Phone: +44 (0) 1273 90 6919 E-mail: contact@openeyecommunications.com Twitter: OpenEyeComms
A social media question for our times.
With the advent of such things as tweeting and mobile blogging, does the Chatham House Rule still hold good?
As all regular course attendees will know, the Chatham House Rule is often highlighted and agreed at the start of a course, workshop or discussion. Although quite often referred to as the ‘what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas’ rule, it actually has a more distinguished background.
The Chatham House Rule is a rule that governs the confidentiality of the source of information received at a meeting. (source wikipedia)
Since its refinement in 2002, the rule states:
When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed. Meetings, or parts of meetings, may be held either “on the record” or “under the Chatham House Rule”. In the latter case, the participants are understood to have agreed that it would be conducive to free discussion that they should be subject to the rule for the relevant part of the meeting.
The rule originated in June 1927, at what is now best known as Chatham House (formally the Royal Institute of International Affairs) with the aim of guaranteeing anonymity to those speaking within its walls in order that better international relations could be achieved. The rule is now used throughout the world as an aid to free discussion. The original rule was refined in October 1992 and again in 2002.
However in 2006, along came Twitter and the world changed forever. It is now commonplace for people to tweet their opinions as the conference speaker is delivering their presentation and the trainer their workshop. This weeks #leadersdebate saw nearly 37,000 people generating almost 187,000 tweets throughout the course of the debate.
The modern delegate may well see their attendance on a course or workshop as time invested not only to gain personal knowledge and growth, but as time invested to acquire material for their social media portfolio of followers, something that allows them to add value to their personal network in a more immediate and transparent way than ever before.
So, does the Chatham House Rule still stand as is, or does it need clarification to cater for the modern approach? Is it necessary to adopt an ‘on the record’ stance, a full Chatham House Rule approach, or a ‘partial closed – no tweeting when indicated’ approach to conferences, workshops and courses?
Comments and views, ‘on the record’, please…
Related posts:
Doesn’t the practice actually reflect the sad situation of modern times that individuals feel comfortable to post comments by electronic means (usually under false names) whilst not being prepared to make their point personally to the individual? Tweets about a televised debate I can see the value of, but tweets in a classroom or seminar during progress of the event strikes me a very rude. Perhaps CHR should be extended to include the switching off of all electronic personal media? The actual concept of CHR is relevant but increasingly it becomes less “enforceable” as individuals become more willing to break confidences through gossip or pure devilment. What the breakdown of CHR means is we are all going to become even more guarded in our comments in open forums, even more stifling debate as a result.
I would think the Rule itself needs no modification; it should be easy for moderators to say, “…and for those of you on Twitter, please feel free to share information with your networks, but do not reveal its source.” Hashtags would still tag the information.
I don’t think the breaking of confidences is anything new; it’s just now potentially more public. What, if any, would the penalty be for tweeting a speaker’s identity?
Geoff brings up a valid point about feedback to the masses vs. the individual giving the presentation. Most of the event tweets I have seen simply parrot a pithy soundbite. It’s therefore not a reaction, but sharing good information with one’s network.
I would hope that disagreement in a new-media venue would not limit itself to 140 characters of snark, but instead be well thought out in a blog, with the speaker invited to comment.
I for one cannot see an enforceable adherence to Chatham House rules for conferences etc but one can see in some instances where this may be requested and/or expected. Although, as note by Christa most 140 type-bites are mimics, quotes and necessarily hacked paraphrases barely capturing the overall intent or value of the speaker, trainer or event experience. Interesting inquiry and well done write up Mike..
Laura Madison
@canadianpolice
Leave your response!
Mike Alderson
Recent Posts
Affiliates
Subscribe & Follow
Categories
Charities