New Diplomatic Avenue Emerges, in 140-Character Bursts – NYTimes.com

Twitter diplomacy takes off at the #UNGA:

At the height of the diplomatic negotiations last week over a United Nations Security Council resolution that would require Syria to turn over its stockpile of chemical weapons, the American ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, used Twitter to pre-empt criticism of the measure as lacking teeth because it had no automatic enforcement provision.

via New Diplomatic Avenue Emerges, in 140-Character Bursts – NYTimes.com.

Who else to follow?

  • @AmbassadorPower
  • @LyallGrant
  • @PanakajPachuari
  • @HassanRouhani
  • @StateDept

 

Advertisements
Tagged ,

7 thoughts on “New Diplomatic Avenue Emerges, in 140-Character Bursts – NYTimes.com

  1. clintkunz says:

    I think that Twitter and diplomacy are a nice combination, even though It may be difficult to know the legitimacy of each 140 “burst”. Carl Bildt, the Swedish Foreign Minister, likes Twitter because he finds it useful for gaining an uncensored and unmediated view of public opinion during important events — and also as a bullhorn. Personally I am terrified of anything that is described as “uncensored”, but I digress. Twitter is a tool, and tools are used to be more efficient. I think that diplomacy can be more efficient through Twitter.

  2. cassidyhansen says:

    I feel Twitter can be very misleading when putting out opinions. I say this because 140-characters is only enough room to reference an opinion. With no context, some opinions can be taken the wrong way. I do think that Twitter is a great tool for keeping people up to date on what politicians and world leaders are doing, not the content of what they are doing. Call me old fashioned, but Twitter doesn’t make the cut in informing people and can lead astray many.

  3. Joshua Dennis says:

    As others have shared, Twitter is a great platform for disseminating information. It can help keep politicians in touch with their constituents or political base, and be a public arena to, as the article suggests, share diplomatic opinions. Sure, it may be a little difficult to convey a fully developed idea or opinion on complicated issues with such limited space, but at least that “burst” is being shared with the general public quickly and cheaply. And if needed, diplomats can attach links to sites were more in depth material can be accessed and researched. Overall, I think this is a positive development.

  4. sarahlakee says:

    Today in my political science class we had a discussion regarding the merit in using twitter to spread information, advertise, and campaign. There are both pros and cons to using twitter. As mentioned above, there is little space to adequately address issues. Tweets are not necessarily accurate and can be written quickly without being thought through. However, i believe that using such networking sites to get word out it beneficial. A majority of Americans do not know what is going on in the government and in foreign affairs. Using twitter will get followers interested and give them information, no matter how small. A small amount of awareness is better than no awareness.

  5. mckaycorbett says:

    This article was really interesting I think there are pros and cons in using twitter as always. I liked the point the article made that it is one way for government officials to by pass the media and get straight to the public. I think one big con though is one that was stated in another New York Times article that talked about the use of twitter during the campaign trails. It talked about reporters thinking that public opinion could be read by looking at twitter when less than 20% of the population actually was.

  6. It’s interesting that something the masses use to communicate small blurbs and thoughts has become a tool to those in higher positions. I can see the draw that twitter has for world leaders, but as one who has always been sceptical of twitter, I’m not sure it is the best way to communicate. The word limit makes any real message difficult to convey, and it is a less professional method than any that have been used in the past.
    On the other hand, using the radio back in the day was an effective way to get more personal with populations by connecting with them at home. It will probably take more time to decide whether using twitter is a good, progressive way for politicians to communicate, or if it does more hurt than help.

  7. madeleineolewis says:

    This is a good way to get out word about the activities of the UN. I think it will also promote more awareness and feedback. I like that the tweets shown in this article are professional. These politicians aren’t trying to be hip and trendy by using twitter; instead, they are using it to its fullest communicative potential. That being said, I don’t think politicians should use twitter as a news-breaking channel. (Like Iran used twitter to announce a willingness to negotiate and had actually had a phone conversation with President Obama.) That needs to be done in more official channels. I do worry that their tweets have a journalistic quality to them. When we (as citizens or media consumers) can’t tell when someone is being informative verses advocating their point of view, there is a problem. The best way to address this issue is to be an informed citizen and media consumer—which is much easier said than done.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: