Social Media Monitoring - Twice In A Week, The ‘Transparent’ GDC Fails To Answer FOI Requests
- Details
- Published: Monday, 26 September 2022 07:41
- Written by Chris Tapper
- Hits: 2900
The General Dental Council has once again avoided answering questions posed in a Freedom of Information request
Leeds-based GDP Dr Dominic O’Hooley had asked the GDC to divulge the annual cost incurred by the regulator in monitoring social media accounts.
In August, GDPUK reported on a previous FOI request by Dr O’Hooley which revealed that the GDC monitors social media accounts through an external company. There had been speculation for some time, that the social media accounts of dental registrants were being monitored.
Despite the engagement of an external monitoring firm, the GDC said it had no social media monitoring policy. It denied targeting individuals or the social media accounts of individuals.
Dr O’Hooley had asked for the name of the third-party social media monitoring service and the date on which services commenced.
In a reply to Dr O’Hooley, the GDC revealed that the company it used is GorkanaGroup (sic) and the GDC began using its services on 22nd November 2016.
The GDC told Dr O’Hooley “The contracted (sic) with GorkanaGroup (sic) ceased in May 2021. We have not renewed our social media monitoring contract.”
But the GDC seemed to confirm that it will continue with social media monitoring when it added “We have been informed that within our political monitoring service contract, there is now a social media aspect. However, this only provides the GDC with alerts when MPs post about dentistry or the GDC.”
Dr O’Hooley had asked the GDC to reveal the annual cost of the third-party social media monitoring service, but the regulator chose to side-step the question by saying “The contract has been ceased and we no longer pay for this service.”
Coincidentally, GDPUK currently has a Freedom of Information request in with the GDC, asking for the annual cost of the external monitoring service and how long the regulator has been using the service. That reply is expected on 27th September.
When Dr O’Hooley asked the GDC to reveal whether the cost of the arrangement is paid with money received through the Annual Retention Fee, the GDC merely referred to is previous answer – namely, that “The contract has been ceased and we no longer pay for this service.”
The GDC has previously listed some of its social media monitoring search parameters as ‘general dental council,’ ‘generaldentalcouncil,’ ‘gdc,’ ‘dental,’ ‘dentist,’ ‘teeth,’ ‘tooth’, or ‘oral.’
The GDC says it’s ‘Communications Team’ dealt with the monitoring of social media reports when they were received. The regulator is itself active on Twitter and Facebook.
The regulator previously told Dr O’Hooley, who had asked if any actions had been taken as a result of its monitoring activities “The GDC does not have a social media monitoring team and therefore no fitness to practise proceedings have been initiated on the basis of information they have obtained.”
GDPUK has looked at the Gorkana website, which is part of the Cision group.
The GDC previously told Dr O’Hooley “The Social media monitoring for the GDC is provided via a third party monitoring service which sends the GDC Communications team a report of instances where the GDC is referred to, or engaged with, on social media.”
But the Cision website says that its experts “Will tailor your social media monitoring requirements by setting up search strings and alerts based on your brief requirements,” inferring that monitoring social media, even through the software company, requires input by the client.
Despite the GDC’s assertion that it receives a report of instances where the GDC is referred to, Cision’s Online and Social Media section tells potential clients “Keep track of online and social media in real time, listen to conversations as they occur, identify how your brand is being talked about and who is influencing those conversations.”
Earlier this week, the GDC said in reply to a GDPUK FOI request, that it didn’t hold information on the nature of its investigations into the relationship between the potential suicide of registrants while undergoing Fitness to Practise investigation.
You need to be logged in to leave comments.
Report