CHAPTER ONE
Political Communications and the decline in electoral participation
Is technology an ally of democracy? Or is it its enemy? Do new ways to share information and for citizens to communicate with each other, create a more informed and engaged public? It is tempting to answer yes and for centuries going back to the invention of the flatbed printing press , to the rise of newspapers in the 19th century, it did indeed appear that new ways to spread ideas led to a more informed public and contributed to the creation of freer and more democratic societies. Political communication was, perhaps, something positive.
The twentieth century witnessed dramatic changes in technology which had a revolutionary impact on how politicians communicated with the public. The spread of radio and cinema in the 1920s and 30s, for the first time, allowed party leaders to address entire nations. The need for arduous touring and addressing countless meetings began to ebb away as campaigns became national and more centralised. Political parties saw this as a positive development which would allow political information to reach into every home and therefore contribute to a stronger democracy.
Serious doubts about the beneficial impact of radio and cinema for political communication soon began to surface as the apparent power of these mediums was used, particularly by Josef Goebbels in Nazi Germany, for propaganda. Today many regard the technological developments of the early 20th century as the birth of problems with voter engagement. As national campaigning increasingly dominated over local activities and party leaders began to retreat from the public into broadcasting studios distance began to grow between electors and elected.
The arrival of television and its spread throughout the 1950s and 1960s created yet another new medium which was initially heralded for its potential to create a better informed public and strengthen democracy. Particularly in Europe, where a strong culture of public service broadcasting (PSB) developed, national TV stations were committed to educational, political and cultural programming, as well as to entertaining the audience.
Although European national TV stations did uphold their PSB mission, it is argued that TV also had a negative impact on political communications and democracy. Television led to the rise of image. Audiences increasingly formed their opinions based not on what was being said but on how those saying it looked and the visual context in which they were saying it.
Famously a TV debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon in the run up to the 1960 US Presidential election was judged to have been won by Nixon among those who heard the debate on radio. Due to his unshaven look and sweaty forehead, however, TV viewers judged Nixon to be the loser of the debate.
The art of TV campaigning, which focused on creating images and moods, rather than tackling serious policy issues was perhaps perfected in the 1980s during the Reagan presidency. In Europe, politicians also began to learn the importance of appearance and visual presentation with pioneers such as Gordon Reece and Tim Bell working on Margaret Thatcher’s image. For those who see the new technologies that have developed over the 20th century as having a negative impact on democracy the growth of TV made politicians focus their attention on how they looked and on using brief ‘sound bites’ which would be short on policy detail but ideal for inclusion in the evening news bulletin.
During the 1980s another process began which led to yet another transformation of the media landscape. Privatisation and deregulation swept across Europe and national TV stations which had enjoyed a near monopoly had to adjust in the face of a wave of new competition. The increasing pressure of competition, it is suggested, led to increased emphasis on mass appeal programming and to a reduction in investment in political, educational and cultural programming. Politicians apparently found themselves increasingly pushed out and having to use ever more creative or devious techniques to get themselves heard.
Increasing commercial pressures affected not only TV but all media as globalisation and competition drove radio and newspapers into mergers. This has lead to the creation of a relatively small number of huge, and extremely influential, profit driven media empires such as News Corporation and Time Warner. Within the journalistic community many argue that coverage of politics has suffered greatly in this process. Coverage became increasingly devoted to the more entertaining aspects of scandal and corruption as well as adversarial activities such as Prime Ministers Questions in the UK, while ignoring much of the day to day work in which politicians are involved.
TV and media competition, including the creation of 24 hour rolling news stations have made communication one of the central concerns of any political party. News management or ‘spin’ helps politicians to stay in the news and, as much as possible, in control of their messages. The result, it has been argued, is even more centralised control over political discussion within parties and between parties and the public.
The quality of debate declined and the focus on entertainment and image increased. The need for politicians to maintain their presence in this commercialised and competitive environment also led to the increasing use of opinion polls and focus groups to test and develop policy. This, possibly, has led to politicians becoming followers of public desires rather than leaders.
The need to fill vast amounts of air time has also led to a much greater reliance on input from experts or commentators on whatever is the issue of the day. Opinion and conjecture, in the absence of hard facts, has become an integral part of the news. This has created a situation where what is fact and what is opinion has become increasingly blurred. It has become increasingly difficult for the audience to judge who is right or wrong, who is telling the truth or lying.
Consequently, contend those who believe in the link between developments in the media landscape and voter disengagement, politicians were increasingly made to look corrupt and inefficient by media competing for ratings and advertising revenue. At the same time politicians themselves said less and less about real issues in order to try and control their own image and message in the media. Over the years, the public has become ever more disillusioned with the political process and is increasingly showing that disillusionment by not turning out to vote.
Added to this, it has also been argued that the need to use more sophisticated campaigning tools, including professional public relations (PR) and advertising agencies, has made political parties much more dependent on business interests or wealthy individuals. The resources needed to maintain a political media campaign could, it might be argued, lie at the heart of the ‘cash-for-honours’ scandal which beset Tony Blair’s government during its final months.
Specific issues relating to how the Labour Party in the UK developed its media strategies in the mid-1990s and then took those strategies into Government have also been the subject of endless argument. The powers given to Alastair Campbell as Director of Communications and to Jonathan Powell as Chief of Staff at 10 Downing Street to control the flow and timing of information released to the press, led to accusations that the media management system developed by Labour threatened the impartiality of the civil service and the relevance of Parliament.
Events surrounding the terrorist attacks on the United States of America on 11 September 2001, and the intelligence information published in the build up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 added much fire to these arguments. Although it is not within the scope of this research to discuss the merits of this debate, it is necessary to highlight the fact that several authors believe that the specific approach adopted by the Labour Party towards news management has directly contributed to growing disaffection with politicians in the UK. Sympathisers of the Government, meanwhile argue that it was forced to adopt this strategy because of the media’s relentless negative view of Labour pre-1994 and the ongoing decline in journalistic standards, caused primarily by the forces of privatisation, deregulation and globalisation.
Although powerful, evidence to support the argument that developments in media and in the relationship between media and politicians has actually contributed to greater voter disengagement, is inconclusive. It does seem that repeated exposure to negative messages about politics has an effect on the public’s attitude to politicians. Other research, however, carried out among those who regularly watch news on TV seems to indicate that the opposite may be true. Those who watch TV news may in fact become better informed and more engaged citizens. The issue of audience fragmentation still raises very serious issues. In theory it creates the possibility that those who are interested in politics search out the information they need and become better informed. Those who are not interested can now avoid politics completely.
Whereas up to the late 1980s anyone watching TV would at some point be faced with news or cultural programming, today that person can simply opt out. Perhaps levels of interest and trust in politics have not really changed, they have just been reinforced by media and audience fragmentation. A growing divide between those who are engaged with politics, and those who are not, and the impact this could potentially have on established democracies, is a cause for concern.
That people can completely avoid news about politics and current affairs seems hard to believe in view of the opportunities provided by radio news updates and the increasing number of free newspapers being distributed. If as has been argued in some quarters, exposure to news actually makes citizens more engaged rather than less, then perhaps our democracy is in a better shape than may at first appear.
Beyond the issues surrounding political communications and the media it is also important to bear in mind the fact that there are many other issues which may be contributing to low voter turn out in Western democracies. These include practical issues such as the procedures relating to registering to vote. These are frequently cited particularly in the United States and in those areas of the UK, like Hackney, where there is a high turnover of population. The fact that in the UK age is the most important factor in determining whether a person votes or not can be attributed to the greater mobility of young people rather than particular disengagement with political issues or politics in general.
There are also deeper structural issues including perhaps greater awareness that an individual’s single vote will probably not affect the overall outcome, and of the relative power of the legislature that is being voted for. Research carried out among MPs in East London, and discussed in the following chapter, highlights that even without the Labour government’s news management strategies, the actual ability of MPs to do anything effective to address their constituents concerns is severely limited.
Related to this is the possibility that the public is now more aware of other ways in which the decision process can be affected particularly through pressure groups. The huge rise in members of particular pressure groups over recent years can be used as evidence that people have not become disengaged with politics. They are just seeking different, and more effective, channels to have their concerns addressed. Again, it is younger people who generally choose to join such groups adding to the evidence which suggests that declining turnout is an issue of effective representation rather than communication. Recent announcements by Gordon Brown on becoming Prime Minister seem to acknowledge that people are looking for different, more effective forms of representation, rather than actually turning off from politics. Low turnout, it can be argued may not be a matter of increasing apathy, but rather the sign of a more thoughtful and sophisticated electorate.
The issue of how effective the current political system is at representing the concerns of voters is further complicated by the increasing complexity of society and of the decisions which politicians need to take. Politics is now a full time profession only open to those who are devoted to it from an early age. This has reduced the variety of backgrounds for MPs making them appear less representative and more remote from voters. Greater ethnic and social diversity may also have increased Parliament’s difficulties in representing the wider public. In this more complex scenario, the selection process of MPs has remained largely unchanged, left in the hands of a small number of local activists who select candidates on the basis of their own interests rather than of the wider community. The First Past The Post (FPTP) electoral system operated in the UK, which means that many votes are wasted, may also contribute to the systemic failure of the British political system to represent society.
The inability of MPs in the current political system to effectively represent their constituents also means that many of those who are socially excluded are unable to have their concerns addressed. This means that the weakest in society are also frequently the least likely to vote. This is a long term, long recognised problem which has been the subject of much research.
