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.
Thursday, 11 January 2007
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.'
Thursday, 4 January 2007
Press Gazette
Not directly related to the subject of this blog but to the wider issue of news management is an article by Graham Holliday in 'tomorrow's' Press Gazette which looks at the increasing problem of separating advertising and editorial online. This is an issue which has already been mentioned in the Mediated Politics book in relation to the competitive pressures on the media and in the tactics politicians use to target voters.
On the same page there are also a few snippets of online comments regarding the speed with which mobile footage of Saddam Hussein's hanging appeared on Google and YouTube. Further clear evidence that the days when governments and / or newsrooms could control what information is released are over. The Iraqi government's PR debacle of the execution can perhaps also be seen as further proof of the need for sophisticated news management. A story can quickly turn against you if you're not organised!
On the same page there are also a few snippets of online comments regarding the speed with which mobile footage of Saddam Hussein's hanging appeared on Google and YouTube. Further clear evidence that the days when governments and / or newsrooms could control what information is released are over. The Iraqi government's PR debacle of the execution can perhaps also be seen as further proof of the need for sophisticated news management. A story can quickly turn against you if you're not organised!
Tuesday, 2 January 2007
Mediated Politics
After a few days off enjoying the festive season and then recovering from a cold, I’ve finally managed to get some more reading done. Actually I returned to the mediated politics book mentioned previously.
The main issues raised by the various contributors include the impact of the proliferation of communication channels which is increasingly blurring the boundaries between political and non political as well as between private and public discussion.
The segmentation of audiences once again emerged as a key issue which has resulted in communication strategies being more targeted. This coupled with increasing commercialisation of the media increases the risks of large numbers of the population being completely left out of important debates on public policy.
New technology also adds to the risk of leaving the most disadvantaged out of debates which could influence them the most profoundly. The gap between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’ could increase. Those who can afford new technology will be able to stay informed. Those who can not will be left out.
Despite the commercial interests of media owners which is encouraging increasing tabloidisation of the media, and the increasingly strategic and emotional political messages, it seems that the vast majority of people hold very stable views on issues and politics.
But the quality of political information the public is receiving is poor, specifically targeted and intended to draw out pre-tested emotional concerns.
This is a particular problem with issues which do not attract much interest from the media. Governments are able to pursue a policy agenda by putting across their point of view to a specifically targeted audience – essentially behind everyone else’s back.
Returning to the issue of commercialisation of media, the end of government regulation and the apparent decline of state broadcasting in some countries is creating increasing pressure to omit public service programming.
Most media outlets are now part of massive corporations and not locally owned. These organisations have a greater interest in profit than civic forces.
The internet has also made it increasingly difficult to define what is news
All this could have a profound impact on democracy but how is unclear.
As audiences become more segmented and media becomes more personalised, the possibility of maintaining large political organisations recedes. The public is also consequently looking for an increasingly personal approach from politicians. People are therefore less likely to be satisfied by standard government action.
The increasingly segmented audiences provide another headache for politicians. It may be possible to target all the different groups through different media and with different messages but how are political parties goingt o be able to create coherent policy out of the variety of responses they get from all these different audiences? This is potentially a very acute problem when coupled with the already mentioned fact that people increasingly want issues that affect them personally to be tackled rather than broader issues of ‘public good’.
Rather than bringing more people together increasing communication is driving people further apart by segmenting them according to their pre-existing opinions.
Politicians have quickly followed the marketers lead in to viewing voters as groups of consumers making it easier for people who do not fit in to a specific target audience to feel alienated.
Another major headache for politicians is the modern 24 hour news cycle which causes great waves of popular concern over issues but for a limited time period. For governments to create policy and enact legislation takes time. The politicians therefore seem increasingly out of touch with the public due to the fact that government simply has no way of keeping up with the changing media agenda.
It is clear that people care about politics and there may still be a basis for a coherent public opinion. But new communication channels and strategies are causing increasing alienation and the public is increasingly disgusted by the commercial way in which politicians try to target them especially at election time.
Today it is difficult to fathom the source of political information but there is still an interest and it is up to politicians and their advisers to find a way to recapture the trust of the voters.
The main issues raised by the various contributors include the impact of the proliferation of communication channels which is increasingly blurring the boundaries between political and non political as well as between private and public discussion.
The segmentation of audiences once again emerged as a key issue which has resulted in communication strategies being more targeted. This coupled with increasing commercialisation of the media increases the risks of large numbers of the population being completely left out of important debates on public policy.
New technology also adds to the risk of leaving the most disadvantaged out of debates which could influence them the most profoundly. The gap between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’ could increase. Those who can afford new technology will be able to stay informed. Those who can not will be left out.
Despite the commercial interests of media owners which is encouraging increasing tabloidisation of the media, and the increasingly strategic and emotional political messages, it seems that the vast majority of people hold very stable views on issues and politics.
But the quality of political information the public is receiving is poor, specifically targeted and intended to draw out pre-tested emotional concerns.
This is a particular problem with issues which do not attract much interest from the media. Governments are able to pursue a policy agenda by putting across their point of view to a specifically targeted audience – essentially behind everyone else’s back.
Returning to the issue of commercialisation of media, the end of government regulation and the apparent decline of state broadcasting in some countries is creating increasing pressure to omit public service programming.
Most media outlets are now part of massive corporations and not locally owned. These organisations have a greater interest in profit than civic forces.
The internet has also made it increasingly difficult to define what is news
All this could have a profound impact on democracy but how is unclear.
As audiences become more segmented and media becomes more personalised, the possibility of maintaining large political organisations recedes. The public is also consequently looking for an increasingly personal approach from politicians. People are therefore less likely to be satisfied by standard government action.
The increasingly segmented audiences provide another headache for politicians. It may be possible to target all the different groups through different media and with different messages but how are political parties goingt o be able to create coherent policy out of the variety of responses they get from all these different audiences? This is potentially a very acute problem when coupled with the already mentioned fact that people increasingly want issues that affect them personally to be tackled rather than broader issues of ‘public good’.
Rather than bringing more people together increasing communication is driving people further apart by segmenting them according to their pre-existing opinions.
Politicians have quickly followed the marketers lead in to viewing voters as groups of consumers making it easier for people who do not fit in to a specific target audience to feel alienated.
Another major headache for politicians is the modern 24 hour news cycle which causes great waves of popular concern over issues but for a limited time period. For governments to create policy and enact legislation takes time. The politicians therefore seem increasingly out of touch with the public due to the fact that government simply has no way of keeping up with the changing media agenda.
It is clear that people care about politics and there may still be a basis for a coherent public opinion. But new communication channels and strategies are causing increasing alienation and the public is increasingly disgusted by the commercial way in which politicians try to target them especially at election time.
Today it is difficult to fathom the source of political information but there is still an interest and it is up to politicians and their advisers to find a way to recapture the trust of the voters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
