I’ve now managed to get quite a broad range of opinions on current trends in political communications and how these might affect political pr in the future. Obviously it’s by no means a complete picture but the fact that I have had access to the views of politicians, communications co-ordinators for politicians, journalists and individuals involved in political communications means that I am in a position to draw some speculative conclusions.
The first of these is that new media will not radically change the way in which current political communications strategies are developed. The marketing oriented style where messages are tailored for specific audiences will in my view only become more pronounced.
Of course I could be wrong and the view that online media will give people a sense of power, a feeling that their views matter, could prevail. This would reinvigorate our democracy. This is the view put forward in the comment left by Ophelia Nge. It would be wonderful if her optimism about the impact new media could have on democracy in Africa became reality.
But, as has already been mentioned previously the internet is actually a very fragile thing. The Chinese government has moved quickly to curtail its potential for political debate and I have no doubt that other undemocratic regimes will quickly follow suit.
In the UK, and in other complex economies, the ability to track people’s online movements and therefore build profiles of individuals will prove too tempting for both commercial enterprises and political organisations.
The creation of targeted messaging will increase driving people further down the road of caring about single issues that affect them only rather than taking a more global perspective of the common good.
My concern actually is that new media will actually result in membership of political parties falling further and that political communications will look more and more like consumer PR and advertising rather than serious debate.
In addition the fact that the political messages can now go straight to the audience without the mediation of journalism might aggravate the situation. Political communications has over recent years increasingly sought to avoid hard news programmes where tough questioning is guaranteed. New media offers political communicators the opportunity to intensify this shift.
In this respect though, I am not so pessimistic. The definition of a journalist and of a media outlet may have to change to include practically everyone who publishes material online. But there is no doubt that there will be plenty of sources available to challenge any views put forward by political communicators.
Like every other human invention some will use new media in a genuine attempt to engage the public in a more widespread debate on the issues of the day. But at the end of the day politicians have to win elections and I think the tools that new media offer for further segmenting and specifically targeting audiences will prove too attractive.
It seems to me that political communications, like everything else, is becoming more complex and sophisticated. But in the end I don’t see any great changes to the way political pr works nor to the way in which the wider public responds to it.
Saturday 13 January 2007
Friday 12 January 2007
NUJ and the Rise of New Media
I’ve just had a good long chat with Lawrence Shaw who handles new media issues at the National Union of Journalists. Amazingly enough we were at the same school together. Small world!
Firstly we talked about general new media issues affecting journalists, a cause of fierce debated in the NUJ it seems. Lawrence’s personal view is that blogging has been very fashionable lately but it is already starting to level off and may start declining.
There will always be a place for it of course but the fact is that most people’s lives are pretty mundane and motivation levels to keep posting quickly drop off. This development brings forward the prospect of greater convergence between traditional media and new media.
People who are really interested in discussion will continue to blog and as they will be creating and publishing content, these bloggers in effect become journalists. In fact people are already starting to turn their blogs in to commercial enterprises. The future for journalists will certainly continue to involve more and more on line work, including preparing digital reports with video and photos. This could be a positive development as it improves the skills base of journalists and should help them to command higher salaries.
The greatest risk to traditional media seems to come not from on line media but from the media owners themselves who are more concerned with profitability. Apparently newspapers have a higher rate of profitability than leading companies such as Tesco and HSBC. This is being achieved by driving down costs and in the exaggerated belief that traditional print media is in terminal decline in the face of the arrival of new media. Fewer journalists have time to investigate stories and have increasingly become dependent on PR. It was this development that has helped corporations and political parties in their efforts to set the media agenda. (How and to what extent set the media agenda determines voting patterns is an issue which is discussed in the posting on 20 December 2006).
The internet, Lawrence argued, does have the potential to change all this. The fact that the internet could be an agent for political change is highlighted by the reaction of the Chinese government. Its potential for good should not be underestimated and with the quality of traditional media, especially print who rely more on centralised news feeds, declining the internet is increasingly becoming a source for different points of view.
