Is it right that the level of trust I have in a reply from govt, is dictated by the channel I use to communicate with government?

Absolutely not, Mike. These current distinctions border on the bizarre. And yes, it does all relate back to trusted state services.

As the technology matures and becomes a seamless part of the business (like email and, I would argue, websites) our increased understanding of the media, and the proportionate decrease in fear and suspicion, should see disclaimers evaporate.

Perhaps we need to distinguish between “1-to-many” communications and “1-to-1″.

Is it right that the level of trust I have in a reply from govt, is dictated by the channel I use to communicate with government? Agencies don’t typically disclaim letters, or call centre communications, but they are standardly included on emails. Will the same occur for VOIP, IM, Blackberry?

1. Social media. The content should not be disclaimed, even if it is not subject to rigorous peer review. It is no different to a public servant speaking at a conference – you don’t just waffle along, you communicate ideas consistent with your policy positions: that is what you are paid to do.
2. Regular sites. Given that Annual Reports, SOI’s and IR3’s are published there, I can’t see why that content is being disclaimed either, given that it has been extensively vetted.

Re. publishing to a blog, for the public sector it is the government namespace, so you had better get it right (see above).

But If the blog content is reviewed to the same level as say: communication from your organisations call centre, then some kind of disclaimer is probably in order (using Che’s example imagine live broadcasts of IRD call centre conversations).

There is a releated question surrounding liability for “publishing” on a blog, and keenly debated in NZ media in relation to liability for defamation. I would favour the French approach.

Unless someone specifically points to a factual reference, I would base all information on a blog as the thoughts of the person writing it. This doesn’t exempt you from everything - you are still accountable if at that time you didn’t actually think the things you said you thought - and you will be punished by your public if you didn’t!!! But it does mean that no one can say 10 years down the track ‘But you said it on your blog, so that’s legally binding’.

I think you’re right, we need to stop trying to turn new media into old media!

Examples I have heard of include IRD and immigration.

This is more indicative of a lack of accountability for the advice the departments give rather than overactive legal eagles, although the historic view of the web as an adjunct to ‘real’ communication could play a part.

In todays world we should surely be able to rely on advice given by our government departments, sure there are limits, but the publishing of advice on the web should support consistency of advice to citizens.

The lack of accountability of advice that seems to exist in places, seems more akin to a corupt society than the NZ that we aspire to be.

I don’t have firm views about private sector blogs – that is the prerogative of the individual or their organization. For the public sector, however, I can’t see any benefit of disclaiming content on social media sites.

Che: the problem (well, one of them) is that everything on the site(s) is disclaimed – including the IR3, so the public aren’t given a choice…