Happily, this has the bonus effect of separating members of the public that just want to criticize from those who are prepared to do something so that others don’t have to go through the same, difficult, experience.

just because this medium is unregulated (and possibly slightly unhinged in this instance), it doesn’t mean it’s not something we need take cognizance of. in fact, the unregulated medium means we get to see what the man in the street thinks without the filters (or blinkers).

The advantage of engagement is that people with grievances have a vehicle to express them. So immediately you have some steam let off because people are empowered by the fact that there is some way for them to vent.

Also, because you are engaged in a dialogue, hopefully built up over time, there is more of a shared understanding about both individual expectations and what an agency can realistically achieve.

sure, publishing trenchant criticism online is a new phenomena, but how is it any worse than an expose by a major paper?

do you think that it’s maybe the medium that’s getting people over-excited? certainly newspapers have filters that prevent many mistakes and outright lies getting into the media, but if the recent content of the NZ Herald and North and South are anything to go by then these filters aren’t working so well.

so i reckon that you’re right on the money with the need to engage these people. in the immortal words of Homer Simpson, it’s a ‘crisa-tunity’. if these geezers are annoyed enough to be putting their frustrations up on the web, then you have a clearly defined set of interests you can address.

this would suggest less ‘waving of the arms’ about content, and more finding out who these people are, and why they’re so upset. just treat it like any other ministerial correspondence or letter to the editor.