in partnership with the national center for state courts ... · 8/6/2014 · • compared to the...
TRANSCRIPT
2014 CCPIO New Media Survey
A Report of the Conference of Court Public Information Officers
In Partnership with the National Center for State Courts
AND The E. W. Scripps School of Journalism at Ohio University
Available online at
www.ccpio.org
Released August 6, 2014
at the CCPIO 23rd Annual Meeting
Las Vegas
CCPIO is the only professional organization dedicated to the role of court PIOs in the United States and worldwide. The organization provides training, networking opportunities, and professional enhancement
tailored to the unique duties of PIOs.
Copyright 2014, Conference of Court Public Information Officers. All Rights Reserved.
1
INTRODUCTION
In the U.S., close to 9 in 10 adults carry a mobile device. In a recent Time poll,1 1 in 4 people check their
phone every 30 minutes, 1 in 5 every 10 minutes. A third of respondents said that being without their
mobile for even short periods leaves them feeling anxious. Three-quarters of 25-to-29-year-olds admitted
to sleeping with their phones. So why would they leave them at the courthouse door?
The new reality is that mobile devices and social media have become such an integral part of society that
judges and courts are increasingly focusing on containing the use of electronic devices rather than
banning them from the courthouse and are getting more comfortable with allowing court proceedings to
be shared through social channels.
The results of our fifth annual CCPIO New Media Survey, reveals a changing attitude by judges and court
officials about the use of devices and new media during court proceedings. A year ago, nearly 66 percent
of court officials objected to the media sending out messages from the courtroom during a proceeding
while only 33 percent would permit it. In 2014, the gap narrowed to seven points with only 46 percent
saying it’s inappropriate and 39 percent permitting it. The courts increasingly recognize the expectation of
the general public to take a cell phone or mobile device into the courtroom, but generally prefer they
don’t use the devices during court proceedings.
How connected are people to their phones? On average, people check their phones 150 times a day,
according to Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers’s annual Internet Trends report. The firm found people
check their phones an average of 23 times a day for messages, 22 times for a voice call and 18 times to
get the time. One of the main thing people also do is take photos and share them. More than 500 million
photos are shared every day online, the report said.2 The desire to connect through visuals also may help
explain another major reversal of opinion revealed in the survey. For the first time, more court officials
believe the media should be allowed, with some restrictions, to take photos and videos of a court
proceeding. The objection to photos and videos dropped from 46 percent a year ago to 35 percent this
year.
1 Nancy Gibbs, “Your Life Is Fully Mobile,” Time (August 27, 2012): 32-39, http://techland.time.com/2012/08/16/your-life-is-fully-mobile/. 2 Mary Meeker and Liang Wu, 2013 Internet Trends, May 29, 2013, http://www.kpcb.com/insights/2013-internet-trends..
2
As seen over the past five years of the survey, courts continue to experiment with social media and other
new media tools to connect with the public and fulfill their obligation to be open, transparent, and
understandable institutions. At the same time, lawyers, judges, and courts continued to seek the right
balance of new media use with the critical need to protect the integrity of proceedings, judicial ethics, and
other concerns. The 2014 CCPIO New Media Survey reveals that while more courts are embracing the
potential new media brings, the majority are still grappling with the risks involved.
There is little doubt about the persuasive power of new media. For example:
• Legendary musical parodist Weird Al Yankovic recently saw his new album “Mandatory Fun”
surge to #1 on Billboard’s album chart after an online marketing blitz, which utilized his Twitter
following of more than 3.3 million and the hashtag #8videos8days. Yankovic said he personally
tries to respond to every Twitter message, a habit that apparently serves him well, and as the two-
way communication helped to persuade followers to view his album-related videos, the first of
which was released on July 14. Since then, his new videos have been viewed more than 46
million times. The album’s songs, too, have streamed more than 3.2 million times on Spotify in
the same time period.3
• The summer 2014 military conflict between Israel and Hamas militants in the Gaza strip also
include a vehement war of words, spread via Twitter and YouTube. The dividing line usually is
clear among Twitter users: “Israel use to bother w facade of decency in front of press, now so
used to pro Israel bias it massacres kids in full view of journalists,” said one tweet. Another said,
“Given the state of Gaza infrastructure, have to wonder how people feel about Hamas using $$ to
build tunnels, not homes/roads/etc.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu learned first-
hand the power of media and the fast-moving social media tools, when he criticized Hamas’ use
of rhetoric and propaganda. “They use telegenically dead Palestinians for their cause,” he said.4
That phrase swiftly spread through social media, stirring passionate emotions about the conflict.
• Using social media to persuade has its risks. In an apparently state-backed effort, pro-China
tweets peppered Tibetans and the surrounding region recently with at least 100 identified fake
Twitter accounts, all aimed at presenting upbeat news about China and even Tibetans’ “deep
appreciation for China’s governance of the region.”5 But the effort was hardly veiled, as the fake-
account profile photos, as well as those images and videos tweeted all featured Caucasian
individuals whose photos were common to Western stock-photography companies. 3 Ben Sisario, “No Joke! He’s Topping the Charts,” The New York Times, July 24, 2014. 4 Jake Flanagin, “War and Media in the Gaza Strip,” The New York Times, July 22, 2014. 5 Andrew Jacobs, “It’s Another Perfect Day in Tibet!,” The New York Times, July 21, 2014.
3
New media also is prompting changes in court operations.
• Recently, the Philadelphia Bar Association issued an ethics opinion offering guidelines to lawyers
on how to advise their clients’ social media use in the midst of a civil or criminal case.
Specifically, the opinion permits lawyers to advise clients to change the privacy settings on the
client’s social media accounts, but did not permit lawyers to encourage or knowingly allow the
deletion or destruction of content. Rather, it said that all content must be preserved in some
manner. One criminal defense attorney said, “Our digital footprint outsizes our physical footprint
by geometric proportions. These new guidelines ensure that all such personal expressions must be
preserved forever.”6
• A recent survey of almost 500 federal judges by the Federal Judicial Center found few instances
of inappropriate juror use of social media. In fact, only 33 judges7 indicated instances of social
media use by jurors during trials or deliberations. How do they squelch such use? Most judges
said they rely on themselves to explain to jurors why social media use is forbidden; some, though,
incorporate such information in formal jury instructions. Further, most judges said that while they
rely on other jurors, attorneys, and court staff to notify them of inappropriate use, they admitted
having less knowledge or awareness of whether attorneys use social media, such as Facebook,
during voir dire. In fact, only 25 judges said they knew of attorneys’ use of social media during
court proceedings. A total of 120 surveyed judges, though, said they do not permit attorneys to
research prospective jurors online during voir dire.8
These examples help explain a growing effort to establish social media policies to govern behavior, as well as knowledge by judges and court officials of the various social media platforms being used extensively.
Key findings from the CCPIO New Media Survey include:
• In 2014, 37 percent of the courts have a social media policy for their courtroom compared to
about 29 percent a year ago.
• Compared to the 2013 results, social media use by courts is growing. Facebook use by courts is
up by more than 5 percent; Twitter use increased by 3.5 percent and YouTube by 3.2 percent. 6 P.J. D’Annunzio, “Phila. Bar Association Issues Guidelines on Social Media Use,” The Legal Intelligencer, July 23, 2014. 7 Meghan Dunn, Jurors’ and Attorneys’ Use of Social Media During Voir Dire, Trials, and Deliberations: A report to the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management (Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center, May 1, 2014). 8 “Survey Finds Infrequent Social Media Use by Jurors,” The Third Branch News, July 29, 2014, http://news.uscourts.gov/survey-finds-infrequent-social-media-use-jurors.
4
• Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are almost the exclusive social media tools used by courts that
responded to the survey. Courts were surveyed on six new media tools, but only a small number
indicated they used Flickr, while no respondents used Pinterest or SnapChat for court operations.
• Of the three tools used, courts are finding each of these tools have great value for particular tasks.
o More than 60 percent of the courts use Twitter to release decisions and for emergency
management.
o More than 50 percent said their courts use Facebook to post jobs.
o More than 50 percent said their courts use Twitter to gather and monitor news.
• As use of the tools grows so does the belief that social media is necessary for courts to connect
with the public. Now more than 42 percent of court officials agree it is necessary and 26 percent
see it as not necessary. A year ago, 42 percent found it unnecessary, compared to 34 percent who
valued it. About a third of court officials remain neutral on the issue.
• Court personnel still remain wary of social media use and three-quarters do not use any social
media in their professional lives. A growing number of respondents – 41 percent – indicated
privacy concerns with using Facebook. In 2013, this number was 30 percent.
See Appendix A for the questions asked in the 2014 CCPIO survey.
• Ethical questions remain for judges using social media. In 2014, the survey showed that 44.5
percent agreed that judges can use Facebook without ethics concerns, a drop of more than 5
percent from 2013.
See Appendix B for the general summary of the 2014 CCPIO survey results.
STATUS AND IMPLICATIONS
Status: Court public information officers must be aware of the various types of social media available,
which ones are growing in popularity, and how those trends might impact the delivery of court
information.
In its current state, social media continues to become more integrated into our daily lives. The number of
users increases every day and new uses for social media are invented and implemented almost as fast.
Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Google+, LinkedIn, and Pinterest lead the way. However, they are followed
closely by Instagram, SnapChat, and Vine to promote visual elements to a rapidly growing audience.
5
Mashable.com, one of the leading online journals of technology, recently released a study stating that the
average adult American spends 11 waking hours per day with electronic media of some form. Television
leads the way with 5 hours; radio at 2 hours 46 minutes; smartphone at 1 hour 7 minutes; Internet/PC at 1
hour; and time-shifted television at 32 minutes.
Currently, according to Postcron.com, 60 percent of the population accesses social media content using
mobile devices.
The Search Engine Journal states that 16 minutes of every hour in the United States is used on social
media and that 71 percent of the public is accessing social media via mobile devices.
The following is a snapshot of the most popular forms of social media today.
Facebook: According to its own figures, one in every 13 people on earth is on Facebook and 71.2 percent
of all Internet users in the United States are on Facebook. Nearly 50 percent of active Facebook users log
on every day, spending over 700 billion minutes per month and sharing almost 30 billion pieces of
content per month.
• Facebook has between 650 and 800 billion active users worldwide. It is the second largest
website by traffic behind Google.
• More than 250 million active users currently access Facebook through their mobile devices.
Facebook estimates that people who access Facebook through some form of mobile device are
twice as active in using Facebook as non-mobile users.
• About 23 percent of Facebook users check their accounts at least five times per day, according to
The Search Engine Journal.
• People often check Facebook for an institution’s presence before checking for a governmental
website. Information on a website is considered static while information on Facebook is
considered fluid and timelier.
• The average time spent per Facebook visit is 20 minutes according to Infodocket and
zephoria.com.
• The Social Skinny reported that every 60 seconds there are 510 comments posted, 293,000 status
updates, and 136,000 photos uploaded.
• Facebook reports that 4.75 billion pieces of content are shared daily “as of May 2013.” That is a
94-percent increase from August 2012.
• Facebook was originally bank-rolled for $500,000. It is now valued at approximately $80 billion.
6
YouTube: This social media site, created in 2007, now has more than 1 billion unique users each month.
According to Janko Roettgers of gigaom.com, YouTube’s 2013 revenue was reportedly $3.5 billion.
• YouTube statistics indicate that six billion hours of video are watched each month. That equals
almost an hour of viewing for every person on earth.
• More than 100 hours of video are uploaded worldwide every minute.
• YouTube reaches more US adults ages 18-34 than any cable network. Also, importantly to social
media purveyors, mobile makes up 40 percent of YouTube “watch time.”
Twitter: Since being launched in 2006, Twitter has risen to the top 10 most-visited Internet sites. It has
646 million registered users, 40 percent who do not post (tweet), but observe others’ tweets and use the
social medium as a curator of news and information. Currently, there are approximately 58 million tweets
per day.
• Twitter is one of the fastest-growing social networking services with a 44 percent growth from
June 2012 to June 2013, according to The Search Engine Journal.
• Twitter also has become extremely mobile with 43 percent of its users using Twitter on
smartphones.
Google+: This is a social communication network launched by Google. It is estimated by Leverage to
have 400 million users and is growing rapidly with 925,000 new users every day.
• According to socialmediatoday.com, Google+ has a growth rate of 33 percent per year. It is
embraced by older people ages 45 to 54 who increased their usage by 56 percent since 2012.
• Some media reviewers say Google+ is rapidly catching up with Facebook in number of users,
especially with older Americans.
LinkedIn: This is one of the older social media sites having been launched in May 2003. Its mission is to
connect the world’s professionals to make them more productive and successful. It now has 300 million
users with an estimated two new members every second. One-third of 100 million of its users reside in the
United States.
• LinkedIn is global in nature. It claims to have 187 million visitors per month in 200 countries and
in 20 languages. It is estimated that 40 percent of users check LinkedIn daily and spend about 17
minutes per visit.
• In addition to individual pages, it has 3 million business pages featuring 1.2 million products and
services. There also are 2.1 million LinkedIn Groups with 8,000 new ones created weekly.
• Mobile again is growing. LinkedIn reports 41 percent of its visits are from mobile devices.
7
Pinterest: Pinterest is a prime way of reaching women. It aims to allow its users to discover ideas for any
project or interest. It has 70 million users with 80 percent being women.
• It is estimated that 4.8 percent of Americans use it during the work week and spend 14.2 minutes
on the site per visit. Sixty percent of the users are from the United States.
• Some 23 percent use it at least once per day and mothers are three times more likely to use it than
other groups. Also, 18 percent of the users have a household income of over $75,000.
Instagram: This photo and video sharing program owned by Facebook now has about 200 million
monthly users, according to Craig Smith at expandedramblings.com. and more than 75 million use it
daily.
• About 13 percent of all Internet users use Instagram and mobile use increased 25 percent from
December 2013 through May 2014.
• Instagram is a young person’s choice with 34 percent of all ages 14-24 using the program.
• As a measure of its popularity, Instagram launched in October 2010 and was soon purchased by
Facebook for $715 million.
SnapChat: Launched in September 2011, SnapChat is a digital messaging and photo delivery service
where the messages disappear in short lengths of time (10 to 30 seconds after delivery). Late in 2013,
Facebook offered the creators $3 billion for the company and the offer was refused.
• According to expandedramblings.com, there are about 26 million users in the United States
issuing about 400 million snaps per day. Most of the users are women (70 percent) and 32 percent
of all messages are delivered through a mobile device.
• It is a young medium. About 23 percent of the 18 to 29 year old market use SnapChat including
46 percent of the 2014 high school graduating class.
Vine: It is a video sharing medium. It presents looping videos of up to six seconds long. It is now owned
by Twitter. Between the first and third quarters of 2013, Vine grew 403 percent as reported by several
media statistician groups. It is now in a battle with Instagram’s video market.
Vine videos are extremely popular and can be taken anywhere and distributed worldwide from a
smartphone or mobile app.
So what does the near-term future hold? All of the current forms of social media will gain more traction
over the next year. In addition, experts say that people will spend more time with visual networks and
using social media through mobile applications.
8
Patricia Redsicker of socialmediaexaminer.com states: “As an example of the power of pictures, consider
that Tumblr, Pinterest and Instagram each gained over 10 million visitors in 2012, thanks to eye-catching
content. Numbers from Statista shared on Mediabistro show that users spend more time on Pinterest (1:17
minutes) or Tumblr (1:38 minutes) than on Twitter, LinkedIn, MySpace and Google+ combined.”
The battle between the shorter and looping Vine to the longer-formed Instagram will continue.
Meanwhile, YouTube has emerged as the second-largest search engine compared to Google, according to
business2community.com. YouTube does not appear to be slowing at all.
New technologies will advance, such as Google Glass, Oculus Rift, and the Samsung Smart Watch,
according to socialmediatoday.com. The underlying concept of all of these products is to give the user an
additional real-time experience while making all information and entertainment mobile.
Social media also is adding private networks to link friends and people with similar interests. One that is
emerging is Nextt. The thrust is that it allows real-world friends to connect and iron out details of
upcoming real-world experiences. It also allows private social media networking among court personnel
or potential jurors. It has multiple potential applications to the judiciary.
In an uncertain future, one thing is evident. Desktop computer reliance will continue its decline and
mobile applications will emerge stronger and stronger. Also, social media will drive more and more
traffic to websites that can no longer be static if they wish to remain relevant.
Implications: With new media technologies being a fact of life in courtrooms, the unknown is whether
courts are controlling their use and, if not, why? Murphy v. Florida (1975)9 set the standard
acknowledging that jurors may or may not be aware of a case emphasizing the juror’s ability to set that
aside to judge solely on information presented in court. That standard bridges to new media technologies’
pervasive impact in today’s lifestyles.
It becomes imperative that judicial officers understand that new media technologies are addictive.
Today’s jurors might be addicted to immediate and constant communications, as well as reflexively
turning to the Internet for constant updates. Judicial officers are unprepared for this loss of control over
information flow inside and out of the courtroom. The new opportunities for ex-parte communication to
spill over into the courtroom, implications of casual online chatter, and revelations of bias escalate. The
key is to understand and convey that understanding to jurors in a way that lets them know jury
instructions are thoughtful, purposeful, and compelling.
9 Murphy v. Florida 421 U.S. 794 (1975).
9
A recent study by the National Center for the State Courts10 exposed four critical points where, if
acknowledged and addressed, judicial officers can continue to be impactful in managing jurors:
• Jurors did not recall the judge’s admonition
• Jurors wanted more information so were unsatisfied with what was presented in court
• Some jurors simply were unable to refrain from turning to new media
• The degree to which, and continues to believe, testimony is more compelling than what is posted
online.
Judicial officers have options and tools.11 They can:
• Develop juror instructions that specifically itemize the prohibited technologies
• Frequently repeat juror admonitions
• Require jurors to sign a written pledge to abstain from using new media technologies
• Develop admonitions with specific penalties, such as contempt, fines, imprisonment
• Explain the rationale why jurors are prohibited from accessing new media, including the risks,
reliability of information online, and the rules of evidence
• During voir dire, include questions to vet a juror’s compulsion to check e-mail or social media
apps
• Ban cell and smart phones from the courthouse, courtroom during trial, or jury deliberation rooms
• In the extreme, use brief trial continuances between proceedings, change of venue options,
consider how to present evidence, and acknowledge pretrial publicity. Another tool is empaneling
anonymous jurors and the use of juror sequestration.
10 Paula Hannaford-Agor, David B. Rottman, et. al, Juror and Jury Use of New Media: A Baseline Exploration, Executive Decision for State Court Leaders in the 21st Century (Virginia: National Center for State Courts, 2012) http://ncsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/accessfair/id/249. 11 A full “Social Media Checklist” is included as Appendix B of the 2010 New Media and the Courts: The Current Status and A Look at the Future: A report of the New Media Committee of the Conference of Court Public Information Officers in partnership with the National Center for State Courts and the E.W. Scripps School of Journalism at Ohio University, http://ccpio.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/2010-ccpio-report.pdf
10
NEW MEDIA COURT PROFILES
Even with the ever-expanding universe of new media platforms, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are
holding their ground as the most popular among courts. It can be overwhelming to decide which platform
to use for court messaging. Here are a few examples of how our fellow CCPIO members use social
media.
While much debate in the courts has focused on whether a judge should be on Facebook, or has analyzed
judicial ethics around the use of the platform, and, specifically, about what is implied with Facebook
“Friendship,” courts have quietly deployed Facebook for many more routine matters. Many court-
generated Facebook posts focus on calendar matters of interest to the public. Similar to other users, courts
discovered that visuals give great lift to their Facebook posts, and many courts use the platform to provide
public recognition to staff who are promoted, achieved a professional accomplishment, or who retire.
Similarly, nominations or appointments to judicial office are a frequent topic on court Facebook pages
that help make the public more aware of previously opaque processes.
Court Profile: Utah State Courts Facebook Page
With nearly 1,400 “friends,” the Utah State Courts Facebook page is one of the nation’s most active in the
court community. Nancy Volmer, public information officer for the Supreme Court of Utah, offers the
following observations about how to succeed with a court-related Facebook page:
“The court should consider what audience they are trying to reach with a Facebook page. Is the audience
the public, media, attorneys, or a combination? Knowing the audience to target will also help to determine
the type of information that is posted on the site. Utah uses its Facebook page to proactively push out
information on programs, events, judicial appointments, and stories that help the public to become more
knowledgeable about the courts. In addition, I suggest the court allow only one Facebook site to represent
the court and not allow multiple Facebook pages to be created by various departments or levels of court.
We only allow one person to post to our Facebook page.”
“Facebook has proven to be an effective tool for our courts in communicating directly with the public and
other select audiences. Being able to proactively get our message out while ensuring that the message is
being entirely managed by the court is a real benefit.”
- Dan Becker, Utah State Court Administrator
11
Tips for Maximizing a Facebook Page for your Court
1. Have a weekly plan for what you will post, day by day, and don’t over saturate. Post only once a
day.
2. LIKE pages that are affiliated with or related to your court using the like function.
3. SHARE relevant stories from your affiliates using the share function.
4. Where possible, use visuals rather than just text alone.
5. Include a Code of Conduct to prevent spamming, profanity, etc.
The most popular social media tool for courts, Twitter use has quickly spread and, in many instances,
become a mainstay for communicating critical, time-sensitive information to the public and the media.
Primary uses of Twitter by courts include: releasing decisions, announcements about upcoming oral
arguments, or for trial courts, providing guidance on logistical issues, an especially important dimension
for high-profile trials with intense media interest. Courts also use Twitter to provide information to the
public about routine matters, such as where to queue up outside a building or when a court will open
following a weather delay.
Court Profile: DC Superior Court and Court of Appeals
With more than 2,000 followers on Twitter, @DCCourtsInfo has one of the largest bases of followers of
any court in the country. Leah Gurowitz, director of government and public relations for the D.C. Courts,
offers the following reminders about how to get the most out of Twitter:
1. You don’t have to tweet. You can just use Twitter to see what is being said about you.
2. It’s a great way to see what your employees are saying about their job, which you might want to
remind them not to do.
3. It’s another way to communicate with folks, especially the younger, electronic-only generation.
4. It’s a good way to drive traffic to the website.
5. It’s a quick way to get out word if you’re closing due to weather.
“Twitter is one more way the DC Courts communicate with our community, letting them know of a new
service we offer, getting the word out quickly when we have to open late because of a snow storm,
answering a question about how to apply for a marriage license or just thanking a DC resident who
tweets about serving on a jury. Twitter enables a certain nimbleness – we can respond to an individual
hoping the response is helpful to all of our 2,000+ followers and we can tweet some good news out,
hoping that our followers re-tweet the information to their followers, who in turn pass it along again to
others.”
- Chief Judge Eric T. Washington, DC Court of Appeals
12
Tips for Maximizing a Twitter Account for your Court
1. Pick a descriptive handle.
2. Be sure to “follow” your local news organizations, as well as some national legal and court
organizations to increase your exposure.
3. Post an average of 3 times daily for maximum impact.
4. Use Twitter handle when referring to another organization’s work, story, or accomplishments.
5. Retweet news from others once a week.
YouTube
We have seen considerable growth in courts using YouTube over the past several years. As of June 2014,
there were 19 state administrative offices of the courts/high courts with YouTube channels, compared to
only four in 2011. With over one billion unique users a month, YouTube provides courts an opportunity
to deliver content to a large audience who prefers to get their information through social media platforms.
YouTube also is an easy, time-saving and cost-effective way for courts to host videos online.
Many of the videos posted to YouTube by courts are directed at self-represented litigants and include
“how-to” videos. Courts reported that these videos have significantly relieved the burden on court staff
who would otherwise field pro se questions. Other topics include information about jury service, civics
education, and answers to FAQs the court receives from the public. Courts often post some of the most
popular FAQs and “how-to” videos in Spanish.
Court Profile: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
The federal judiciary started a YouTube channel in 2010 as a way to share educational and informational
videos with a public audience that might not otherwise have been reached through a website. The U.S.
Courts channel is jointly managed by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and the Federal
Judicial Center.
The 140 videos on the channel have generated close to 270,000 views and more than 900 subscribers.
While YouTube obviously has the potential to reach anyone, the federal courts use the channel to share
videos for specific target audiences. For example, the Pathways to the Bench series about how to become
a federal judge and the Court Shorts series about general topics, such as jury service, are central to their
civic education program. The jury service Court Short has registered close to 8,000 views. The Pathways
to the Bench series has been used by courts and others for the various federal heritage month celebrations
(Women’s, African American, Hispanic, Asian, etc.). There also are practical videos, including a series in
13
English and Spanish about how to file for bankruptcy and another series on various jobs in the courts and
how to apply for vacancies. The bankruptcy basics are among the federal courts five most-watched
videos, while the career opportunities video is in the top 10.
Many courts and others link to the channel, specific videos, or share videos through social media. The
branding is consistent with that of the website, as well as templates designed for federal court Internet
sites nationwide.
The court staff said they prefer the videos to be short and punchy, when possible, and appropriate,
although the most-watched videos don’t tend to fit that pattern.
Top 5 viewed videos (with number of views):
1. The Patent Process: An Overview for Jurors (28,107)
2. Court Interpreting Demonstration (20,639)
3. Nuremberg Interpreter Recalls Historic Trials (18,308)
4. Federal Judiciary Careers: Court Interpreter (13,946)
5. Bankruptcy Basics - Part 1: Introduction (11,885)
“By any measure, we believe our YouTube experience has been a success and we will continue to explore
ways to maximize its use. We currently are working with some courts to train staff on taking video with
modified iPhones or iPads of naturalization ceremonies, civic outreach programs, and other appropriate
events. This will enable us to expand our video reach and add more geographical diverse video to the
U.S. Courts YouTube channel.”
- David Sellers, Director of Public Affairs, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
Tips for Maximizing a YouTube Channel for your Court
1. Target pro-se audiences with “how-to” and “what to expect” videos.
2. Link to videos from the court website.
3. Categorize and tag your content, include video descriptions and put thought into video titles to
incorporate key words that search engines will pick up.
4. Interview judges and court staff on interesting topics.
5. “But I don’t have a media department!” – That’s okay, use tech-savvy interns.
6. Going to a court-related public event? Film it – don’t forget, even an iPhone shoots 1080p high-
definition video.
7. Create videos for the LEP community.
14
Blogging
The number of legal and judicial blogs written by law professors, attorneys, law librarians, and legal
analysts skyrocketed in the past several years, but the number of courts and judges who maintain blogs
remains relatively small.
Blogs can be an effective communication tool for courts and judges. The ABA Model Code of Judicial
Conduct encourages judges to “participate in activities that promote public understanding of and
confidence in the justice system.” Blogging can accomplish just that. Blogging allows courts to share
news and information that doesn’t quite fit a press release and wouldn’t be brief enough for a Facebook
post or tweet. Blogs are written in a conversational style and allow courts to engage a wide demographic.
Court Profile: Supreme Court of Ohio
Going where few justices had gone before, Ohio Supreme Court Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger started
blogging in March 2010 as “Justice Judy.”
Before the first blog post though, Justice Lanzinger made sure there were no issues with judicial codes of
conduct. What the research uncovered was that the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct requires that “A judge
should initiate and participate in activities for the purpose of promoting public understanding of and
confidence in the administration of justice. In conducting such activities, the judge must act in a manner
consistent with this code.”
“I was a teacher before I went to law school, and I’ve always been interested in educating the public. As
I’ve been a judge now going on 29 years, I still want people to know what the judiciary is about and try
and give some information about what judges do,” Justice Lanzinger said.
Topics have ranged from national civics education resources to Ohio’s heroin epidemic. However, Justice
Lanzinger steers clear of political commentary, interpretations of judicial decisions, or anything else that
would carry even the remote possibility of violating the judicial canons.
Justice Lanzinger said she sees the blog as a way to demystify the judicial branch. She likes the two-way
communication social media platforms provide to involve the community in conversation.
“We believe in free speech, and the more truthful, honest speech, the better the electorate will be
informed,” Justice Lanzinger said. Justice Lanzinger discusses more about her blog in a video interview.
15
Tips for Maximizing a Blog for your Court
1. Keep blog posts brief – 250 words or less is a good rule of thumb.
2. Post regularly. Develop a publication schedule and keep a couple of posts on hand to cover busy
periods.
3. Have a comment policy, but give your audience a reason to engage with you. For example, ask a
question or pose a dilemma or idea.
4. Showcase court successes.
5. Use guest posts to increase diverse views and voices.
6. Answer frequently asked questions from the public.
7. Put thought into post titles and incorporate key words that search engines will pick up.
2014 CCPIO New Media Survey
METHODOLOGY
In its fifth consecutive year, the CCPIO survey was distributed via the same manner as past surveys. On May 27, 2014, the survey was distributed to every subscriber on the NCSC e-mail distribution system.
The survey closed on June 13, 2014, with a total of 781 respondents, a nearly 50 percent decrease from the response in 2013. However, in 2013, the survey was distributed to about 15,000 individuals on the NCSC e-mail distribution system. With 6,000 fewer people receiving the survey, this likely caused the responses to drop.
Like previous years, members of the CCPIO survey committee, in conjunction with staff of NCSC and the E.W. Scripps School of Journalism at Ohio University, collaborated to review survey questions used in the past, and making subtle changes in order to maintain the legacy of the information collected previously.
Among the total respondents, 32.3 percent said they were judicial officers, which, for the purpose of this survey, is defined as a judge, magistrate, or hearing officer. The remaining 67.7 percent of respondents included courts’ staff members or other court-related personnel, such as guardians ad litem, attorneys, college professors, and law librarians. The balance is consistent with last year when 31.5 percent of respondents were judicial officers.
Respondents were polled on their court jurisdictions as well, with similar results to past years. The majority, 52.5 percent, were from state trial courts, while 16.3 percent were from administrative offices of state courts. Almost 8.3 percent of respondents were from local municipal courts, and the federal courts were represented by 3.4 percent of respondents
16
Within the 781 responses were participants from 49 of the 50 United States; only South Carolina had no responses. Additionally, participants also were from the District of Columbia and the U.S. territories of Guam and Puerto Rico. The largest number of responses in 2014 came from participants in California (94) and Colorado (60).
A majority of participants, 51.7 percent, also said that judges from their jurisdictions stand for competitive elections. Another 30 percent of participants said their judges stand for retention elections, while 18.2 percent of the respondents said their judges do not stand for election.
Respondents’ ages also were polled. The results showed 75 percent of those who responded were within the ages of 46 and 65.
COURTS’ USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA
This year’s survey listed six new media tools – Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, LinkedIn, Pinterest, and SnapChat – and asked respondents to check all tool options used by their court. “I’m not sure” and “None” also were options.
The majority of courts responding 41 percent said their courts do not use social media. That is down from 2013, when more than 48 percent said their courts did not use social media. This option, indicating non-court use of social media, was not asked in the first three years of the survey.
Of those using new media, the most used option was Twitter, with 145 responses, or 14.3 percent. The second highest was Facebook with 134 court users. Eighty respondents said YouTube is used by their courts.
The survey also asked participants to select which tools their courts used for various functions. The options were: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Flickr, Pinterest, and SnapChat.
Overwhelmingly Facebook and Twitter are used most often for various tasks. The use of YouTube also was noted for two tasks, including “Explain court processes and procedures.” To “communicate internally,” respondents used Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube nearly equally. (See Appendix C for a chart of states with courts using social media.)
17
JUDICIAL CAMPAIGNS’ USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA
Like last year, the 2014 survey asked judges who are elected about their campaigns’ use of new media. Using Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, Pinterest, Blog, and SnapChat as options, judges could check all items applying to their campaigns. In addition, the survey offered “Not sure if we used social media” and “Does not apply/not elected” as options as well.
There were 694 responses to the election campaign use question. More than 88 percent of respondents selected “Does not apply/Not elected,” leaving 100 judges who answered the question. Of those responding judges, 37 percent said they were not sure whether their campaigns use social media.
For campaigns using social media, Facebook, at 34 percent, was the preferred technology. Eleven percent uses Twitter and 8 percent use YouTube.
INDIVIDUAL PROFESSIONAL USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA
This year’s survey asked participants to indicate how and for what reasons they used social media in a professional capacity. Using Facebook, LinkedIn, Google+, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, Pinterest, and SnapChat as options for each question, the survey asked respondents which tools, if any, they use to 1) Read and consume content and 2) Post, comment, or share content. One could also indicate which tools, if any, were not used professionally.
18
o The top option for “Reading and consuming content” was YouTube, with more than 28 percent of the total survey responses. This was followed closely by Google+, (24.7 percent; same rank and percentage as in 2013), and LinkedIn at 24.5 percent. In 2013, LinkedIn was the top response.
• To “Post, comment, or share content” in a professional capacity, respondents preferred LinkedIn, with 14.6 percent of responses, followed by Facebook at 9.8 percent.
• Finally, in this section, data show a large number of respondents indicated that they use none of the available options, clearly showing that professional use of new media still is limited among the court-related professions.
The next part of the survey asked participants why they use social media in their professional roles, as well as why they do not use these technologies. Respondents were asked to check all items applying to them.
• The task identified as the most likely reason for use was “To keep up with news and events in my field,” which received 333 responses, followed by “To gather information for research, work projects,” with 318 responses, and “To network,” with 231 responses. o How the tasks are ranked above matches the rank listed in 2013.
• Survey participants also could indicate any concerns they have for using certain social media tools in a professional role. Participants could select more than one reason.
19
o The options for indicating concerns were the following: Privacy concerns Ethical concerns Technical limitations Limited usefulness Unfamiliar with it
• Here, only Facebook was an exception, as the data show respondents had privacy concerns about this social media profile site as their top reason for not using it. More than 41 percent of respondents listed this concern for Facebook, an increase of 11 percent since 2013. o The second highest response for Facebook was “Ethical Concerns,” with 33.5 percent
of responses. o In 2013, the second highest concern was “Limited Usefulness,” with 24.5 percent of
responses.
o The top reasons for not using other media technologies in 2014 were:
LinkedIn Privacy Concerns (29.5 percent) Google+ Unfamiliar with It (33 percent) Instagram Unfamiliar with It (31.5 percent) SnapChat Unfamiliar with It (39.4 percent) Pinterest Limited Usefulness (31.5 percent) YouTube Limited Usefulness (33 percent) Twitter TIE: Privacy Concerns & Limited Usefulness
(both at 26.7 percent)
• In 2013, all other options – Google+, LinkedIn, Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram – received the same top response: “Limited usefulness.” Anywhere from 35 to 60 percent of responses indicated a disinterest in these tools last year.
Concerns about Social Media Tools as Reasons Why Not to Use
20
INDIVIDUAL PERSONAL USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA
Much like the professional-use section of the survey, participants also were asked to indicate how and for what reasons they use social media personally. Using Facebook, Google+, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, Pinterest, LinkedIn, and SnapChat as options for each question, the survey asked respondents which tools, if any, they use to 1) Read and consume content and 2) Post, comment or share content. One also could select “Do Not Use.”
According to survey data, it appears survey participants are beginning to use multiple social media technologies. Facebook remains popular, but other social media tools are gaining in popularity as well.
With respondents able to select multiple social media technologies applying to them, they selected Facebook, with 311 responses, to indicate which tool they preferred to “Post, comment, or share content.” The second most popular response was LinkedIn, with 139 responses. In 2013, YouTube was the most popular for personal use, followed by Facebook.
To “Read and consume content,” respondents favored YouTube, which received 526 responses. This was followed by Facebook (277 responses), and Google+ (271 responses).
Additionally, survey participants could indicate that they do not use specific media tools. It is no surprise that the newer social media technologies, such as Pinterest, SnapChat, and even Instagram, had the highest number of “Do Not Use” responses.
Next, survey participants were asked why they use social media personally. Respondents could check all items applying to them.
o Like in 2013, the top responses this year were to connect with friends and family. o Two things, however, were noticeable in this year’s responses to why respondents use
social media: “To get reviews on products & services” jumped more than 9 percent, a healthy
increase. “To share or comment on political or social issues” also increased more than 5
percent, indicating that respondents working in today’s courts are more comfortable and/or less reserved about offering their opinions on such issues or revealing their political preference.
21
FREQUENCY OF INDIVIDUAL USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA
The survey next asked the frequency of participants’ use of certain social media tools: Facebook, Google+, LinkedIn, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, Pinterest, and SnapChat.
Facebook was the only tool in which the most popular answer regarding frequency of use was “Fanatic (>1/day).” In 2014, Facebook “Fanatic” was the most popular among respondents, with 36 percent. However, possibly indicating a “love it/hate it” opinion of Facebook, another 31 percent of respondents said they never use Facebook.
The top response for all other social media technologies was “never,” in response to frequency of use.
Further, 32 percent said they use YouTube about once a week and 20 percent said they use LinkedIn about once a week.
SOCIAL MEDIA POLICIES FOR THE COURTROOM
The 2014 survey indicated that 37 percent of respondents indicated their court has a policy for social media use in the courtroom, compared to almost 26 percent who said their courts do not. Another 13 percent said policy use varies among courts in their states. Finally, 23 percent, 149 responses total, said they are unsure of whether their courts have social media use policies.
At least 36 states, as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have policies covering the use of Twitter in the courtroom. Similarly, 29 states, D.C., Guam, and Puerto Rico report that they have policies addressing Facebook use in the courtroom. States also report policies addressing the use of YouTube, Flickr, and LinkedIn as well.
PARTICIPANT OPINIONS ON SOCIAL MEDIA USE IN THE COURTROOM
It is in the last section of the CCPIO survey in which survey participants showed the greatest change in opinion when compared to responses from 2013. This section asked respondents to indicate their agreement with specific statements about social media use in the courtroom, as well as social media use among court staff members. Respondents were asked whether they “Agree,” “Somewhat agree,” are “Neutral,” “Somewhat disagree,” or “Disagree” with a series of statements.
22
SOCIAL MEDIA USE BY THE PUBLIC IN THE COURTROOM
General Public & Cell Phones in the Court: The majority, 45.8 percent, disagree with this statement. Another 42 percent agree, while more than 12 percent were neutral.
By a wider margin, the majority (52.4 percent) agreed with this statement in 2013.
Percentages showing agreement or disagreement are calculated by combining “Agree” with “Somewhat Agree,” and “Disagree” and “Somewhat Disagree.”
General Public Sending Messages from the Courtroom: Like in 2013, the overwhelming majority (68.2 percent) disagree with this statement. A total of 23 percent agree and almost 9 percent were neutral.
Percentages showing agreement or disagreement are calculated by combining “Agree” with “Somewhat Agree,” and “Disagree” and “Somewhat Disagree.”
COURTROOM USE BY THE MEDIA
Media Sending Messages from the Courtroom:
The results to this question showed a rather close number of respondents agree and disagree with the statement. Nearly 46 percent disagree with the statement, while more than 39 percent agree. Nearly 15 percent were neutral.
In 2013, those who disagreed with the statement outnumbered those who agreed by nearly 2 to 1, likely showing that judicial and court personnel are willing to permit media use of technology in the courtroom.
Percentages showing agreement or disagreement are calculated by combining “Agree” with “Somewhat Agree,” and “Disagree” and “Somewhat Disagree.”
23
Media Making Audio Recordings of Court Proceedings: There was an even closer margin of just over 3 percent between those who agree and disagree with audio recordings by the media. More than 44 percent disagree with the statement, while slightly more than 41 percent agree. Another 14 percent were neutral.
In 2013, a margin of 28 percent separated those who agreed from those who disagreed, with the majority disagreeing with the statement.
Percentages showing agreement or disagreement are calculated by combining “Agree” with “Somewhat Agree,” and “Disagree” and “Somewhat Disagree.”
Media Taking Video or Photos of Court Proceedings: In 2014, the responses showed a reversal in opinion on the matter of video and photography in the courtroom. More than 50 percent agree with the statement, while less than 35 percent disagreed. Fifteen percent were neutral.
Last year, almost 46 percent disagreed with the statement of allowing video and photography during court proceedings.
Percentages showing agreement or disagreement are calculated by combining “Agree” with “Somewhat Agree,” and “Disagree” and “Somewhat Disagree.”
SOCIAL MEDIA USE AND FAMILIARITY FOR JUDGES AND COURT STAFF
Through the last five questions, participants indicated their agreement or disagreement on whether social media was helpful and whether it could be used without compromising ethics.
New Media are Necessary Court Tools: More than 42 percent of respondents agreed with this statement, indicating that social media is necessary for courts to use to communicate with the public. Another 26 percent disagreed with the statement. Interestingly, more than 31 percent were neutral.
