How Officials Overcome "Fear of Public Opinion" Public Opinion | Online | Officials
"People's Forum" magazine conducted a survey many years ago, and data showed that 70% of domestic officials suffered from "cyberphobia" at that time ".
The main reason for fear is that "the fear of work omissions and other undesirable phenomena will be exposed and affect the future". The most worried about this are the propaganda cadres in charge of public opinion and the "top leaders" of the ruling party ".
Now, from the Internet era into the era of mobile Internet, such fear is increasing, the scope is also expanding. From unit leaders to grass-roots staff, in addition to dealing with busy work, they are also closely monitoring public opinion. Even if it is a good thing for the convenience of the people, I am afraid that the wind will change suddenly and may "change" at any point.
Fear of "public opinion" and "concern" is behind fear of "controversy" and "accountability". Instead of taking the risk of being in the spotlight and thrilling, it is better to hide in the protective color of silence and live smoothly.
The network ecology is complex and the sound is noisy. Dare to touch the net, and in practice to enhance the ability to govern the network. This is the proper meaning of the topic of "modernization of governance system and governance capacity", and it is a realistic requirement that leading cadres at all levels must face directly.
Even if the same thing and the same people receive different interest concerns, it is difficult to get 100% satisfaction. It is normal to praise, criticize in good faith, complain, and even attack and abuse. Under the heated discussion, it is possible that the wings of the butterfly will eventually become a "boomerang" that kills itself ".
Specific to some party members and cadres of the reality of distress: clearly is a fifty-ten response to the question, why netizens are still not satisfied, but also the more controversial? Clearly is out of good intentions to do a good thing, how can it be spread, hard work is also completely thankless? Clearly is the normal dress to talk, treat people, how a post on the Internet after the detonation of a new public opinion?
In the Internet age, how should party members and cadres adapt to the fission communication environment, and how should they practice the basic skills of public opinion response?
People are buzzing, public opinion is changing, ancient and modern, Chinese and foreign. When it comes to the formation of public opinion on government affairs, there are three major theoretical viewpoints that are often mentioned--
One is the Tacitus effect in political science. As early as the ancient Roman era, the consul Tacitus expressed his feelings in his historical books, "Once the emperor becomes the object of people's hatred, his good and bad deeds will also arouse people's disgust towards him." As long as suspicion arises and trust is lost, no matter what the government says or does, people will consider it to be telling lies or doing bad things. This is referred to by contemporary scholars as the "Tacitus effect" and is often used as a warning to the government's loss of credibility.
Second, the psychological halo effect. In people's cognitive communication, because they have too little information about each other, they often form stereotypical results through the generalization of personal subjective inferences, resulting in prejudices or prejudices. In many cases, the facts are not clear, and the suspicion directly leads to the guilty inference of public power. In the "conclusive words", there may not be much rationality and objectivity to speak.
Third, the tragic effect of the commons in management. When a resource has multiple owners, everyone has the right to use it, but there is no power to prevent others from using it, which can easily lead to overuse and depletion of resources. In the eyes of the public, every official figure and organization will be regarded as a "representative symbol" of public power ". Even if an abuse of power occurs, it is not a certain place that is harmed, but the credibility of the entire administrative system.
The triple effects are intertwined and mixed, and once a chain reaction is triggered, public opinion response will inevitably become even more difficult.
Public opinion is difficult to prevent, and often the trigger lies not only in the event itself, but also in the issue of response.
For example, avoid it too quickly. In current public events, some officials either believe that "one more sentence is better than one less", or consciously feel weak and afraid of being exposed, resulting in a "ostrich" attitude, feeling embarrassed and timid.
For example, delayed reactions. The public opinion controversy is on the rise, and relevant parties are still unaware of it. The best way is to "see in the bud and treat in the chaos", but it wastes the window of time in vain.
For example, releasing water and flowing boats. Faced with the boiling public opinion, the fantasy of carrying it on and dragging it on will pass, hoping that time will dilute hot events. Ignoring, not handling, not making statements or feedback, allowing small things to drag on and big things to explode.
For example, confused and confused. I am already in the spotlight, but I am not sure about important information. Inconsistent data before and after, as well as conflicting claims from various parties, can lead to a response that should have been answered in a Rashomon manner.
For example, stereotyped language. In front of the microphone, the expression was tense and the posture was stiff. He only talked to himself, using official jargon without any interaction or communication. He only read the prepared manuscript and ignored public concerns.
For example, a cover-up. Knowing that I have failed to perform my duties or handle improprieties, but I don't want to know my mistakes and correct them, and seek understanding. I also deliberately cover up and conceal the truth, and even deliberately release false information to confuse the public.
For example, avoid the heavy and prioritize the light. Selective response to public opinion concerns, avoiding discussing issues that truly concern the public, or simply passing them by and saying grandiose clich é s about trivial or irrelevant matters.
……
All kinds of coping diseases are not difficult to find negative cases from reality. This also reflects the urgency of facing the ills and vigorously correcting them from the side.
