to remember the far-reaching nature of our public school system. You may not have children. You may have sent your children to independent schools. It matters not. You will be impacted one way or another. Yesterday I read a long thread on Facebook about several waves of illness in the schools right now. There’s influenza A and norovirus, I believe. And of course there’s COVID. Apparently in some individual schools the rate of illness is high enough for school admin to notify parents.  When I was little the acceptable holiday gift for a teacher was one of those lovely floral handkerchief squares. (I don’t know what it was for male teachers. They were rare in my elementary years.) These days the range of teacher gifts is wider and I have fond memories of Target gift cards which I have written about before. I think it’s safe to say that giving one’s teacher Influenza, norovirus, or COVID is not the ideal holiday...

They Can Wait

This is not a typical Saturday post. That’s because, in my community, it’s not a typical Saturday.  Oakland Mills High School, after years of deferred repair, needs massive renovation. It’s pretty simple: when you don’t fix a problem it gets bigger. The school system itself said the the OMHS school building was  "no longer conducive to learning" back in 2018.  2018 .  But Thursday the Boad of Education voted to push it out of the lineup of important projects which will be given the go-ahead to proceed soonest.  In my opinion it’s a terrible decision and sets a dangerous precedent. To explain, here’s the advocacy letter I sent in support of Oakland Mills High School. I was rather proud of it. I am writing to ask you to proceed with needed renovation at Oakland Mills High School in the most timely and comprehensive manner humanly possible. I have read the letter sent to you by the Oakland Mills Community Association and I am in complete agreement. You are extremel...

Separate and Unequal

  Remember “Separate but equal”? Remember how that really meant that Black schools languished in  broken-down buildings without adequate heat or toilet facilities, with cast-off, ragged learning materials, underfunded and largely ignored? The Supreme Court struck that down in 1954. The evidence was clear that separate was not equal. Plessy v Ferguson had led to - - no, endorsed - - deeply unequal schooling and opportunities. We tend to think of Brown v Board as being purely about racial integration. It was not.  It was about the logical consequences of segregation. And they were not, not, not equal. The ruling in 1954 didn’t transform public education for non-whites into a land of milk and honey by any means. But it articulated some essential truths in a way that made including everyone a legal precedent which could be relied upon and built upon. It was better than what came before it but it rested upon unsteady ground. It did not necessarily change the hearts or minds ...