BusinessTN

Anyone fully immersed in the various forms of so-called "social media" out there--be it blogs, MySpace or Facebook--has no doubt been well aware of the micro-blogging service known as Twitter for quite sometime. But lately, with newsmen such as Rick Sanchez of CNN featuring Twitter prominently on their newscasts, the service has started to gain traction with the masses. And, of course, wherever a critical mass of eligible voters is reached, there are politicians.

For the uninitiated, Twitter is a free service that allows the posting of one's every thought via computer or phone to one's "followers" in 140 characters or less. Functionally, Twitter acts as a customizable public chat room. And unlike blog RSS feeds, Twitter is immediate. A posting goes from keypad to audience instantaneously. People post brief opinions and share links, but mostly they just share what they are doing, will do or have just done at that very moment.

On one level, the incorporation of this new social medium into a politician's online outreach strategy is essential. The ease with which one can send out short bursts of information immediately to people's computers and mobile phones makes the medium a vital component of a communications shop's toolbox. But as with any new technology or attempt to embrace a new online culture, pitfalls abound.

Twitter may be a useful tool, but it is also a dangerous one. In Virginia, a deal to get a state House member to switch parties to give the Republicans the majority was scuttled after the party chairman made mention of the deal on Twitter.

While Tennessee lawmakers have avoided such missteps so far, they are not showing that they fully understand the danger, either.

Take Eric Stewart (D-Belvidere), a freshman state senator who up against a financial disclosure deadline, in January, exclaimed, "Who the heck passed these registry laws anyway. Oh wait open govt=good law=honest govt All good thgs!"

Of course, the senator meant the crack in good fun, as he did another "tweet" remarking on all the time that had been wasted completing his disclosure forms. But his words could have very easily been misinterpreted as flippant. (Most tellingly, they were words he would not have broadcast publicly had he not had access to a Twitter account.)

When engaging in the world of social media, a politician must be aware not only of the danger of gaffe or embarrassment, but also of the law of diminishing returns when it comes to communicating on the Internet. There is a limit to how much the public really needs to know about its leaders' daily lives. Do we really need to know when Sen. Jim Kyle (D-Memphis) is putting out lawn furniture or attending a Twilight DVD release party?

Politicians, or leaders of any stripe for that matter, have an image to maintain. Power often is more perceived than real. Social media can benefit leaders, but only if it helps to maintain the perception of power. Keeping in touch with supporters and constituents and disseminating important information is one thing, but does a politician really want to give the public a window into his or her daily routine--of days occupied mostly by meetings, lunches and glad-handing sessions?

That's not to say public servants should eschew social media. For those adept at it, the rewards can be substantial; however, in the rush to get in on that next new revolution in media, leaders should pause to contemplate what constitutes an appropriate level of transparency. The new avenues of communications are important, but they are not built for everyone, and they are not built for everyone to use in exactly the same way.

As exciting as being on the cutting edge of social media can be, there is something to be said for pawning off your Twitter feed to a staffer to send out short items of interest to constituents, rather than giving everyone the play-by-play on your daughter's most recent sleepover.

Kleinheider writes NashvillePost.com's political blog, Post Politics.