The Israeli Consulate in New York recently held the first Twitter-based press conference. While it was an interesting experiment, the technology was poorly suited for this sort of activity (read two good critiques from COMOPS and Columbia Journalism Review). As Rachel Maddow pointed out, they were trying to explain a conflict in 140 characters that authors have struggled to decipher in books. Many critiques have been written on this, so I will highlight a counter-example where Twitter proved an excellent medium for delivering press-type engagement.

Sean McCormack, the State Department’s spokesman, twittered (and photographed) his way through the recent negotiations and vote on the UN Security Council’s Gaza cease-fire resolution. His tweets noted the negotiation process all through to the final vote, which passed with the U.S. the lone country abstaining. His updates were interesting on their own, conveying a sense of insider information and a direct connection with the process.

What I found more interesting though, was immediately after the vote, several people asked McCormack, via Twitter, why the U.S. chose to abstain. At this point, the mainstream media had only just reported on the vote and provided little additional context (and none had explained the U.S. abstention). He fired off a few quick responses, including:

“@kmcurry support ceasefire but wanted more progress Mubarak initiative before a vote. That said, wanted to get to ceasefire.” – link

While he didn’t get into details, expectations were low (unlike the consulate event) and because this was so impromptu and immediate, a handful of sentences were all that was needed. More detailed explanation could come later. His quick replies really gave a real sense of openness, engagement and immediacy. Naturally, scale helped a lot here, this was informal and he probably only received a dozen questions (if that), most on the decision to abstain.

Social media as a multiplier

As I’ve said before, social media serves best as a multiplier in public diplomacy. Ideally, the foundation of any engagement should be face-to-face discussions (or other more “high fidelity” engagement, preferably in person). Twitter and other social media tools are useful as a support to this on-the-ground engagement, creating what some have called “ambient intimacy” between site visits.

For all the talk of coordinated outreach, the Israeli Consulate didn’t initially seem to tie their Twitter use to their other outreach efforts. Nonetheless, while the actual press conference failed, choosing to hold it was a publicity coup. Most of the criticism thus far has been focused on the use of the tool, not on the message being delivered, and anything that brings people back to the Israeli content channels, is a net positive for them. They (and everyone else) will learn from this, and the next try will be better, though less notable.

Indeed, it is obvious they recognized the shortcomings. If you look at their archive of the press conference, their replies are not the original stilted 140 character responses but paragraph long explanations of Israel’s side of the conflict.

After summarizing some of the commentary surrounding Deputy Assistant Secretary Colleen Graffy’s use of Twitter, I have a few points I think are worth adding. First off, I’ll admit a bias in favor of Twitter since I use the service and have come to like the unique interaction and community it can foster (not to mention my bias toward the State Department, where I earn my daily bread).

Nonetheless, I appreciate many of the criticisms levied against Graffy’s use of Twitter, particularly those that critique it’s usefulness as a public diplomacy tool. Indeed, I agree that Twitter’s usefulness – and social media general – is naturally limited by the inherently impersonal nature of the interaction. I really doubt any web-based mechanism will ever fully replicate the fidelity of live, person-to-person interaction. Furthermore, as many have pointed out, the web only reaches a small minority of the world’s population so television, books, radio and on-the-ground interaction will, for a long time to come, constitute the backbone of public diplomacy efforts.

Social media as a multiplier

What many of the commentators seem to be missing however is that Twitter comprised a very small part of her outreach. Just by reading through the tweets from her European trip, it is obvious that she spent much more time utilizing the oldest public diplomacy tool available: face-to-face meetings. Anyone who thinks we can replace person-to-person engagement with social media – and still maintain the relationships public diplomacy depends upon – will be sorely disappointed. It is in support and along-side this in-person engagement that social media is most useful – not in lieu of it.

Graffy alluded to this when she said “[c]ommunicating in this peppy, informal medium helped to personalize my visit and enhance my impact as a U.S. official”. For a marginal amount of extra effort, she was able to connect with a wide variety of individuals before, during and after her trip, giving them a chance to better see her as a person and not a random government official passing through. Her individual tweets (and photos and videos) provided a constant low-level engagement that help create regular awareness of Graffy and her work. It is through this sustained contact that the impact of her visit is then magnified. Leisa Reichelt calls this “ambient intimacy“, the ability to regularly keep in touch with people “you wouldn’t usually have access to, because time and space conspire to make it impossible”. In addition to time and space, social media also flattens hierarchy, a barrier to interaction not easily surmounted in real-life interactions.

All about the personal

This leads nicely into my next point, that social media is, fundamentally, about the personal – just like the face-to-face interaction critical to effective public diplomacy. In an offline meeting, the personal touch is always there, how someone looks, the sound of their voice, the personal stories they tell and the give-and-take of conversation. This interaction helps make the representative a tangible, real person. Reaching this level of fidelity in online conversations is not easy and may appear awkward or banal, but perhaps no more-so than a third-party may find in an overheard in-person discussion. It is this “over-sharing” (intentional or no) that really brings a person to life, whether online or off.

It is for this reason that some have argued that brands or organizations don’t belong on Twitter in the first place. Social networks are, after all, places for people to interact. Notably, many well-known personalities also use social media solely to further their brands, focusing on broadcasting instead of creating real relationships.

I think the Obama campaign is a perfect example of this. It was omnipresent online. If there was a social media tool, you can bet Obama had a profile. Yet, for all the praise directed toward the campaign’s use of new media, much of it was aimed at disseminating campaign material and empowering users while comparatively little on personally connecting Obama with voters. The Obama campaign was certainly on Twitter, YouTube and Facebook (and everywhere else), but it would be a stretch to say Obama himself was.