Political parties are still harnessing this technology. An online presence is essential but how open can they leave debates on their own platforms. To find out what people think about issues it seems that we have to go back to the concept of either setting up sites which are related to specific issues, away from the main party website, or setting up front sites. Political parties will continue to try and influence debate and will undoubtedly make use of the technology available to track the sites people view and then tailor their messages accordingly. The ease with which individual’s online activities can be traced to build profiles is barely recognised by most people. It provides a power tool for search engine owners, businesses and politicians, to sell their products in a more targeted way.
On a more global scale the ease with which online activity can be monitored or blocked means that good old fashioned radio might still be the best way to get messages across in China.
What we have is a situations where individuals believe that the internet and new media can help open debate and challenge views. This is the great potential. Rather than undermining journalism this will make more of us journalists – even though we may not realise it! Sorting the truth from the lies online and sorting the valuable contribution from the crackpots will also ensure that there is an increased role for investigative journalism.
There also remains a great interest for variety of sources and as traditional journalists and bloggers move closer together Lawrence predicted that within five years the latter will be able to become members of the NUJ. Traditional media will also survive because of their social nature. People like to casually flick through a publication on a train or to spend their Sunday mornings reading a paper. Just like TV failed to kill radio, so the internet will fail to kill newspapers. In the process the demand for objective analysis of all that gets published will increase. We will need more journalists, not fewer and more of us without thinking will fill this role through our own on line activity.
Lawrence is a man who is optimistic about the future for journalists. For those involved in political communication life will probably become more complicated and require greater professionalism. The technology to target audiences effectively already exists and so we can look forward to the tussle between politicians and the media continuing online in much the same way it has done on traditional media, but with greater sophistication.
Firstly we talked about general new media issues affecting journalists, a cause of fierce debated in the NUJ it seems. Lawrence’s personal view is that blogging has been very fashionable lately but it is already starting to level off and may start declining.
There will always be a place for it of course but the fact is that most people’s lives are pretty mundane and motivation levels to keep posting quickly drop off. This development brings forward the prospect of greater convergence between traditional media and new media.
People who are really interested in discussion will continue to blog and as they will be creating and publishing content, these bloggers in effect become journalists. In fact people are already starting to turn their blogs in to commercial enterprises. The future for journalists will certainly continue to involve more and more on line work, including preparing digital reports with video and photos. This could be a positive development as it improves the skills base of journalists and should help them to command higher salaries.
The greatest risk to traditional media seems to come not from on line media but from the media owners themselves who are more concerned with profitability. Apparently newspapers have a higher rate of profitability than leading companies such as Tesco and HSBC. This is being achieved by driving down costs and in the exaggerated belief that traditional print media is in terminal decline in the face of the arrival of new media. Fewer journalists have time to investigate stories and have increasingly become dependent on PR. It was this development that has helped corporations and political parties in their efforts to set the media agenda. (How and to what extent set the media agenda determines voting patterns is an issue which is discussed in the posting on 20 December 2006).
The internet, Lawrence argued, does have the potential to change all this. The fact that the internet could be an agent for political change is highlighted by the reaction of the Chinese government. Its potential for good should not be underestimated and with the quality of traditional media, especially print who rely more on centralised news feeds, declining the internet is increasingly becoming a source for different points of view.
Political parties are still harnessing this technology. An online presence is essential but how open can they leave debates on their own platforms. To find out what people think about issues it seems that we have to go back to the concept of either setting up sites which are related to specific issues, away from the main party website, or setting up front sites. Political parties will continue to try and influence debate and will undoubtedly make use of the technology available to track the sites people view and then tailor their messages accordingly. The ease with which individual’s online activities can be traced to build profiles is barely recognised by most people. It provides a power tool for search engine owners, businesses and politicians, to sell their products in a more targeted way.
On a more global scale the ease with which online activity can be monitored or blocked means that good old fashioned radio might still be the best way to get messages across in China.
What we have is a situations where individuals believe that the internet and new media can help open debate and challenge views. This is the great potential. Rather than undermining journalism this will make more of us journalists – even though we may not realise it! Sorting the truth from the lies online and sorting the valuable contribution from the crackpots will also ensure that there is an increased role for investigative journalism.
