Where can you find a potential audience of 150million people in one place? Which platform allows you to speak’ too’ rather than speak ‘at’ the audience? Which media platform affords you a high probability of real listeners? If you have ‘listeners’ you have a captive audience so doesn’t that beg the question-will you use it to persuade and/or influence?

The answer  to all of the above is Twitter, a politicians dream or so it should be!  Why then do politicians treat it as their nightmare by either, not showing up and engaging or by showing up yet not engaging to the extent that could make a difference to them and their visibility.

Is it ignorance of, insincerity to engage or could it be something else?

Maybe the words ‘too’ and ‘at’ have some significance in answering the above question. When you speak ‘to the people’ interaction is welcomed and expected, when you speak ‘at the people’ as politicians often do then interaction is not invited, not welcome and frowned upon!

I appreciate that ‘one’ has to duck & dive uncomfortable questions and in certain circumstances this may be the appropriate measure to take, however if you represent the people, work with and on behalf of the people then surely this engagement is not only necessary and the right thing to do but a very useful tool in ‘helping the cause’ whatever that cause may be!

If interaction with the people whom they purport to represent does not appeal to them should they be representing or campaigning to represent them in the first place?

I have to add, that I would hope any person representing me or a cause I believed in would want to utilize a tool like Twitter when it offers so much in terms of ‘audience’ and is FREE!

What’s your view? I would love to hear your comments on this post.