Does transparency sacrifice honesty in blogs?
An interesting debate has cropped up over on ConnectedCops.net about whether police officers should be allowed to blog anonymously.
It started with Lauri’s point in her post on elements of a social media policy (cross posted here and on her blog):
3. Identity. Some bloggers work anonymously, using pseudonyms or false screen names. Law enforcement agencies should absolutely insist that in blogs, wikis or other forms of online participation that relate to the department or the city, or activities or issues with which the department is engaged; department employees use their accurate identity.
Which stuck with me because of the number of excellent cop bloggers who are anonymous. You can read mine and the other comments there. At the debate’s heart: whether anonymity allows more honesty (yes, honesty, not bravado or bigotry or any other negative connotation) than they perhaps otherwise would use.
Positive perceptions
I emailed one of the anonymous bloggers to get his opinion. He doesn’t hide his workplace from his readers, and I wondered whether he was working with his administrators’ blessing. If so, I asked, how was anonymity decided upon?
I just started blogging on my own. I decided that the ‘net was full of the cop sites complaining about bureaucratic and political incompetence so I thought I’d do something upbeat. I figured if it was positive it would be harder for the big shots to complain about it.
A few weeks after starting I was contacted by one of our command staff through the site asking who I was. I was honest about it and didn’t hear anything else…. I was told that they see it as my right and they aren’t intervening….
My anonymity is an open secret at work. It’s a small enough agency that it wouldn’t be hard to figure out from my stories. I’m more concerned about Internet privacy and not being stalked over it. I’ve had some interesting hate mail through the site and I don’t want to give anyone a target.
Again with the officer safety
He continued:
I do think that the Internet opens you up to a whole world of cop haters hiding behind their computer screen. The problem is you don’t know which ones are willing, or capable, of carrying out the threats. I know these people don’t like me, and I don’t care. If I wanted to be liked, I would have been a fireman.
However, I don’t want them having my real name to attach to my blog so they can figure out where I live or otherwise target me. My administrative policies can’t override the first amendment if one of these wack jobs decide to target me because of my blog and post my home address on some cop hating site.
Especially if the hater is clear across the country. At least if some local crazy starts stalking me through work I have a chance of filing charges or otherwise working it out. Imagine if an Internet stalker on the other side of the country does it online, my department would be powerless to stop it or protect me. I’m definitely not putting my name on my blog.
Department-sanctioned tools
Lauri rightly points out that this is the reason why social media policies should cover the tools that are and are not sanctioned by the department. Although I am concerned that this might remove an otherwise important “coping” mechanism for officers, sites like the Experience Project may cover this issue.
Perhaps the real problem lies not in whether law enforcement must sacrifice honesty for transparency, but in whether citizens are comfortable with their police officers having a voice. One chief, who does not blog anonymously, wrote me a few months ago that he was going dark for a time:
One of my illustrious citizens came across my accounts and made a complaint to the Mayor and Council. Of all the things I’ve posted on Twitter, he or she was hung up on a post I made about people acting stupid—alluding to the fact I was either speaking about my officers or my citizens. That particular comment was directed at a vendor I had been dealing with….
City administrators were supportive, but the chief chose to avoid conflict—a shame, because I haven’t heard much from him since.
Honesty vs. liability
Ideally officers can be honest about what they see daily. It might encourage citizens to change their behavior: not calling 911 when their children refuse to go to bed, or to help them take their pills. It might even go as far as citizen journalism. In prior generations, officers with serious concerns about department corruption went to the media. Now, they can be the media. As my contact notes:
If you want to publicly criticize your agency or city management, anonymity is the only thing [allowing you to keep] your job. Look at bloggers like Inspector Gadget–I have no questions he would be fired, or drummed out of his rank, or transferred to some terrible assignment if they found him out. Same thing with Second City Cop. The Chicago Political Machine would probably make them disappear like Jimmy Hoffa.
Indeed, many administrators fear the liability bugaboo. However remote the possibility of a successful lawsuit over “emotional distress stemming from embarrassment” might be from an unnamed citizen who nonetheless recognizes him- or herself, nothing would stop a lawyer from trying—and causing considerable expense, not to mention stress, in the meantime.
Should cop bloggers be allowed their anonymity, or should they be required to be up front about their identities—even if it sacrifices some honesty?
Image: thelastminute via Flickr
Popularity: 11% [?]
I think the real question for cops is: knowing what you know about your agency, would you really want to ask them permission to blog anonymously when you can keep yourself anonymous without asking permission?
One TIme´s last blog ..Annoying Text Messages
True… true, but nothing says you have to supply your blog name… right?
I believe that cops should be encouraged to blog if they choose to do so as it shows our human side. However, I think it best to remain anonymous if they are going to post specifics or if they can’t be professional with their thoughts/language. The problem, and I learned this the hard way, is that citizens who don’t particularly like you will Google you and they will use anything you say against you – they will twist it and manipulate it any way they can if it helps their agenda.
I stopped blogging after my little “incident” in order to avoid controversy and have decided to post anonymously if and when I start back (I plan on returning to the blogosphere soon). Social media and blogging are still new, uncharted territories so we have to be ready to adapt, improvise, and overcome!
