As Christmas draws ever closer I must confess to not having done much over the last couple of days. I did make an attempt to start reading a book entitled 'Mediated Politics - Communications in the Future of Democracy' Edited by W. Lance Bennet and Robert M. Entman, the book draws on a wide range of contributions to look in to how the new media environment we live in will alter political communications. I haven't read enough of it yet to pass any comments.
One of the issues that has really come to the fore of my thoughts concerns the challenges to political journalists. With a greater ability for people and politcians to speak directly to each other and with access to so many different sources allowing individuals to mediate information themselves, will the political journalist become redundant?
I shall have to try and track a few down to see what they think.
Sunday 24 December 2006
Friday 22 December 2006
Good Relations
This posting looks at a number of issues that were raised during a discussion I had at the offices of Good Relations Political (with thanks to James O’Keefe for agreeing to organise the meeting and participating in it).
A broad spectrum of opinion, both political and on the issues surrounding current trends in political communication was represented so what I will try and do here initially is present as objective a round up of the wide range of points that were raised as I can.
I will draw conclusions at a later stage as I hope others who took part, and those who read this blog, will do to.
The discussion kicked off with some thoughts on whether the use of new media represents a fundamental shift in the way political organisations communicate.
The general view seemed to be that the YouTubes and MySpaces of this world have plenty of potential.
How best to exploit this potential, however, remains unclear.
A very interesting point was made about how these forms of new media are particularly appealing to the Liberal Democrats.
The Lib Dems have always struggled to get their views aired on the traditional media, fighting for space with the big hitting Labour and Conservatives.
A further problem for them has been that even on particularly sensitive issues their voice has struggled to be heard. In these circumstances, after getting the views of the two main parties, traditional media have turned to NGOs or other groups directly affected for views rather than the Lib Dems.
For them therefore new media is seen as a fantastic opportunity allowing them to participate more fully in debates and also allowing them the opportunity to set the agenda for new debates.
Great potential maybe, but how effective will they be at exploiting it?
The Conservatives also seem to have acknowledged the great potential of new media.
First hand experience of this year’s Tory conference confirmed the great store that the Tories are putting in new media as a tool which can help them to re-engage with younger potential voters.
The participants at the conference seem to have taken a dim view of this tactic which of course includes the much spoken about Web Cameron.
Again the effectiveness of this effort was questioned.
Why would young people bother to tune in?
Surely, content is still the most important factor and not how modern your delivery channel is?
The fact that how best to harness the potential of new media is still a big question was highlighted by the fact that the most famous new media political stories are stories of what can only be described as cock-ups which get reported in the traditional media.
The conversational tone of postings and blogs makes them potentially very dangerous.
A wrong choice of word could easily destroy a budding political career.
One specific area where the current trend to set up new media channels to deliver content could represent a fundamental shift in political communication is the fact that politics is increasingly issue based.
YouTube and MySpace offer a perfect platform for parties to launch debates and set up sites relating to single issues. Voters who are not interested in the philosophy of politics or who are not interested in the broader policy views of political parties could well find these types of single issue sites very useful.
This is certainly a very interesting possibility and it will perhaps not be long before we see all the political parties making full use of this tactic.
Another important factor which could lead to new media resulting in a fundamental shift in the way political organisations communicate is that it allows politicians to have direct contact with constituents. It is therefore becoming very significant at constituency level.
The conclusion then seems to be that political parties are rushing to make use of new media channels. Some of the pitfalls have already become very apparent. How to make the best use of them is still a little unclear. However, there are some interesting options which could lead to a fundamental shift to the way in which political communications is conducted.
For now though, television, newspapers and radio remain the dominant media for delivering political messages.
We then talked about whether the increasing power of the individual to select content would make the already impossible task of controlling political messages even more unattainable.
Would the onset of various new media channels result in a more honest political debate?
The initial point made was that political organisation will always try to control the messages that reach the public. Having more media will simply make the issue of controlling messages even more important.
However, inevitably things will be much more difficult to control. The issue of political honesty was also discussed with issue being taken to the negative interpretation given to the word ‘spin’.
Honesty is all well and good but politicians have to be careful not to leave themselves exposed and besides they have to be diplomatic.
