Public officials and social media

The FREEMAN carried a story the other day about a Department of Tourism undersecretary, who is also a lawyer, drawing criticism for her social media post. In the post, she mentioned prioritizing helping a friend in Japan over a meeting of national concern.

I won’t mention the names of the undersecretary and her friend, who is also a lawyer and public official. I'll leave it to the readers to search for more details about the issue if they are interested. For me, lessons have been learned, and there is no further reason to spotlight the two officials. They have since issued an apology. I must admit I have some sympathy for the two officials, as they are friends of my friends. Thus, I’ve heard many good things about them and their work prior to this controversy.

The Tourism official was criticized for sharing a screenshot of a conversation with her best friend, who was vacationing in Japan. Her friend asked for help on how to use Google Translate, a smartphone app that can translate foreign characters or words into one’s preferred language. This request prompted her to pause her ongoing meeting about an important national issue.

I usually give the benefit of the doubt when it comes to interpreting or understanding conversations between friends shared on social media. A third-party observer, particularly one unfamiliar with the dynamics of two close friends conversing, may likely miss out on distinguishing between what is jest or exaggeration and what is serious. However, regardless of the dynamics involved in the conversation that was shared and made public by the two officials, lessons can be learned from this incident on social media etiquette, or more specifically, understanding the nature of social media communication.

The controversy reminds me of the Uses and Gratifications Theory in communication. The theory suggests that different audiences may seek different gratifications from media content. An example relevant to this case is that a text of a conversation shared among friends might be sought after for, and therefore understood within, the context of enTertainment or close-knit social relationships.

Among their other friends, nuances suggesting personal levity or jest --in this case, a statement about prioritizing a trivial matter over significant national concerns-- are likely to be understood and appreciated with indulgence due to the dynamics of personal relationships. However, when the conversation is shared publicly on social media, netizens’ gratification tends to lean more towards information or identity formation, particularly in relation to understanding the officials' responsibilities, their professionalism, and their dedication to public service.

In other words, a casual, humorous, and clout-chasing message (a trait everyone is guilty of) shared on a public official's social media page may seem harmless or easy to forgive by friends of the poster. This leniency stems from either knowing the context and nuances of the message or being personally familiar with the poster. However, if shared with the public and not just a private audience of friends, the message can be perceived differently by a wider audience.

People who don’t know these public officials on a personal level expect them to share content that, even on their personal Facebook page, at least reflects their professional roles. When the content shared deviates significantly from these expectations --such as sharing personal anecdotes that seem to trivialize their responsibilities-- it can lead to bashing.

This incident should serve as a lesson for public officials using social media platforms. Be careful and conscientious about what you post online, especially when you share it beyond your immediate social circle.