Thanks, El Jefe — your comment reminded me of something I read quite awhile ago, an officer who said his department allowed cops to have personal blogs as long as they didn’t mention the job. As he pointed out, how can you have a personal blog and not mention something that’s part of your life? I do know of one detective, an ICAC investigator, who does this — partly because of the sensitivity of his work, but I think also partly because his blog is to keep in touch with far-flung family and friends. Most other cop bloggers I know very much want to talk about their job, as you say, to show their human side.
I think it does stink that you had to quit going under your own name; this kind of thing doesn’t help LE move toward social media, but away from it. I am curious to find out whether other official bloggers (chiefs especially) have ever encountered situations like yours, and if so, how they dealt with it (or plan to)?
Anyway, I do look forward to your new blog.
Let me know when it’s up so I can blogroll it!
This is an issue i have been tangling with for years. I for one have always stated it is best to be open and be proud of who you are what you represent but not all employers look at it the same way. RIght now i am being investigated by our Professional standards branch for my online activities. They are not happy that I have my employers images or videos online and for that they are coming after me…I still believe in being open and proud but this experience is making that very difficult to stand by…oh well lets see how it plays out.
Yikes, I had no idea… I’m sorry to hear that.
It would be easy to say “this is why agencies need a policy” but I think it goes further: not only can administrators not afford to ignore social networking, but they need to go beyond a simple conduct policy. A committee (yes I know how that sounds
) of administrators, officers, city or town administrators should be involved to research and discuss before developing the policy… there are many layers, and everything is agency- and location-unique.
Good luck with the investigation… I hope you/they are able to work out a compromise where you are able to keep doing what you do. Take care.
A lot depends on what the officer/blogger wants to accomplish by blogging. Most of the social media horror stories (cases dumped, officers disciplined, etc) have occurred because of officer bloggers not understanding that anyone could read what they were writing. They didn’t understand that the way we talk with each other at the gin mill after work might be hilarious, but might not be viewed as acceptable by civilians.
Other cops can have privacy or safety concerns, and that would be heightened I think in smaller agencies and smaller towns.
In my case, I won’t publish anything that would compromise a pending case or investigation, or violate anyone’s right to privacy. The purpose of my blog is to give civilians an insight into police work, so I don’t spend much time criticizing mine (or any other) police administration.
Excellent couple of posts, by the way. I’m fascinated by this topic.
Joe the Cop´s last blog ..Mug shot progressions
Thanks Joe. Excellent point about what an officer wants to accomplish with blogging. I’d say that holds true for agencies as well (probably why it’s generally easier for chiefs to blog under their own names). I’ve noticed that when you do reference a blog like Second City Cop, it has to do with officer safety issues, without a focus on administration.
I would argue that most of the other good cop bloggers likewise want to provide insight into police work, but do have safety concerns or else know they would be shut down for fear of liability (whether or not there actually was any). Maybe even more so for smaller agencies. As you said, though, the horror stories from the media are the ones where officers did not have that goal. The blogs I have seen shut down did so quietly, and it seems for every one shut down, five more spring up in its place. There’s a lesson in there for admins kind of like what my source wrote above — he keeps it positive, they don’t interfere!
Christa, I think it is a personal decision, but regardless of their decision they have to be honest about what they blog about. I see one key issue with law enforcement, more so than with other bloggers. Cops are considered subject matter experts about everything once the police uniform is put on. I know this is a little tongue and cheek, but here me out. When police blog, I think people elevate the content of that blog as well as place extreme scrutinization on the blog because it is coming from a government representative. I would have to go with a theme from my post yesterday about the Whole Foods dust up. The police represent the City Brand (ultimately the City Governement) so they will have to facilitate their blog accordingly whether undercover or in the open. You will have a hard time having management condone a blog that is contrary to the mission of that organization. I think that this is a major hurdle with law enforcement social media that will eventually be overcome. I definitely think police should blog and be as honest as they can. I think this is why a clear social media policy should be required for law enforcement agencies prior to them joining the conversation, so they are not caught with their pants down.
Mike
Michael Vallez´s last blog ..Tampa Police Corporal Mike Roberts 10-7
Mike, those are great points. Especially now that Google has to reveal the name of an anonymous blogger (I think Lauri brought that up in a previous comment), even anonymous blogs aren’t “safe” anymore, nor private MySpace or Facebook pages.
Perhaps then social media policies should cover 1) official agency/representative blogs (like a chief’s), 2) unofficial agency rep blogs (like the chiefs who write disclaimers that their opinions are their own) and 3) unofficial nonagency blogs, including the anonymous cops. Disclaimers and also a certain degree of decorum should be required. Even if the higher-ups don’t know who’s blogging anonymously, in case that officer’s identity must ever be revealed, policy should cover how those ideas are put across.
[...] Miller posted an interesting article on her blog, Cops 2.0, a couple of weeks ago entitled “Transparency vs. anonymity” in [...]
[...] August I blogged, also with regard to transparency, about a police chief friend who “went dark” on Twitter because a citizen had complained about [...]