In contrast, it is plainly obvious that Graffy is maintaining her own Twitter feed. Those who engage with her on Twitter can be reasonably confident they are having a real one-on-one conversation with her and not the unit’s media intern. Stripping the personal from her Twitter stream would turn her tweets into just another State Department outlet, of which there are already plenty.

Planning and policy

Taking a step back, I nonetheless concur with several of the criticisms, though perhaps not when specifically relating to Graffy’s use of Twitter. Ilan Berman’s second point, that Washington lacks an overarching communications and engagement strategy (particularly in regards to the Middle East and confronting our enemies), is generally accurate and regularly cited. Better coordination between public diplomacy efforts, particularly those using social media, would help present a more coherent image and more consistent engagement (while also improving efficiency).

Second, Charles Brown’s criticism that Graffy’s tweets lacked any sort of policy message is well-founded, but her avoidance of policy commentary is understandable, though not desirable. State has extensive rules on vetting public statements, whether online or off (occasionally for good reason). Hopefully the shift to social media will encourage greater freedom for Department staff members to speak on policy, but these restrictions will not disappear swiftly or easily.

Ultimately however, the worst outcome would be for State to give up and simply cede this ground. Not everyone will agree with efforts like Graffy’s use of Twitter, but they demonstrate a real willingness to go beyond merely pushing a message to really trying to foster real conversations (both online and off), which, in the end, is what public diplomacy is all about.

I have a few points of my own which I will make in a following post, but I thought a summary of the timeline and major critiques might be useful.

Graffy started Twittering in November, focusing mostly on her overseas travel, which included stops all across Europe. She touched on a number of the meetings and events she was attending on her trip, including meetings with school groups, government officials and others. She got an initial boost of attention when DipNote, the State Department’s official public affairs blog, highlighted her trip and Twitter feed.

Spencer Ackerman was one of the first to comment on her use of Twitter, criticizing her of over-sharing in several tweets relating to a visit to the Blue Lagoon, a spa in Iceland where she ran into the deputy chief of mission.

• “in Boston now boarding flight to Iceland! forgot gym clothes, forgot bathing suit (possible Blue Lagoon visit). advice: don’t pack in 30 min (link)
• Small world — ran into DCM [deputy chief of mission] Neil Klopfenstein just before plunge into Blue Lagoon. Bathing suit not my sartorial choice for first meet! Ack! (link)

Her Twitter thread received even wider attention when Al Kamen, the Washington Post’s (typically satirical) political correspondent, mentioned a few of her more frivolous posts, including the two above, in his column The Loop. His column was quickly picked up by a number of Twitter users, many of whom (including myself) defended Graffy’s use of Twitter and suggested that Kamen probably didn’t “get” Twitter.

Matthew Burton then noted in his Twitter feed that Wikipedia defines public diplomacy as starting “from the premise that dialogue, rather than a sales pitch”. Burton further weighted-in with a blog post in which he praised Graffy’s use of Twitter, noting her “personal touch is exactly how she should be using Twitter”. He also criticized commentators for poking fun at Graffy, arguing such ridicule will simply make it less likely public officials will be willing to experiment with social media in the future.

Charles Brown of Diplomatic Follies, while suggesting Graffy’s spontaneity on Twitter was a step forward, criticized the lack of opinion or policy in her tweets. Indeed, he notes Graffy “doesn’t even explain why she made the trip in the first place”. In a similar vein, Karen Nelson questioned whether twittering was an efficient use of Graffy’s time.

Ilan Berman, on the American Foreign Policy Council blog, provided a more historical perspective in his critique, arguing that strategic outreach during the Cold War helped provide “hope to captive audiences behind the Iron Curtain” and Graffy’s “email blasts” fell far short of those efforts. The main thrust of Berman’s argument is “public diplomacy and strategic communication are not about total transparency” but are “…intended to communicate ideas and values to the outside world. When America speaks, the words need to inspire and empower.”

The post sparked a very interesting comment thread, which included a reply from Graffy. While she raised the risk of mixing the personal and professional, Graffy noted that her tweets have “helped personalize the diplomatic role”, making her more accessible to her audience. Through her use of Twitter, she was able to connect with the youth in the locations she was visiting, giving them a chance to get to know her before meeting in person. Many of the following comments were supportive, the majority focusing on the humanizing aspect of the communication medium.

Berman provided the last comment, conceding that the “personal” diplomacy she was engaging in “indeed has a place as an adjunct to official outreach” but was not a “substitute for it”. Indeed, it was not the “marginal” usefulness of Twitter (or other social networks) that Berman had the took significant issue with, but rather the lack of over-arching strategy and clear, coherent messaging.

Graffy followed up her comments with an op-ed in the Washington Post, where she expanded on her point that Twitter allows people to get to know her better as a real person, enhancing the face-to-face meetings she was having on her trip. She noted: “One young Romanian student said: ‘We feel like we already know you — you are not some intimidating government official. We feel comfortable talking with you.’” She closed with the argument that public diplomacy practitioners need to engage in these new mediums since that is where the conversation is moving.

Lastly, Matt Armstrong (from MountainRunner) followed-up with several points. While touching on the importance of personal connections in public diplomacy, he places Graffy’s communication in line with more traditional public diplomacy which has long operated in a dynamic, crowded and very personal environment. What Anderson sees as the more fundamental problem however is not the lack of coordinated action or Graffy’s “over-sharing” but rather that there is “no understanding of the purpose of public diplomacy and equally important no leadership in the field”. The result is that many of the most critical participants in public diplomacy, the Secretary of State, Congress, the American media, academia and others, are not closely involved in the process.

I’ll post my reaction in a day or two.