Analysis and Judgment of Police-Related Online Public Opinion in Recent Years: How to Properly Handle Police-Related Online Public Opinion

Public Security Online Public Opinion Analysis Report: With the rapid development of information technology, the Internet, characterized by its openness, interactivity and virtuality, has become a major channel for the public to express demands, voice opinions and seek mutual support. As a law enforcement agency with the most extensive contact with the public, public security organs are constantly under the “microscope” of the media and the “spotlight” of the Internet. Police-related online public opinion has become one of the most closely watched areas in society.

In the new era, improving the collection and judgment of police-related online public opinion and firmly grasping the initiative in public opinion guidance is of great significance for enhancing public security organs’ ability to respond to public opinion crises and safeguarding the image of public security agencies and police officers.

Problems in the Guidance and Control of Police-Related Public Opinion:

1. Rigid understanding. In practice, some police officers lack sufficient sensitivity to police-related online public opinion, often confined to traditional concepts and thinking. They do not fully value the role and influence of public opinion, one-sidedly believing that the core work of public security organs is to combat crime and maintain public security, and that a few online posts or responses have little impact. As a result, they often respond slowly and neglect guidance, eventually losing the initiative, missing the golden window for response, causing rapid spread of police-related public opinion and creating passive situations for follow-up handling.

2. Mechanical handling. Some public security organs and departments adopt overly simplistic and ineffective methods in dealing with police-related public opinion. They habitually use negative approaches such as covering up, concealing and withholding information released by online and other media, without taking targeted measures for guidance. This has intensified public suspicion to a certain extent and even pushed the public to an opposing stance.

Meanwhile, they maintain an avoidant attitude toward mainstream media, frequently refusing or dodging interviews. After police-related public opinion erupts, basic information cannot be verified by the media, which can only rely on one-sided accounts from parties or victims, leading to incomplete, biased and untrue reports. Simple incidents thus become complicated, and easy issues turn difficult.

3. Biased expression. After police-related public opinion arises, some public security organs fail to analyze and assess the situation or accurately grasp public sentiment. Influenced by the public opinion crisis, they blindly release official statements to the media that are often empty, inappropriate or poorly worded, triggering online discussion and criticism, which is unfavorable for guiding and resolving police-related public opinion. Some organs even adopt an extreme and tough attitude in public opinion guidance, failing to consider issues from the public’s perspective and criticizing media misconduct, leading to escalation and superposition of public opinion, fiercer media criticism and deepened crises.

4. Severe coordination blockages. The guidance and handling of police-related public opinion involve multiple public security forces and departments, making coordination and cooperation crucial. At present, grassroots public security organs still lack a complete coordination mechanism for public opinion guidance. Task divisions between grassroots stations, brigades and functional departments are unclear, especially the rapid linkage between publicity departments and grassroots law enforcement units remains a weak link. The phenomena of “solo performances” and “acting separately” are widespread, and the overall capacity to handle police-related public opinion needs further improvement. In addition, communication and cooperation between grassroots public security organs and mainstream media such as TV stations, newspapers and websites remain insufficient, and a systematic publicity pattern has not yet been formed.

Countermeasures for Public Security Organs to Handle Police-Related Online Public Opinion

(1) Renew concepts and strengthen ideological awareness.

First, understand public opinion from the perspective of stability. The duty of public security organs is to ensure overall social stability and public safety. The emergence of police-related public opinion reflects the demands and aspirations of the media and the public. Improper guidance and control may lead to malicious hype by online media, trigger police-related public opinion crises, and even cause conflicts between the police and the public, endangering overall social stability. Public security organs must view police-related public opinion from a stable and political perspective, maintain a clear mind, and solidly carry out publicity, guidance and emergency response to safeguard stability.

Second, grasp public opinion from the perspective of police situation. Firmly establish the concept that “public opinion is police situation”, maintain high vigilance toward police-related online public opinion. Once public opinion arises, immediately organize political and publicity departments to handle crises proactively and properly to prevent large-scale “fermentation” of public opinion and passive impacts on police work.

Third, treat public opinion from the perspective of image. Police-related public opinion not only affects social stability but also concerns the image of public security organs and officers. In public opinion guidance, strengthen the awareness that “public opinion is image”. Through communication and cooperation with relevant media, enhance positive publicity of police work, continuously convey positive energy, establish a people-oriented, public-serving and caring image, and continuously improve public satisfaction with police work.

(2) Seize the initiative and strengthen public opinion response. First, release authoritative information in a timely manner. Once police-related public opinion occurs, immediately organize publicity and relevant departments to issue authoritative information through the media, announce the facts, guide online public opinion, firmly grasp the discourse initiative, and prevent misleading and negative hype. Meanwhile, public security organs at or above the municipal level may hold press conferences to promptly inform the society of the incident, gain understanding and trust from the media and the public, and mitigate social impacts.

Second, actively utilize online platforms. At present, the police service online platforms and official Weibo accounts launched by public security organs across the province serve as important channels for responding to and guiding media public opinion. We can set topics on these platforms to guide the focus of netizens and the public. In other words, through topic planning on service platforms and Weibo, we can direct public attention and netizens’ focus to specific directions for diversion, relieving and dispersing public attention to a certain extent, so as to achieve the goal of guiding public opinion.

Third, give full play to the role of “opinion leaders”. Mass communication theory holds that information transmission must go through opinion leaders before reaching the general audience. We can fully apply this theory by arranging police officers responsible for network management on major websites and forums.

---