Another reversal in opinion was revealed through this question. In 2013, 42 percent disagreed that social media is necessary for courts, while 34 percent agreed.
Percentages showing agreement or disagreement are calculated by combining “Agree” with “Somewhat Agree,” and “Disagree” and “Somewhat Disagree.”
24
Essential for Court Personnel to be Educated about New Media in Order to Serve the Courts: Very similar to last year, respondents in 2014 strongly agree, at almost 71 percent, with this statement, indicating that education on social media is necessary in order to serve the courts. Almost 11 percent disagreed and nearly 19 percent were neutral.
In 2013, 68 percent agreed.
Percentages showing agreement or disagreement are calculated by combining “Agree” with “Somewhat Agree,” and “Disagree” and “Somewhat Disagree.”
Essential for Court Personnel to be Educated about New Media to Ensure Technologies Do Not Inappropriately Impact Court Proceedings: At more than 94 percent of the responses, survey participants overwhelmingly agreed with this statement, an even larger percentage than in 2013. Less than 2 percent disagreed and about 4 percent were neutral.
Percentages showing agreement or disagreement are calculated by combining “Agree” with “Somewhat Agree,” and “Disagree” and “Somewhat Disagree.”
Judges Can Maintain Facebook Profiles Without Compromising Ethics: Opinions on this issue appeared to change according to the 2014 responses. This year, 44.5 percent said they agree with the statement, a drop of more than 5 percent from 2013 responses.
In 2014, 27 percent said they disagreed with the statement and more than 28 percent were neutral.
Percentages showing agreement or disagreement are calculated by combining “Agree” with “Somewhat Agree,” and “Disagree” and “Somewhat Disagree.”
25
Judges Can Use Other Social Networking Sites Without Compromising Ethics: While the majority of responses show agreement that judges can use social media without compromising ethics, the number is decreasing. In 2014, more than 49 percent agreed, while 53 percent agreed last year.
Nearly 20 percent disagreed with the statement in the 2014 survey and more than 31 percent were neutral.
Percentages showing agreement or disagreement are calculated by combining “Agree” with “Somewhat
Agree,” and “Disagree” and “Somewhat Disagree.”
Court Staff Can Use Other Social Networking Sites Without Compromising Ethics: The majority of respondents still believe that court staff members can use social media without compromising ethics, but this number, too, is down from last year.
In 2014, less than 63 percent agreed with the statement, down 2 percent from last year.
An additional 11 percent disagreed, and more than 26 percent were neutral.
Percentages showing agreement or disagreement are calculated by combining “Agree” with “Somewhat Agree,” and “Disagree” and “Somewhat Disagree.”
TRENDS
Courts’ Facebook Use Sees Growth
Data from the 2014 survey shows courts’ use of social media profile sites, such as Facebook, increased by a healthy margin from 2013 to this year, with 16.5 percent of respondents reporting that their courts use this tool. This equals an increase of 5.5 percent from 2013 to 2014.
Facebook use in courts grew over the first three years studied before falling in 2013. A low of 6.7 percent of participants said their courts were using Facebook in 2010, to 13.2 percent who said their courts use the same social media profile tool in 2012. More than 11 percent in the 2013 survey said their courts use social media profile sites, such as Facebook.
26
Use of Visual Media Sharing Sees Similar Growth
Like the use of Facebook, courts’ use of visual media sharing sites like YouTube and Flickr increased by a good number in the last year, as shown by the 2014 survey responses. Nearly 11.5 percent said this year that their courts use YouTube and/or Flickr, an increase of 4.1 percent over 2013.
Again, visual media use by courts grew in the first three years of the survey before falling slightly in 2013. In 2010, 3.2 percent said their courts used visual-
media sharing sites like YouTube or Flickr. After a small tick downward in 2011, the use jumped to 9.5 percent in 2012 and fell to 7.3 percent in 2013.
Both Pinterest and SnapChat were offered as options in the 2014 survey. However, no respondents indicated use of either in their work.
Judges and Court Personnel Split in Agreement on Need for Social Media Education
Responses to the 2014 survey show opinions between general respondents and judges in particular are split in their opinions regarding whether education on new media is essential in order to serve courts.
Specifically, in 2014, a total of 89 percent of general respondents agreed that education on new media is essential for judges and court staff. This is an increase of nearly 3 percent over 2013.
Among judge respondents, about 85 percent agreed that education is essential. This is a drop of almost 2 percent from 2013.
27
Prior to 2013, there was near-unanimous agreement that court employees should be educated about new media technologies in order to use the tools to serve the courts.
Agreement Drops on Question of Judicial Officers’ Social Media Use and Ethics
For the first time in five years, both general respondents and judges specifically agreed less in 2014 that judges can use social media without compromising ethics. For example, general respondents agreed with the statement regarding ethics by a total of almost 73 percent, a drop of more than 5 percent from 2013.
Judge respondents showed a greater drop in agreement in 2014, when 65 percent agreed with the statement. This is a drop of nearly 6 percent from 2013.
All respondents showed agreement or neutrality toward Facebook use without compromising ethics in the 2010 survey, with almost 66 percent in agreement. This rose to almost 78 percent in 2013.
Among judges only, about 63 percent agreed with the statement in 2010, with the numbers of judges in agreement rising slightly each year until the drop shown in 2014.
CONCLUSION
Since the publication of the last CCPIO New Media Survey, courts are becoming increasingly more aware of the new media tools and how to connect with the public and fulfill their obligation to be open, transparent, and understandable institutions. At the same time, lawyers, judges and courts have continued to be wary of new media use and its influence on the integrity of proceedings, judicial ethics, and other concerns. The 2014 CCPIO New Media Survey reveals the judicial system is more comfortable with the presence of new media in the courtroom, but the majority of courts are still slow to embrace new media as they cautiously guard against the risks it presents.
28
Acknowledgements
The authors of this report are Christopher J. Davey, director of public information for the Supreme Court of Ohio; Carol Taylor, Stephanie Beougher, and Dan Trevas of the Supreme Court of Ohio; Nora Sydow, NCSC senior analyst; Jesse Rutledge, NCSC vice president of external affairs; Karen Salaz, CCPIO past president and district administrator for the 19th Judicial District of Colorado; and Thomas Hodson of the E.W. Scripps School of Journalism at Ohio University.
Appendix A
29
2014 CCPIO SURVEY
Section 1 DESCRIBE YOURSELF 1 I work in a: (Check one)
LOCAL municipal court STATE trial court appellate court administrative office of the courts FEDERAL trial court appellate court administrative office of the courts OTHER please specify____________
2. I am a judicial officer (for the purposes of this survey, a judicial officer is defined as a judge, magistrate or other hearing officer):
(Check one)
Yes No
3. The Court system I work for is in:
(Check one)
Alabama Alaska American Samoa Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Guam Hawaii Idaho Illinois
Appendix A
30
Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Mariana Islands Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas U.S. Virgin Islands Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming
4. The judges in my jurisdiction: (Check one)
Stand for competitive elections Must stand for retention election
Never stand for election
Appendix A
31
5. My age is:
(Check one)
25 or younger 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66 or older
Section 2 USE OF NEW MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES This section will ask about your use of new media technologies in your personal and professional life, in your campaign, and by your court/judicial branch. 1. In your personal life, please describe how you use the following new media technologies.
Read and consume content Post, comment, or share content Do not use
Google+
SnapChat
YouTube
Appendix A
32
2. In your professional life, please describe how you use the following new media technologies.
Read and consume content Post, comment, or share content Do not use
Google+
SnapChat
YouTube
3. In your personal life, please describe why you use social media technologies. Check all that apply.
To connect with friends To connect with classmates To connect with family To share or comment on political or social issues To invite friends to an event Because it’s fun To get reviews on products and services Other
4. In your professional life, please describe why you use social media technologies. Check all that apply.
To communicate with coworkers To network To gather information for research, work projects, To keep up with news and events in my field Job seeking To promote associations/organizations I belong to Other
Appendix A
33
5. For all of the new media that you DON’T USE, please explain the reasons you don’t use them. Check all that apply.
Privacy concerns
Ethical concerns
Technical limitations
Limited usefulness Unfamiliar with It
Google+
SnapChat
YouTube
6. Please describe the frequency with which you use the following new media technologies.
Never
Very rarely (<1/month)
Rarely (1/month)
Seldom (1/week)
Often (1/day)
Fanatic (>1/day)
Google+
SnapChat
YouTube
Appendix A
34
7. My election campaign has used the following social media technologies. (Check all that apply)
Facebook Twitter YouTube Instagram Pinterest Blog SnapChat Not sure if we used social media None
8. My court or judicial branch office I work for maintains the following social media technologies. Check all that apply.