To deal with public opinion, the first is sincerity.
At present, the public can feel whether the official's statement and response are sincere or not. If we do not respond to concerns, do not solve problems, and only deal with public opinion for the purpose of "peace", there are few people who do not run into a wall.
There are many public opinion incidents, and the facts are not complicated. As long as the truth is reported in a timely manner, a sincere apology is made, and serious accountability is pursued; The result was a series of absurd actions, such as "believe it or not, I believe it anyway". The more I wanted to push things down, the more I pressed the gourd and floated the gourd.
The book "The Temper of Public Opinion" once warned: "The temper of public opinion is the temper of the people. What is the temper of the people is what you do. If you violate ethics and morals, it must not be tolerated by the public.." At this time, covering up and forcibly washing the ground is more like insulting the public intelligence. Insolence and error are sometimes more disgusting than error itself.
"Since ancient times, the routine has not been reliable, only sincerity has won the hearts of the people." To face up to the problem and respond to it truthfully is the minimum sincerity.
Quick response and seeking truth from facts.
The problem objectively exists and cannot be covered. Especially in the face of the Internet speed measured in "seconds", people's expectations of response timeliness have greatly increased. If there is no immediate response, it may be considered speechless or intentionally delayed, objectively fueling the speed of public opinion fermentation.
How to treat the public and the media reflects the attitude of relevant departments and units towards the public's right to information and public opinion supervision. There is a saying in the public opinion response that "golden 4 hours" may not necessarily be the case in every specific event, but "only fast but not breaking" is always the fundamental rule.
Under the requirement of "timeliness", "effectiveness" is the goal.
Undoubtedly, there is an investigation process involved in any incident, and it takes time to handle. The official response needs to be accurate and authoritative, and there are many situations that need to be taken into account. Some content may not be suitable for public disclosure for a while, which is understandable. It is important to explain these situations to the public clearly, clearly, and convey a responsible attitude, which is also an important aspect of responding to concerns.
If you have to say it, you have to say it. If the initial response is not accurate, then the subsequent change will be quite passive.
Targeted and methodical.
The surging public opinion often lies in the interweaving of multiple hot topics. The focus of each stage is different, and it is clear what to say and how to say it in specific stages, which is the scale of public opinion response.
Scholars have proposed the principle of "4 confirmations and 5 releases", stating that the focus of public opinion release that needs to be confirmed starts from the beginning, including confirming the existence, authenticity, logic, and relevance of events, and the final release responds to derivative information.
Having a beginning and an end, ensuring the satisfaction of the public with core concerns is a prerequisite for good information dissemination and public opinion guidance. But in terms of specific operations, we cannot simply stick to hard work. We should pay attention to methods and approaches, and strive to achieve twice the result with half the effort.
For example, obtaining evidence. Sometimes, saying ten thousand words is not as convincing as an empirical evidence.
For example, let's talk about temperature. Empathy and empathy can often inject lubricant into resolving public opinion.
If you have a sense of networking, using some online slang can sometimes bring you closer than just saying "actively investigating".
More user thinking can reduce communication errors.
The response to public opinion may seem like a "speaking" effort, but it must be built on the basis of "doing". This "doing" not only involves carefully preparing and publishing content, but also conscientiously doing one's job well, especially correcting any potential errors that have already occurred. This is the strategy of "cutting corners".
The public opinion is fundamentally due to flaws in the work process. The gaze of online supervision is everywhere. The more self righteous and willing to make mistakes, the more likely it is to drag itself into the abyss of public opinion. On the contrary, actively responding and solidly rectifying is to repair the trust cracks that have already appeared with practical actions.
"Doing" is the first priority, "speaking" is the second priority. Even if certain events are indeed difficult and complex, as long as you face difficulties, have the courage to "do", and effectively convey specific results, let everyone see, naturally there is a foundation for consensus.
Moreover, with the improvement of public literacy, the vast majority of netizens have basic discernment and a rational view of right and wrong. Be honest and straightforward in your work, have a clean and refreshing political career, and have clear and honest relationships. Even when encountering some unfounded public opinion nitpicking, one can remain upright and upright, without falling into a passive situation of overwhelming public opinion.
As the saying goes, "if you are sitting well, why should you condescend to be afraid of slanderous".
A person cannot stand without faith, and a government cannot prosper without faith. Officials practice the basic skills of responding to government public opinion, and their response is still to enhance the credibility of the government.
Credibility is the foundation of government and also related to the formation and maintenance of social order. Officials must overcome their fear of public opinion. Daring to face disputes and respond to problems, and saying "good things can be said well, and bad things can also be said well" itself conveys a certain style of daring to take responsibility and take responsibility, which is a quality that the people value more.
The Internet is a variable of governance and an increment of capacity. Both the government and the officials should cultivate their skills to pass this test, and get used to doing things in the sun and "surviving" on the Internet. They can not only accept the network, but also make the network for their own use. The "fear" disease can be greatly alleviated.
