Who’s Behind the Boss’s Twitter?

From assistants to chiefs of staff, it takes a village to raise those tweets and Facebook posts.

Source: National Journal's Washington in the Information Age Spring 2012 survey of media-consumption habits among Washington insiders.
National Journal
Stacy Kaper and Peter Bell
See more stories about...
Stacy Kaper Peter Bell
July 25, 2014, 1 a.m.

A tweet from your sen­at­or or a status up­date on your rep­res­ent­at­ive’s Face­book page isn’t likely to have been com­posed solely by the law­maker him­self or her­self. As with re­sponses to con­stitu­ent mail, there is usu­ally a ma­chine be­hind the Great and Power­ful Oz. But who is op­er­at­ing the levers?

As part of a lar­ger sur­vey, Na­tion­al Journ­al‘s stra­tegic re­search team asked 125 Hill staffers who said they used Face­book and Twit­ter wheth­er they ever did so on be­half of their law­makers. Those who said yes in­cluded likely sus­pects such as press sec­ret­ar­ies, but plenty of less likely ones as well.

House and Sen­ate aides who re­cently shared in­sights in­to their of­fices’ so­cial-me­dia policies con­firmed that law­makers have vary­ing de­grees of in­volve­ment with their Twit­ter and Face­book op­er­a­tions, but rarely does a le­gis­lat­or just tap out a post and hit “send” from his or her phone or Black­Berry.

There are a few young­er or new­er mem­bers who are known for tend­ing to their Twit­ter ac­counts and tweet­ing dir­ectly, such as Re­pub­lic­an Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, Demo­crat­ic Sen. Cory Book­er of New Jer­sey, and Demo­crat­ic Sen. Chris Murphy of Con­necti­c­ut, but they are the ex­cep­tions rather than the norm.

Aides de­scribe a so­cial-me­dia gen­er­a­tion gap, where the older — or more “old-school” — the law­maker, the less likely he or she is to be in­tim­ately in­volved in shap­ing his or her Twit­ter or Face­book per­sona. (There are ex­cep­tions of course. Re­pub­lic­an Rep. Dana Rohra­bach­er of Cali­for­nia, 67, has served in Con­gress since 1989 and is one of the Hill’s best-known Twit­ter junkies.)

“There are three groups,” says one House Demo­crat­ic aide, who as­signs his boss to the mid-level-of-en­gage­ment camp. “There are the new­er mem­bers who don’t have any hes­it­a­tion in do­ing their own post­ings — that prob­ably stems from be­ing from a re­cent cam­paign where they were very hands-on. There are mem­bers in the middle who now re­cog­nize the value of so­cial me­dia and are in­teg­rat­ing it in­to how their of­fice works. And then there’s older mem­bers who are way be­hind, still don’t see the value, and will prob­ably nev­er catch up.”

The most com­mon scen­ario de­scribed by House and Sen­ate aides of both parties is a col­lab­or­at­ive pro­cess in which the ideas for Twit­ter or Face­book posts may come from a vari­ety of sources in the of­fice: policy aides, com­mu­nic­a­tions staffers, staff mem­bers back in the dis­trict, and, of course, the law­maker him­self or her­self.

“Twit­ter and Face­book goes through com­mu­nic­a­tions; we treat them gen­er­ally like we would a press re­lease,” says one GOP Sen­ate aide.

Of­ten the com­mu­nic­a­tions team is in charge of the draft­ing and the post­ing, usu­ally with in­put and over­sight from policy staff. Law­makers are com­monly asked to sign off on posts, fre­quently mak­ing ed­its be­fore they do. “Even though my boss is not on Twit­ter him­self, he has a pretty good grasp of what works on a me­di­um like that,” the Sen­ate aide says. Source: Na­tion­al Journ­al‘s Wash­ing­ton in the In­form­a­tion Age Spring 2012 sur­vey of me­dia-con­sump­tion habits among Wash­ing­ton in­siders.

While the law­maker and policy staffers weigh in on tweets when pos­sible, the aide adds, some­times on a well-es­tab­lished is­sue there isn’t much time to hem and haw over a re­sponse on Twit­ter. Face­book, on the oth­er hand, doesn’t have the same im­me­di­acy; it lends it­self to longer mes­sages with more con­text and to nar­rat­ives.

“Twit­ter and Face­book have such dif­fer­ent audi­ences — they are really dif­fer­ent me­di­ums,” says the aide. “Re­port­ers grav­it­ate to Twit­ter — it’s bet­ter to send out a mes­sage on Twit­ter than a press re­lease — where­as your av­er­age con­stitu­ent is not on Twit­ter. Face­book hits reg­u­lar cit­izens; that’s their pre­ferred me­di­um.”

One Sen­ate Demo­crat­ic aide also de­scribes a col­lab­or­at­ive ap­proach, in which the boss doesn’t ac­tu­ally type in any 140-char­ac­ter mes­sages but does flag is­sues to tweet or to post on Face­book, and ed­its and ap­proves fi­nal drafts be­fore they go up. “Our di­git­al dir­ect­or takes a first stab and does the click­ing to send mes­sages out, but everything goes through my boss, who is very hands-on and makes tweaks or adds be­fore it goes out.”

There are those law­makers, typ­ic­ally older bulls, who have little if any in­volve­ment with so­cial me­dia and en­trust the job en­tirely to their staff. But more le­gis­lat­ors are re­cog­niz­ing that if they want their on­line voice to be a strong, au­thor­it­at­ive one, they need to work with the rest of the team be­hind the cur­tain.

What We're Following See More »
1.5 MILLION MORE TUNED IN FOR TRUMP
More People Watched Trump’s Acceptance Speech
20 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Hillary Clinton hopes that television ratings for the candidates' acceptance speeches at their respective conventions aren't foreshadowing of similar results at the polls in November. Preliminary results from the networks and cable channels show that 34.9 million people tuned in for Donald Trump's acceptance speech while 33.3 million watched Clinton accept the Democratic nomination. However, it is still possible that the numbers are closer than these ratings suggest: the numbers don't include ratings from PBS or CSPAN, which tend to attract more Democratic viewers.

Source:
×