In this regard a few clear examples were given: What do cabinet ministers think about the recent murder of Alexander Litvinenko? Would a politician who suspects Russian state involvement ever dare say so? Of course not.
A quick look at the way Labour MP Tom Watson’s blog changed when he left the backbenches for office also clearly highlighted the fact that when politicians reach a certain level in their careers they are no longer free to express themselves in the open manner which make these sites so appealing.
Other issues regarding the influence of new media on spin which were discussed included the fact that rather than challenge the politicians these new sources of information will challenge the media who also have always put their own spin on things.
Messages have always been mediated by journalists and of course by the voters in their choice of media. But the ability of the public to give their own interpretation to the information they receive is increasing as the number of sources they turn to for information increases.
Another trend in political communications that was discussed was the tendency over recent years for politicians to avoid national media and high powered news programmes such as Newsnight and instead to focus on regional pres and lighter television programmes such as Richard & Judy.
This was a strategy first devised by Bill Clinton in the belief that these media would be less critical and allow the politician to deliver his message without much questioning. Finally the point was made that when politicians feel free to really say what they think, it’s very impressive and in an ideal world it would be great if that was the way in which politics was debated. Maybe there is a need for politicians to return to the soap box in order to re-engage voters rather than using new media.
The next issue raised was whether the fact that politics is increasingly about issues rather than philosophy is making a background in politics and traditional media more of a handicap rather than an advantage for those working in political communications.
Looking at the example of Good Relations, the team is very mixed with individuals whose interests vary from politics to media, business and social issues. The fundamental requirement is an ability to understand people.
The political communications industry is becoming more competitive so maybe there is a need for people to specialise in political communication to gain an advantage over their peers but this is a very recent development.
Public Affairs is the bridge between politics and business and so people who work in the industry have to relate to both. In political communication a background in politics is not essential. You just have to be interested in people. Despite this there is nothing better than good contacts, networks and years of experience as well as an ability to identify trends when working in political communications.
The clear example given was that of Lord Bell who although perhaps not fully conversant with all the latest technological advances could still accomplish a great deal more through his personal contacts than the vast majority of people working in the industry.
In the recent past politics has been dominated by issues people such as Philip Gould and Alastair Campbell who want to tell people what they want to hear without attaching too much ideology.
An example of pragmatic politics given was that of Lord Drayson who has turned the relationship between the Ministry of Defence and the business community on its head.
However there are risks in not basing your policies on an ideology. Many people still vote for parties because they believe they represent a set of values. Labour’s attempts to portray itself as free from ideology was deeply offensive to some of its supporters.
Also, being totally pragmatic in your choices for office can mean the appointment of people who are inexperienced in politics and who may very easily make the wrong choice of words. Lord Drayson being a case in point. Politicians should still seek to be leaders!
We then discussed whether political communication was increasingly becoming an international activity and whether new media could help spread political messages internationally.
Finally, we also touched on whether domestic political communications would become less relevant as issues become more globalised i.e. climate change, immigration, debt relief, world trade. Firstly it is clear that new media can, is and will be used to deliver political messages internationally.
The fact that the BBC’s online services have been blocked in China is a clear indication of the potential of new media in international political communications.
Global issues have not traditionally been crucial to votes but climate change and immigration are also increasingly becoming local issues to. The most important thing to any politician is his or her constituency and so local grassroots activity will remain crucial.
This is also the case nationally were parties still continue to focus on key seats were local issues dominate. Politicians will always choose their media according to their constituency and so there is certainly a case for using non-English language media in some parts of the country.
With increasing numbers of people retiring abroad communicating with the ex-pat community is also increasingly important.
New EU migrants will become eligible to vote in five years so it is important to start building a relationship with these communities from now.
The birth of Al-Jazeera English is a great media with which to communicate to the British Muslim community and to all those who are on the left of the political spectrum and keenly interested in events in the Middle East.
So, to round off there are lots of issues to think about. As I mentioned at the outset I feel that the points raised here need to be reflected on and, of course, other opinions need to be sought.
Eventually, I believe it will be possible to come to some conclusions which may help us to understand where the use of blogging and other on line social networking sites may take us.
A broad spectrum of opinion, both political and on the issues surrounding current trends in political communication was represented so what I will try and do here initially is present as objective a round up of the wide range of points that were raised as I can.
I will draw conclusions at a later stage as I hope others who took part, and those who read this blog, will do to.
The discussion kicked off with some thoughts on whether the use of new media represents a fundamental shift in the way political organisations communicate.
The general view seemed to be that the YouTubes and MySpaces of this world have plenty of potential.
How best to exploit this potential, however, remains unclear.
A very interesting point was made about how these forms of new media are particularly appealing to the Liberal Democrats.
The Lib Dems have always struggled to get their views aired on the traditional media, fighting for space with the big hitting Labour and Conservatives.
A further problem for them has been that even on particularly sensitive issues their voice has struggled to be heard. In these circumstances, after getting the views of the two main parties, traditional media have turned to NGOs or other groups directly affected for views rather than the Lib Dems.
For them therefore new media is seen as a fantastic opportunity allowing them to participate more fully in debates and also allowing them the opportunity to set the agenda for new debates.
Great potential maybe, but how effective will they be at exploiting it?
The Conservatives also seem to have acknowledged the great potential of new media.
First hand experience of this year’s Tory conference confirmed the great store that the Tories are putting in new media as a tool which can help them to re-engage with younger potential voters.
The participants at the conference seem to have taken a dim view of this tactic which of course includes the much spoken about Web Cameron.
Again the effectiveness of this effort was questioned.
Why would young people bother to tune in?
Surely, content is still the most important factor and not how modern your delivery channel is?
The fact that how best to harness the potential of new media is still a big question was highlighted by the fact that the most famous new media political stories are stories of what can only be described as cock-ups which get reported in the traditional media.
The conversational tone of postings and blogs makes them potentially very dangerous.
A wrong choice of word could easily destroy a budding political career.
One specific area where the current trend to set up new media channels to deliver content could represent a fundamental shift in political communication is the fact that politics is increasingly issue based.
YouTube and MySpace offer a perfect platform for parties to launch debates and set up sites relating to single issues. Voters who are not interested in the philosophy of politics or who are not interested in the broader policy views of political parties could well find these types of single issue sites very useful.
This is certainly a very interesting possibility and it will perhaps not be long before we see all the political parties making full use of this tactic.
Another important factor which could lead to new media resulting in a fundamental shift in the way political organisations communicate is that it allows politicians to have direct contact with constituents. It is therefore becoming very significant at constituency level.
The conclusion then seems to be that political parties are rushing to make use of new media channels. Some of the pitfalls have already become very apparent. How to make the best use of them is still a little unclear. However, there are some interesting options which could lead to a fundamental shift to the way in which political communications is conducted.
For now though, television, newspapers and radio remain the dominant media for delivering political messages.
We then talked about whether the increasing power of the individual to select content would make the already impossible task of controlling political messages even more unattainable.
Would the onset of various new media channels result in a more honest political debate?
The initial point made was that political organisation will always try to control the messages that reach the public. Having more media will simply make the issue of controlling messages even more important.
However, inevitably things will be much more difficult to control. The issue of political honesty was also discussed with issue being taken to the negative interpretation given to the word ‘spin’.
Honesty is all well and good but politicians have to be careful not to leave themselves exposed and besides they have to be diplomatic.
In this regard a few clear examples were given: What do cabinet ministers think about the recent murder of Alexander Litvinenko? Would a politician who suspects Russian state involvement ever dare say so? Of course not.
A quick look at the way Labour MP Tom Watson’s blog changed when he left the backbenches for office also clearly highlighted the fact that when politicians reach a certain level in their careers they are no longer free to express themselves in the open manner which make these sites so appealing.
Other issues regarding the influence of new media on spin which were discussed included the fact that rather than challenge the politicians these new sources of information will challenge the media who also have always put their own spin on things.
Messages have always been mediated by journalists and of course by the voters in their choice of media. But the ability of the public to give their own interpretation to the information they receive is increasing as the number of sources they turn to for information increases.
Another trend in political communications that was discussed was the tendency over recent years for politicians to avoid national media and high powered news programmes such as Newsnight and instead to focus on regional pres and lighter television programmes such as Richard & Judy.
This was a strategy first devised by Bill Clinton in the belief that these media would be less critical and allow the politician to deliver his message without much questioning. Finally the point was made that when politicians feel free to really say what they think, it’s very impressive and in an ideal world it would be great if that was the way in which politics was debated. Maybe there is a need for politicians to return to the soap box in order to re-engage voters rather than using new media.
The next issue raised was whether the fact that politics is increasingly about issues rather than philosophy is making a background in politics and traditional media more of a handicap rather than an advantage for those working in political communications.
Looking at the example of Good Relations, the team is very mixed with individuals whose interests vary from politics to media, business and social issues. The fundamental requirement is an ability to understand people.
The political communications industry is becoming more competitive so maybe there is a need for people to specialise in political communication to gain an advantage over their peers but this is a very recent development.
Public Affairs is the bridge between politics and business and so people who work in the industry have to relate to both. In political communication a background in politics is not essential. You just have to be interested in people. Despite this there is nothing better than good contacts, networks and years of experience as well as an ability to identify trends when working in political communications.
The clear example given was that of Lord Bell who although perhaps not fully conversant with all the latest technological advances could still accomplish a great deal more through his personal contacts than the vast majority of people working in the industry.
In the recent past politics has been dominated by issues people such as Philip Gould and Alastair Campbell who want to tell people what they want to hear without attaching too much ideology.
An example of pragmatic politics given was that of Lord Drayson who has turned the relationship between the Ministry of Defence and the business community on its head.
However there are risks in not basing your policies on an ideology. Many people still vote for parties because they believe they represent a set of values. Labour’s attempts to portray itself as free from ideology was deeply offensive to some of its supporters.
Also, being totally pragmatic in your choices for office can mean the appointment of people who are inexperienced in politics and who may very easily make the wrong choice of words. Lord Drayson being a case in point. Politicians should still seek to be leaders!
We then discussed whether political communication was increasingly becoming an international activity and whether new media could help spread political messages internationally.
Finally, we also touched on whether domestic political communications would become less relevant as issues become more globalised i.e. climate change, immigration, debt relief, world trade. Firstly it is clear that new media can, is and will be used to deliver political messages internationally.
The fact that the BBC’s online services have been blocked in China is a clear indication of the potential of new media in international political communications.
Global issues have not traditionally been crucial to votes but climate change and immigration are also increasingly becoming local issues to. The most important thing to any politician is his or her constituency and so local grassroots activity will remain crucial.
This is also the case nationally were parties still continue to focus on key seats were local issues dominate. Politicians will always choose their media according to their constituency and so there is certainly a case for using non-English language media in some parts of the country.
With increasing numbers of people retiring abroad communicating with the ex-pat community is also increasingly important.
New EU migrants will become eligible to vote in five years so it is important to start building a relationship with these communities from now.
The birth of Al-Jazeera English is a great media with which to communicate to the British Muslim community and to all those who are on the left of the political spectrum and keenly interested in events in the Middle East.
So, to round off there are lots of issues to think about. As I mentioned at the outset I feel that the points raised here need to be reflected on and, of course, other opinions need to be sought.
Eventually, I believe it will be possible to come to some conclusions which may help us to understand where the use of blogging and other on line social networking sites may take us.
Thursday 21 December 2006
Information Gathering
Just a quick post today. I've started hunting round for some first hand information from people who are, or were until recently, working in political communications. I'm not only going to attempt to get the views of people who work in and around Westminster. I will also be looking for views from the European Parliament, which has had particular difficulty in connecting with its constituents, and from Malta to see whether the same issues that are raised in some of the largest European democracies also apply to one of the world's smallest democracies. Let's hope that not everyone has disappeared for their Christmas holidays.
Wednesday 20 December 2006
Does Political Communications Matter?
I think that it's important to start off any discussion by looking at the background. Political communications has become a very contentious issue over the last decade. This has been mainly based on the notion that in the run up to the 1997 UK election the Labour Party ran a very professional and efficient campaign through which they were able to set the news agenda for the country and therefore effectively manage the national debate in their favour.
The assumption that politcial parties have the power to manipulate the agenda in this way has fuelled the controversy ever since. But, is this assumption based on fact? To what extent does politcial communication really affect the issues being discussed in the media and by the public? And, to what extent does it affect voting patterns? If the impact is not as great as has been assumed then how does this affect the need to take up of new communication tools which are the subject of this blog? In other words, is using blogs, social networking sites etc going to turn out to be a waste of time and energy?
The first source I've looked at is a book entitled 'On Message, Communicating the Campaign'. Written by Pippa Norris, John Curtice, David Sanders, Margaret Scammel and Holli A. Semetko, it looks at the 1997 campaign and discusses the effectiveness and impact of the campaigns of the three main political parties in the UK.
Between 1992 and 1997 there was a 10.3% swing from the Conservatives to Labour. As last as the last week of the campaign some 28% had, it seems, still not decided on how to vote. This suggests a very volatile electorate that is open to persuasion. However, Labour's performance in the polls duirng the last twelve months before the election and more strikingly in the last week of campaigning show a decline in support. The Liberal Democrats were advancing the most while Conservative support remained stable.
The situation therefore was that over the long term of five years there had been a massive swing towards Labour but that this support began to fade away as the election drew nearer. So, does this mean that the Labour Party's communications strategy, which was praised so much in the aftermath of their landslide victory, actually fail? Did the Liberal Democrats have a better strategy? Or does employing news management straregies not really work with the electorate who turn to other influencers to help them in their decisions?
The conclusions reached in the research conducted by Norris et al seem to suggest that political parties despite their efforts are unable to dictate the agenda during the 1997 campaign. The former wanted to focus on issues such as the economy and education while the media focussed on the conduct of the campaign. Interestingly, while the media made a big issue out of the possibility of European Monetary Union, the public remained focussed on more bread and butter issues. It seems that while the politicians and the public may have been thinking about similar issues it was the media that was out of touch. The public it seems remained laregly unaffected by the news agenda, as set by the media and not the politicians.
In broadcasting, governed by the rules of balance and impartiality, there seems to be little effect on voting patterns in the short term although in the longer term it seems that the more positive the stories about the party, the greater the support. This was reflected in the success of the Liberal Democrats in the last months before the 1997 election as they stuck to being positive about their own policies rather than attacking others.
The impact of newspapers, which are free to take sides, was greater than that of broadcasting over the longer term but it is still clear that a change in editorial position like the one carried out by The Sun did very little to persuade its readers to change their voting patterns in the short term.
Overall the general conclusion seems to be that the power of political parties to influence the news agenda is limited and that even if this could be done the independnece of thought of the public is strong. The media it seems does not have the power to tell people what to think about. The old broadcasting rules about impartiality may in fact be irrelevant as it is not the amount of coverage that matters but the nature of it. The authors, although writing in 1999, already see the problems that are with us today when they ask how impartiality based on equal air time can be controlled in a world of new media and multiplicity of digital televison channels?
My own personal thoughts at this moment are that controlling the news agenda has always been an illusion. But, over a longer time frame the ideas and the messages to which people are exposed and the nature in which they are delivered does influence thought - and then action. In the context of new media this will continue to apply. Political parties and media organisations will not be able to change voting intentions in a short six week election campaign but over the course of a number of years those who learn to use these media most effectively will be able to influence the way in which national issues are debated. Importantly the ability to bypass the media, whose consistent negative approach to reporting politics over recent years seems to be having an affect on voter turnout could make the use of new media an ideal tool for politicians and the public to re-connect.
The assumption that politcial parties have the power to manipulate the agenda in this way has fuelled the controversy ever since. But, is this assumption based on fact? To what extent does politcial communication really affect the issues being discussed in the media and by the public? And, to what extent does it affect voting patterns? If the impact is not as great as has been assumed then how does this affect the need to take up of new communication tools which are the subject of this blog? In other words, is using blogs, social networking sites etc going to turn out to be a waste of time and energy?
The first source I've looked at is a book entitled 'On Message, Communicating the Campaign'. Written by Pippa Norris, John Curtice, David Sanders, Margaret Scammel and Holli A. Semetko, it looks at the 1997 campaign and discusses the effectiveness and impact of the campaigns of the three main political parties in the UK.
