Recently, an e-governance leader was scolded by an op-ed contributor for behavior that I think is harmless. It has only happened once, so I can't say that this is a trend. But the manner in which it happened made me realize another challenge in driving government adoption of Twitter, YouTube, blogs, etc: those tools make great fodder for the press.

Here's the background: Colleen Graffy is a State Department executive in the public diplomacy branch. Basically, public diplomacy is the "hearts and minds" sector of diplomacy, the kind that deals more with everyday citizens than with heads of state. So her job naturally includes a lot of outreach.

Graffy has been on Twitter as @Colleen_Graffy since November 17, and has been incredibly active ever since, averaging nine tweets per day. Most of them pertain to her current activity: "Have a meeting with so-and-so," "On my way to Estonia," etc. During a trip to Iceland, she bought a new swimsuit so she could take a dip in the hot springs. She responds to "@ replies" and actively follows about 50 people.

She's doing a great thing. She's a government executive who is adopting a technology that could possibly change our democracy, and given her role as a liaison to foreign citizens, her personal touch is exactly how she should be using Twitter.

But she's also taking a big risk. When public officials are caught acting not-so-officially, they become easy targets for journalists.

Last week, Al Kamen, an op-ed columnist at the Washington Post, poked fun at Graffy's use of Twitter:

political appointees are not about to collect their paychecks and just kick back in local bars. Au contraire! They're going hyperspeed to fulfill their duties before the inauguration...

Graffy is overseas as we speak, working to spread the word of America's fine foreign policy. And the State Department, aware of your short attention span, has a simple way to make sure you know how she's earning her keep.

He then includes a list of some of Graffy's more personal tweets before closing with a sarcastic remark:

"in Boston now boarding flight to Iceland! forgot gym clothes, forgot bathing suit (possible Blue Lagoon visit). advice: don't pack in 30 min"

Seems everyone who's anyone meets at the lagoon?

Kamen sees Graffy's behavior as unbecoming of a government representative. It seems he would prefer that Graffy's communication be cold and impersonal, that her Twitter account merely be another platform for official policy. As a journalist, you'd think Kamen would welcome a government executive with the guts to communicate in such an open forum. This is a First Amendment defender's dream. But Kamen saw it as an opportunity to poke fun. This kind of reaction to e-governance doesn't make our cause (personal democracy and government transparency) or his cause any easier. Criticisms like Kamen's have the power to inspire agency-wide no-Twitter policies.

When it comes to democracy and government, the great potential of Twitter, YouTube and blogs lies partly in their ability to help citizens feel closer and more connected to their leaders. These technologies put human faces on institutions that have for decades been invisible to the public. Active citizen participation is key to a strong democracy, and that participation has been too low for too long.

Now that we have a way to engage with our leaders, it's crucial that those leaders know we will welcome them, not crucify them. Government is an inhospitable industry for pioneers. Leaders who try new things are already putting their necks on the line. If the public ridicules them just for experimenting, we only make it less likely that they ever will.