Facebook Twitter YouTube Flickr Pinterest SnapChat I’m not sure None
Appendix A
35
9. For what purpose does your court/judicial branch use the following social media technologies? Check all that apply.
Facebook Flickr Google+ Instagram LinkedIn Pinterest SnapChat Twitter YouTube
Promote events
Educate the public
Release decisions
Highlight individual judges or staff
Explain court processes and procedures
Post jobs
Communicate internally
Media relations
Juror communications
Drive traffic to main website
Gather and monitor news and information
Share court facility info (parking, hours, etc.)
Emergency management
We don’t use any social media
Appendix A
36
Section 4 EXPERIENCE WITH NEW MEDIA TECHNOLOGY IN THE COURTROOM
1. Does your court have a policy regarding social media use in the courtroom?
Yes No Not sure Varies by court in my state
2. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements.
Agree
Somewhat agree Neutral
Somewhat disagree Disagree
The general public, including litigants, should be prohibited from bringing cell phones and other mobile devices into the courthouse.
The general public, including litigants, should be allowed to silently tweet, text, and email in the courtroom.
The media should be allowed to silently tweet, text, and email in the courtroom.
The media should be allowed to make audio recordings, with some restrictions, of court proceedings.
The media should be allowed, with some restrictions, to take photo and video of court proceedings.
Section 5 PLEASE RATE YOUR AGREEMENT/DISAGREEMENT WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS
1. New media, such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, are necessary court tools for public outreach.
(Check one)
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree
Appendix A
37
2. It is essential that judicial officers and court employees are educated about new media technologies so they can make the most use of the technologies as tools to serve the courts. (Check one)
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree
3. It is essential that judicial officers and court employees are educated about new media technologies to ensure the technologies do not inappropriately impact a court proceeding.
(Check one)
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree
4. Judicial officers can maintain a personal Facebook profile without compromising professional conduct codes of ethics.
(Check one)
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree
5. Judicial officers can use new media technologies without compromising professional conduct codes of ethics.
(Check one)
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree
Appendix A
38
6. Court staff can use new media technologies without compromising professional conduct codes of ethics.
(Check one)
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree
STO
P
Complete – Thank you for taking the survey!
Thank you for taking the survey!
Appendix B
39
General Summary of 2014 CCPIO Survey Results
RESPONDENTS o 781 respondents total 32.35% (252) were judicial officers (judges or magistrates) 67.65% (527) were not judicial officers
JURISDICTION o 78.2% were from state trial courts o 16.3% were from state administrative offices of courts o Overall, regarding jurisdiction, of the 781 respondents 65 (8.3%) were from local courts 610 (78.2%) were from state courts 27 (3.4%) were from federal courts 79 (10.1%) were from other
JUDICIAL ELECTIONS o 402 (51.7%) stand for competitive elections o 233 (30.0%) stand for retention election o 142 (18.2%) never stand for election AGE o Majority of respondents (74.6%) were between the ages of 46 and 65 TOP TEN STATES FOR RESPONSES California 94 Colorado 60 Arizona 43 Minnesota 37 Ohio 37 Florida 36 Texas 36 Pennsylvania 28 New York 25 Washington 22
USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA Personal Use: Read & Consume Content
o YouTube: 2014, 76.7%; 2013, 63.4% o Facebook: 2014, 40.4%; 2013, 52.8% o Google+: 2014, 39.5% o (Percentages will not add up to 100)
Personal Use: Post, Comment or Share Content
Appendix B
40
o Facebook: 2014, 45.5%; 2013, 45.5% - No change o Second highest among 2014 responses is LinkedIn at 31.5%
The second highest in 2013 was Pinterest at 11.4% o (Percentages will not add up to 100)
Professional Use: Read & Consume Content 2014 Responses:
o YouTube, 27.8% o LinkedIn, 25.2% o Google+, 23.9% o Facebook, 17.9% o Twitter, 14.6% o Instagram, 2.0% o Pinterest, 1.5% o SnapChat, 0.3%
2013 Responses:
o LinkedIn, 25.3% o Google+, 24.7% o YouTube, 17.9% o Facebook, 14.8% o Twitter, 9.5% o (Percentages will not add up to 100)
Professional Use: Post, Comment or Share Content
o Low use of all options remains between 2014 and 2013 responses o In 2014, LinkedIn was the most used tool professionally at 15.0% o The second most-used tool was Facebook at 10.1%
Highest tool used professionally in 2013 was LinkedIn at 13% Second highest was Facebook at 7%
o (Percentages will not add up to 100)
Why Respondents Use Social Media in Personal Life o The top responses were to connect with family and friends – Same as in 2013
67.2% said to connect with family 66.5% said to connect with friends 36.3% said because it’s fun 35.6% said to connect with classmates 35.1% said they use SM for reviews on products and services
o Similar to 2013, it appears respondents use SM on a lesser degree for polarizing topics, such as politics. But the percentage changed in 2014. In 2013, 13.5% of respondents, the lowest response, said they use social media to
share or comment on political or social issues In 2014. 18.5%, still the lowest response, said they use SM to “share or comment
on political or social issues.
Appendix B
41
Why Respondents Use Social Media in Professional Life o The top responses were to keep up with news and events in their professional field and to
gather information for research and/or work projects – Same as in 2013 o The third most popular response was to network. – Same as in 2013 o In 2014, 48.5% said to keep up with news in their professional field
In 2013, 39.4% said the same o In 2014, 46.4% said to gather information for research and/or work projects
In 2013, 37% said the same o In 2014, 33.7% said to network
In 2013, 30.1% said the same
o The lowest responses (same as 2013) were: For job seeking (10.3%) To promote membership in associations/organizations (13.4%)
Why are social media tools not used o In 2014, “Limited Usefulness” was the top reason in 3 options: Pinterest, Twitter, and
YouTube. o In 2013, for 5 of the 6 options listed (Google+, LinkedIn, Twitter, YouTube and
Instagram), the majority said the reasons they did not use these technologies was because of “Limited Usefulness.”
o The top 3 reasons for each technology option were: Facebook: Privacy Concerns (41.5%); Ethical Concerns (33.5%); Limited
Usefulness (17.0%) Google+: Unfamiliar (33.7%); Privacy Concerns (27.3%); Limited Usefulness
(18.9%) Instagram: Unfamiliar (31.5%); Limited Usefulness (24.5%); Privacy Concerns
(24.1%) LinkedIn: Privacy (29.4%); Limited Usefulness (26.9%); Ethical Concerns
(24.1%) Pinterest: Limited Usefulness (31.5%); Unfamiliar with It (30.7%); Privacy
Concerns (19.7%) SnapChat: Unfamiliar with It (39.4%); Limited Usefulness (23.0%); Privacy
Concerns (21.0%)
Twitter: Privacy Concerns (26.7%); Limited Usefulness (26.7%); Ethical Concerns (21.7%)
YouTube: Limited Usefulness (30.9%); Privacy Concerns (26.4%); Ethical
Concerns (20.0%)
Appendix B
42
FREQUENCY OF USING SOCIAL MEDIA
Frequency of using Facebook o Responses showed a reversal of interest in Facebook
In 2014, 36.1% said they are a “fanatic” and use it more than once a day In 2013, 36.1% said they “never” use Facebook
o The second largest response in 2014 “Never” at 31.7%
o In 2014, 38.3% said they never or rarely use Facebook In 2013, 47.4% said they never or rarely use Facebook
Frequency of using Google+ o The largest response was “Never” at 54.3% (Same as in 2013) o The total respondents who said they never or rarely use Google+ totaled 62.5% o The total respondents who said they use Google+ once a day or more was 15.0% in 2014.
