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.