Between 1992 and 1997 there was a 10.3% swing from the Conservatives to Labour. As last as the last week of the campaign some 28% had, it seems, still not decided on how to vote. This suggests a very volatile electorate that is open to persuasion. However, Labour's performance in the polls duirng the last twelve months before the election and more strikingly in the last week of campaigning show a decline in support. The Liberal Democrats were advancing the most while Conservative support remained stable.
The situation therefore was that over the long term of five years there had been a massive swing towards Labour but that this support began to fade away as the election drew nearer. So, does this mean that the Labour Party's communications strategy, which was praised so much in the aftermath of their landslide victory, actually fail? Did the Liberal Democrats have a better strategy? Or does employing news management straregies not really work with the electorate who turn to other influencers to help them in their decisions?
The conclusions reached in the research conducted by Norris et al seem to suggest that political parties despite their efforts are unable to dictate the agenda during the 1997 campaign. The former wanted to focus on issues such as the economy and education while the media focussed on the conduct of the campaign. Interestingly, while the media made a big issue out of the possibility of European Monetary Union, the public remained focussed on more bread and butter issues. It seems that while the politicians and the public may have been thinking about similar issues it was the media that was out of touch. The public it seems remained laregly unaffected by the news agenda, as set by the media and not the politicians.
In broadcasting, governed by the rules of balance and impartiality, there seems to be little effect on voting patterns in the short term although in the longer term it seems that the more positive the stories about the party, the greater the support. This was reflected in the success of the Liberal Democrats in the last months before the 1997 election as they stuck to being positive about their own policies rather than attacking others.
The impact of newspapers, which are free to take sides, was greater than that of broadcasting over the longer term but it is still clear that a change in editorial position like the one carried out by The Sun did very little to persuade its readers to change their voting patterns in the short term.
Overall the general conclusion seems to be that the power of political parties to influence the news agenda is limited and that even if this could be done the independnece of thought of the public is strong. The media it seems does not have the power to tell people what to think about. The old broadcasting rules about impartiality may in fact be irrelevant as it is not the amount of coverage that matters but the nature of it. The authors, although writing in 1999, already see the problems that are with us today when they ask how impartiality based on equal air time can be controlled in a world of new media and multiplicity of digital televison channels?
My own personal thoughts at this moment are that controlling the news agenda has always been an illusion. But, over a longer time frame the ideas and the messages to which people are exposed and the nature in which they are delivered does influence thought - and then action. In the context of new media this will continue to apply. Political parties and media organisations will not be able to change voting intentions in a short six week election campaign but over the course of a number of years those who learn to use these media most effectively will be able to influence the way in which national issues are debated. Importantly the ability to bypass the media, whose consistent negative approach to reporting politics over recent years seems to be having an affect on voter turnout could make the use of new media an ideal tool for politicians and the public to re-connect.
Tuesday 19 December 2006
First Thoughts
This morning a google search gave me more than 60 million results for the phrase 'political blogs'.
The blog, together with viral emails and the use of social networking sites are increasingly being used as a channel through which political organisations interact with the wider public.
Could this development lead to a stronger, more engaged democracy, in which politicians carry out a more open and direct debate with their constituents? Perhaps, but how will politcians convince people to read their blogs or view other on line messages? And are there any risks for politicians who opt to use these new channels of communication?
In essence the questions to be tackled are two.
1) "Is the current trend of using these new channels of communication going to result in a fundamental change to the way in which representatives and represented speak to each other?"
2) "Will this benefit our democracies or not?"
The blog, together with viral emails and the use of social networking sites are increasingly being used as a channel through which political organisations interact with the wider public.
Could this development lead to a stronger, more engaged democracy, in which politicians carry out a more open and direct debate with their constituents? Perhaps, but how will politcians convince people to read their blogs or view other on line messages? And are there any risks for politicians who opt to use these new channels of communication?
In essence the questions to be tackled are two.
1) "Is the current trend of using these new channels of communication going to result in a fundamental change to the way in which representatives and represented speak to each other?"
2) "Will this benefit our democracies or not?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