In 2013, the total respondents who said they use Google+ once a day or more was 28.8% -- an almost 14% drop
Frequency of using LinkedIn
o In 2014, 49.7% said they never use LinkedIn, down almost 14% from the 2013 responses o 62.5% said they never or rarely use LinkedIn, a slight increase over 2013 responses o 2.7% respondents said they use LinkedIn once a day or more
Frequency of using Twitter
o Highest response was “Never” at 65.6%, down almost 11% from 2013 responses o 73.5% said they never or rarely use Twitter, down more than 13% from 2013 responses o 7.8% of respondents said they use Twitter once a day or more
Appendix B
43
Frequency of using YouTube
o Highest responses in 2014 was “Seldom (1/week)” at 32.8% In 2013, the highest response was “Rarely (1/month)” at 39.3%
o Those who said they never or rarely use YouTube totaled 40.4% in 2014, down considerably by 32% from 2013 responses
o Those who said they use YouTube once a day or more totaled 5.0%
Frequency of using Instagram o Highest response was “Never” at 81.9% o Those who said they never or rarely use Instagram totaled 86.3% o Those who said they use Instagram once a day or more was 4.3%
Frequency of using SnapChat (First time on survey)
o Highest response was “Never” at 94.6% o Those who said they never or rarely use SnapChat was 73.5% o Those who said they use SnapChat at least once a day totaled 1.2%
Frequency of using Pinterest (First time on survey)
o Highest response was “Never” at 69.2% o Those who said they never or rarely use Pinterest was 77.7% o Those who said they use Pinterest at least once a day totaled 5.6%
ELECTION CAMPAIGN USE
o Social media use among campaigns remains low among respondents o Of the 100 respondents who were affected by campaigns, 37 said they were unsure if
their campaign used social media o Of the remaining election-affected respondents, 28 use social media
Facebook was the most popular with 34 campaigns using it Twitter was the 2nd most popular, with 11 users and YouTube was the 3rd most
popular with 8 users o 7 said they use blogs
COURT USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA (There were 8 options from which respondents could select; they could select more than 1 option)
o Of the 813 total responses in 2014, 339 said their court used no social media o Twitter was the most used tool for courts at 145 users o The 2nd highest was Facebook at 134 users o YouTube had 80 users
Appendix B
44
Court Use of Tool Options
o Like in 2013, Facebook and Twitter remain the most popular tools among courts in 2014 o Courts also use YouTube appropriately, to explain information on court processes and
surprisingly, for internal communication o Facebook use is favored for juror communication o To promote events
102 use Facebook; 101 use Twitter To educate the public 116 use Twitter; 111 use Facebook
o To highlight individual judges or staff
39 use Facebook; 35 use Twitter
o To release decisions 52 use Twitter; 28 use Facebook
o To explain court processes
57 use Facebook; 50 use Twitter; 48 use YouTube
o To post jobs 40 use Facebook; 34 use Twitter
o To communicate internally
11 use Twitter; 10 use Facebook; 10 use YouTube
o For media relations 96 use Twitter; 82 use Facebook; 30 use YouTube
o To provide juror information
21 use Facebook;15 use Twitter; 12 use YouTube
o To drive traffic to main court website 54 use Twitter; 49 use Facebook
o To gather and monitor news & information
60 use Twitter; 43 use Facebook
o To share court facility info 42 use Facebook; 40 use Twitter
o For emergency management
68 use Twitter; 40 use Facebook
Appendix B
45
USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA IN THE COURTROOM OR AMONG COURT STAFF
Courts’ Social Media Policies for Courtroom Use o In 2014, 37.55% said they have SM policies; 25.97% said they do not have policies
In 2013, nearly the same number of courts had SM policies as those that did not o 23.31% said they didn’t know if their court has a policy o 13.14% said the use of policies varies by courts in the state
Respondents’ Agreement to the Following Statements
Use in the Courtroom
“The general public, including litigants, should be prohibited from bringing cell phones and other mobile devices into the courthouse.”
o Unlike in 2013 when most agreed with the statement, respondents were nearly split on their agreement in prohibiting cell phone and mobile devices in the courtroom 42.0% agree with the prohibition 45.8% disagree with the prohibition
o 12.2% were neutral, up 2.1% from the 2013 responses
“The general public, including litigants, should be allowed to silently tweet, text, and email in the courtroom.”
o Like 2013, respondents overwhelmingly disagree with this statement again in 2014 68.2% disagree that the general public should be permitted to silently tweet, text
or email in the courtroom 23.0% agree electronic communication should be permitted in the courtroom
o 8.7% were neutral, up slightly from the 2013 responses “The media should be allowed to silently tweet, text, and email in the courtroom.”
o The 2014 responses show a 13% drop in those who do not favor allowing the media to use electronic communication In 2014, 45.8% do not favor media e-communication; in 2013, the number
totaled 58.8% o In 2014, 39.3% do favor allowing the media to communicate electronically while in the
courtroom, up nearly 10% over 2013 responses o Nearly 15% were neutral
Appendix B
46
“The media should be allowed to make audio recordings of court proceedings. o Respondents were nearly split in their agreement to allow or disallow audio recordings of
court proceedings In 2014, 41.3% agree to allow media audio recordings
• In 2013, 29.3% agreed with the statement In 2014, 44.6% disagreed with the statement and would not allow media audio
recordings • In 2013, the number who disagreed totaled 57.1%
o 14.1% were neutral
“The media should be allowed, with some restrictions, to take photos and video of court proceedings.”
o In 2014, half of the respondents, 50.2%, agreed to allow photos and video of court proceedings, up about 10% over the 2013 responses
o In 2014, 34.7% disagreed in allowing photos and video of court proceedings, down 11% from 2013 responses
o 15% were neutral
Social media use among court staff
“New media, such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are necessary court tools for public outreach.”
o In 2014, 42.5% agree that SM are necessary court tools for public outreach In 2013, respondents were split almost 50/50, but more disagreed
o In 2014, 26.0% disagreed the SM is necessary o 31.5% were neutral, a jump of more than 7% over 2013 responses
“It is essential that judicial officers and court employees are educated about new media technologies so they can make the most use of the technologies to serve the courts.”
o Like in 2013, agreement with the statement is overwhelming In 2014, 70.6% agreed judges, magistrates and court employees should be
educated about SM technologies in order to serve the courts, up about 2% over the 2013 responses.
o 10.7% disagree or somewhat disagree, a 3% drop from the 2013 responses o 18.7% were neutral, the same as in 2013
Appendix B
47
“It is essential that judicial officers and court employees are educated about new media technologies to ensure the technologies do not inappropriately impact court proceedings.”
o Still overwhelming in agreement with the statement, but an even larger number agreed SM education among judges and court employees is needed so SM does not inappropriately impact court proceedings In 2014, 94.4% agreed with this statement, up more than 3% over the 2013
responses. o A mere 1.5% disagree or somewhat disagree o 4.1% were neutral
“Judicial officers can maintain a personal Facebook profile without compromising professional codes of ethics.”
o In 2014, 44.5% agree that Facebook use by judges does not compromise professional codes of ethics, down more than 5% from the 2013 responses
o 27.1% disagree or somewhat disagree, basically the same as in 2013 o 28.4% were neutral
“Judicial officers can use other social networking sites, such as LinkedIn and Google+ without compromising professional codes of ethics.”
o 49.2% agree that judges can use other social networking sites with compromising ethics, down almost 4% from the 2013 responses
o 29.6% disagree or somewhat disagree, up 7.6% from the 2013 responses o 31.2% were neutral
“Court staff can use social networking sites, such as Facebook, LinkedIn and Google+ without compromising professional codes of ethics.”
o Similar to the 2013 responses, 62.7% agreed with the statement o 11% disagree or somewhat disagree o 26.3% were neutral
Appendix C
48
Social Media & the Courts Source: National Center for State Courts Website ncsc.org/Topics/Media/Social-Media-and-the-Courts
Facebook Twitter YouTube Flickr Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Guam Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota
Appendix C
49
Tennessee Texas
If your state’s social-media use is not current as shown on this list, contact the National Center for State Courts.
Social Media & the Courts - continued Source: National Center for State Courts Website ncsc.org/Topics/Media/Social-Media-and-the-Courts
Facebook Twitter YouTube Flickr Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West
Virginia
Wisconsin Wyoming
If your state’s social-media use is not current as shown on this list, contact the National Center for State Courts.