There also remains a great interest for variety of sources and as traditional journalists and bloggers move closer together Lawrence predicted that within five years the latter will be able to become members of the NUJ. Traditional media will also survive because of their social nature. People like to casually flick through a publication on a train or to spend their Sunday mornings reading a paper. Just like TV failed to kill radio, so the internet will fail to kill newspapers. In the process the demand for objective analysis of all that gets published will increase. We will need more journalists, not fewer and more of us without thinking will fill this role through our own on line activity.
Lawrence is a man who is optimistic about the future for journalists. For those involved in political communication life will probably become more complicated and require greater professionalism. The technology to target audiences effectively already exists and so we can look forward to the tussle between politicians and the media continuing online in much the same way it has done on traditional media, but with greater sophistication.
Thursday 11 January 2007
News from the Journalists' Front
Hooray, looks like I'm finally going to get to speak to someone about whether current trends in political communication, i.e. the use of new technologies are going to make journalists redundant?
Of course this is an issue that affects all PR. With so many ways to communicate with specific target audiences directly, what's the point of media relations? For those on the receiving end of information, with so many different easily accessible sources available, do we still need journalists to mediate? I'll have some thoughts from the journalists' point of view on Friday.
Of course this is an issue that affects all PR. With so many ways to communicate with specific target audiences directly, what's the point of media relations? For those on the receiving end of information, with so many different easily accessible sources available, do we still need journalists to mediate? I'll have some thoughts from the journalists' point of view on Friday.
Wednesday 10 January 2007
Fulfilling Potential
After a couple of weeks of information gathering it's time to draw out a few initial conclusions. Politicians and those involved in political communications, like everyone else interested in communicating with the wider public, seem to view the arrival of new technologies as a great opportunity to engage, or re-engage the public. Many of these potential opportunities emerged early on from the discussion at Good Relations but also from many of the other sources.
They include opportunities for direct communication, without the mediation (manipulation?) of journalists, the ability to gauge public reaction to issues before determining policy or legislation – effectively expanding the focus group concept, the ability for smaller parties to either set the agenda for a political debate or to have their views on an ongoing issue better heard and, finally, the opportunity for MPs to increase contact with their constituents. Using new technologies also allows political parties the opportunity to communicate with those audiences (generally younger individuals) who tend not to use traditional media or to be very interested in news and politics.
Identifying the potential opportunities seems however to be as far as we have got. How are politicians going to make their content interesting enough to attract the audience that uses social networking sites or reads blogs? Many of the most famous blogs or other internet based political communications have achieved their notoriety after being lampooned in the traditional press for their attempts at trying to look modern. Furthermore, blogs such as the Guido Fawkes one may be fascinating for those who are interested in politics already but hardly seem to be attracting a wider audience. The idea of a web based TV station for the European Parliament, mentioned by MEP Joseph Muscat, raises the same problem. The station would give more people the opportunity to view the Parliament’s deliberations but how many people will bother to tune in? A look at audience figures for the BBC’s parliamentary channel should provide a good idea! With so much happening on the web, how are politicians going to make their voice heard?
They include opportunities for direct communication, without the mediation (manipulation?) of journalists, the ability to gauge public reaction to issues before determining policy or legislation – effectively expanding the focus group concept, the ability for smaller parties to either set the agenda for a political debate or to have their views on an ongoing issue better heard and, finally, the opportunity for MPs to increase contact with their constituents. Using new technologies also allows political parties the opportunity to communicate with those audiences (generally younger individuals) who tend not to use traditional media or to be very interested in news and politics.
Identifying the potential opportunities seems however to be as far as we have got. How are politicians going to make their content interesting enough to attract the audience that uses social networking sites or reads blogs? Many of the most famous blogs or other internet based political communications have achieved their notoriety after being lampooned in the traditional press for their attempts at trying to look modern. Furthermore, blogs such as the Guido Fawkes one may be fascinating for those who are interested in politics already but hardly seem to be attracting a wider audience. The idea of a web based TV station for the European Parliament, mentioned by MEP Joseph Muscat, raises the same problem. The station would give more people the opportunity to view the Parliament’s deliberations but how many people will bother to tune in? A look at audience figures for the BBC’s parliamentary channel should provide a good idea! With so much happening on the web, how are politicians going to make their voice heard?
Tuesday 9 January 2007
A View from Brussels
Practically since the day I started working on this blog I’ve been corresponding with the Maltese MEP Joseph Muscat (http://www.josephmuscat.com/). The European Parliament, an organisation which is geographically and psychologically remote to most people it seems, could greatly benefit from new forms of communication to make itself more relevant. Joseph himself is in fact in the process of setting up a virtual office allowing his constituents in Malta the opportunity to ‘visit’ him even while he’s away.
I asked him whether politicians ability to talk more directly to the public would improve our democracies. His views on the matter were that new technology is already making a difference. Most people do not have time to make an appointment or write a letter but ‘would take a couple of minutes (from) their schedule to send him/her an email.’
With particular reference to the European Parliament I asked him if he thought these new technologies will help the Parliament connect more with voters and make it more relevant to their daily lives. Tackling this problem it seems remains a difficult task. A plan by the European Parliament to launch an online TV station was mentioned. ‘I think it will help but only at the margins’, said Joseph perhaps reflecting earlier concerns raised by previous interviews that it’s no good using new technology when no one is interested in your content anyway.
How politicians will deal with the amount and variety of responses they could potentially receive could create a risk. As long as the politician concerned remains focussed on the two-way nature of communicating through new technology Joseph believes this risk can be averted. I think that in terms of constituency politics this may well be achievable but whether politicians holding executive office – and playing a significant role in setting a party’s agenda – can maintain this two-way conversation is another matter.
One other concern I raised is the issue of whether giving individuals the ability to talk directly to politicians will we be bringing people together more or driving them further apart and away from broad church politics in to single issue pressure groups. This is a theme that has come up quite a lot in the reading I’ve done and the conversations I’ve had. Thoughts about how things may develop have been difficult to obtain. This is no surprise for as Joseph said ‘I cannot find my crystal ball around’
I asked him whether politicians ability to talk more directly to the public would improve our democracies. His views on the matter were that new technology is already making a difference. Most people do not have time to make an appointment or write a letter but ‘would take a couple of minutes (from) their schedule to send him/her an email.’
With particular reference to the European Parliament I asked him if he thought these new technologies will help the Parliament connect more with voters and make it more relevant to their daily lives. Tackling this problem it seems remains a difficult task. A plan by the European Parliament to launch an online TV station was mentioned. ‘I think it will help but only at the margins’, said Joseph perhaps reflecting earlier concerns raised by previous interviews that it’s no good using new technology when no one is interested in your content anyway.
How politicians will deal with the amount and variety of responses they could potentially receive could create a risk. As long as the politician concerned remains focussed on the two-way nature of communicating through new technology Joseph believes this risk can be averted. I think that in terms of constituency politics this may well be achievable but whether politicians holding executive office – and playing a significant role in setting a party’s agenda – can maintain this two-way conversation is another matter.
One other concern I raised is the issue of whether giving individuals the ability to talk directly to politicians will we be bringing people together more or driving them further apart and away from broad church politics in to single issue pressure groups. This is a theme that has come up quite a lot in the reading I’ve done and the conversations I’ve had. Thoughts about how things may develop have been difficult to obtain. This is no surprise for as Joseph said ‘I cannot find my crystal ball around’
Some Research on Blogging MPs
I collected a 5 per cent (approximately) sample of UK MPs by choosing every twentieth name on the alphabetical list on parliament’s website (http://www.parliament.uk/directories/hciolists/alms.cfm) and then checked how many have a blog. Of the 33 MPs chosen, four had a blog (although one of them is not working!). It doesn’t sound like much but actually that’s 12 per cent which I suppose can be considered a significant number.
Still, going back to the comments that came out of last month’s discussion at Good Relations concerning how important blogs could be in constituency politics perhaps one would expect more. Maybe we’ll have to wait for the next general election to see a large scale take up.
Still, going back to the comments that came out of last month’s discussion at Good Relations concerning how important blogs could be in constituency politics perhaps one would expect more. Maybe we’ll have to wait for the next general election to see a large scale take up.
Sunday 7 January 2007
Views from Malta
The text below was written by Jesmond Saliba, who was the political editor of a Maltese broadcaster for six years and who has spent the past six years as the communications coordinator to a member of the Maltese cabinet. He is currently also reading for an MSc in Corporate Communications and Public Affairs and describes himself as and an avid user and believer in IT.
I asked him for his thoughts on how current developments in political communications which are taking place in the UK - and which follow on from developments in the States - might affect the way in which the Maltese governement and Maltese politcians communicate with the public in the near future. These are his thoughts
'The country has witnessed an interesting and overwhelmingly increase in the take up of ICT. This was the result of various efforts which were taken by the Maltese Government in rolling out eGovernment services and also by taking direct initiatives in the fight against digital divide. However, despite this take up I believe that the role of IT in local (national) politics communication strategy and action plans is still not as relevant as let's say the US.
The major political parties have a website and a news portal. Yet given the importance both give to other media, they both have their own newspapers, radio stations and tv stations. While the latter three media are mainly focused in delivering messages to the grassroots, the new media can be accessed by the grassroots, new voters and the 20% who normally tend to influence voters.
The influence of new media on voting paterns is still to be tested an analysed however I don't think that to date the influence was significant, as such importance is not high. If it has to be effective new media tools have to be one of several media through which news is managed by the politicians.
From a government point of view, I think that new media (and not necessarily blogging) has opened a new access to politicians. Today it is easy to communicate with a Minister via an email.
Emails tend to increase accountability as track of what is written and said is easily accessed and kept. In the coming 18 months, most probably we'll witness the popping up of several websites promoting the various candidates who'll be contesting the General Election. All will probably include an email-the-person section. I think that for the forseeable future, this will be the utilisation of new ways of communications as all politicians will dedicate more time to visit personally their constitutents.
Malta's size facilitates the task to visit every constituent if possible. This is still valued as the most important tool to persuade voters. This is still the most favourite way how constituents want to meet their candidates. The personal touch is still given the importance. I still believe that this is the key for successful election bids.
I believe that if political parties take the bold step to move out from the local media scene and free the airwaves from their presence, then there will be more room for development for the role of new media in the political field. Until then politicians still prefer to blog their views on the traditional media via sound-clips and talking points rather then on the net. I think that the majority of the constituents still prefer their politicians to ride the (media) wave then having to surf the net to see what they're after.'
I asked him for his thoughts on how current developments in political communications which are taking place in the UK - and which follow on from developments in the States - might affect the way in which the Maltese governement and Maltese politcians communicate with the public in the near future. These are his thoughts
'The country has witnessed an interesting and overwhelmingly increase in the take up of ICT. This was the result of various efforts which were taken by the Maltese Government in rolling out eGovernment services and also by taking direct initiatives in the fight against digital divide. However, despite this take up I believe that the role of IT in local (national) politics communication strategy and action plans is still not as relevant as let's say the US.
The major political parties have a website and a news portal. Yet given the importance both give to other media, they both have their own newspapers, radio stations and tv stations. While the latter three media are mainly focused in delivering messages to the grassroots, the new media can be accessed by the grassroots, new voters and the 20% who normally tend to influence voters.
The influence of new media on voting paterns is still to be tested an analysed however I don't think that to date the influence was significant, as such importance is not high. If it has to be effective new media tools have to be one of several media through which news is managed by the politicians.
From a government point of view, I think that new media (and not necessarily blogging) has opened a new access to politicians. Today it is easy to communicate with a Minister via an email.
Emails tend to increase accountability as track of what is written and said is easily accessed and kept. In the coming 18 months, most probably we'll witness the popping up of several websites promoting the various candidates who'll be contesting the General Election. All will probably include an email-the-person section. I think that for the forseeable future, this will be the utilisation of new ways of communications as all politicians will dedicate more time to visit personally their constitutents.
Malta's size facilitates the task to visit every constituent if possible. This is still valued as the most important tool to persuade voters. This is still the most favourite way how constituents want to meet their candidates. The personal touch is still given the importance. I still believe that this is the key for successful election bids.
I believe that if political parties take the bold step to move out from the local media scene and free the airwaves from their presence, then there will be more room for development for the role of new media in the political field. Until then politicians still prefer to blog their views on the traditional media via sound-clips and talking points rather then on the net. I think that the majority of the constituents still prefer their politicians to ride the (media) wave then having to surf the net to see what they're after.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