The disappearance of clear lines of social division has also removed much of the ideological conflict that may have maintained an unrealistically high turnout in the second half of the twentieth century. The recent turnout in the French Presidential elections would indicate that ideological contention could quickly resurrect turnout in post-industrial societies. Increasing levels of prosperity and education have led to many people developing more specialised interests, both political and social. Perhaps high levels of political party membership in the 1950s were not the result of a particular commitment but due to the fact that there was nothing more exciting to do than attend the local Conservative Party dinner dance.
Aside from all these structural issues on how politics in the UK works and how society has changed, there is also the fact that in 2001 and 2005, the result of the general elections was believed to be a foregone conclusion.
So, where does all this leave the issue of new media in political communications? It has been shown that the development of increasingly professionalised news and media strategies by political parties and the relationship between politicians and media may well have contributed to declining levels of trust in politics and politicians. However, the extent to which these developments have been the primary cause of this disaffection can be strongly contested.
Whether one believes that political disengagement, particularly among young people, is primarily due to media manipulation by politicians or declining standards of journalism, or whether it is due to structural issues within society and the UK’s political system, new media could still potentially play a constructive role. For those who believe in the former new media could provide a tool to verify the claims of politicians, or for politicians to get away from the sound bite and scandal obsessed media. For those who support the latter hypothesis, new media could provide one of the forums in which the political system and the public could reconnect and debate how British democracy might be reformed to make it more representative. Through their interactivity and proliferation, new media technologies potentially lend themselves to this discussion and have already been cited as the determining factor in increasing turnout and the outcome of electoral contests.
Clearly the development of new media based on Internet and mobile technology can only be one part of any solution to debates around the strength and legitimacy of British democracy. However, any new technology has the ability to be a conduit for change, either positive or negative. Young people are the least likely to vote and among the most likely to use new communications technologies. It is therefore worthwhile to examine what the potential of these new technologies is and whether they can contribute at least some part towards creating a better democracy.
Monday, 5 November 2007
Sunday, 4 November 2007
Introduction
With two days to go before I collect my certificate, I thought i'd start posting the contents of my dissertation.
Here's the introduction. It seems the footnotes which include the referencing don't appear. This is a bit of a pain and something I will try and recitfy so that everyone gets their fair recognition.
This work, of course, belongs to me and to the University of Westminster. Read it, comment on it, refer to it if you think it's useful but don't steal it!
INTRODUCTION
Political engagement in the United Kingdom, especially among young people, has caused growing concern over the past decade. In the 2005 general election turnout among 18 to 24 years olds stood at just 37 per cent.
The reasons put forward for low turnout are many and complex. One issue that has gained much attention during the period of the Blair Labour Government is that of political communications.
A debate has raged over the quality of political debate in the United Kingdom and whether this because of politicians’ attempts to manipulate news or the declining quality of journalism due to various pressures. This perceived decline in the quality of political debate is seen by many in politics and in the media as a primary factor in lower political engagement.
This dissertation aims to analyse whether, and if so to what extent, issues of political communications have had an impact on voter turnout, particularly among young people. It also aims to test the perceptions of different specific groups within society on the potential of new media technologies, particularly Internet based services, to address this problem.
Chapter 1 of this dissertation examines the debate on low levels of political engagement including the issue of whether, or to what extent, how politicians communicate and how the media reports on politics is affecting political engagement.
It concludes that although issues of communication and media are not the most important factor in political disengagement among young people in the United Kingdom, the use of new media in political communications could still have the potential to have a positive impact on democracy.
This will create the context from which to move forward to the main topic to be tackled by this paper. This will be an examination of the perceptions of different groups on what exactly the potential of new media is. How, if at all, can the proliferation of mobile telephony and the Internet be used to engage more people, particularly young people from ethnic minorities, in the political process?
The primary research for this dissertation was conducted in the London borough of Hackney. The borough was chosen for a number of reasons. Firstly, the two constituencies that represent the area both had a turnout of less than 50 per cent in the 2005 general election. Secondly, the population of the borough has a relatively youthful profile.
Chapter 2 will examine issues affecting democracy and political engagement in Hackney. This will establish whether the issues discussed in the first chapter are also relevant in the local context. Chapter 3 gives an overview of the methodology used in the primary research and lists the participants. Three separate groups were surveyed in order to test the perceptions on how new media might be used, and why it might help to address problems of political engagement. These were a group of local councillors, a group of community leaders including representatives from Team Hackney, and a group of young people of Afro Caribbean origin.
All agreed that new media technologies have the potential to strengthen democracy. But significant differences emerged on the particular issues that these technologies could be used to address. These differences were based on the different perceptions of what the causes of disengagement among young people are. The results of the research and their implications are discussed in Chapters 4 and 5.
The final chapter provides a general conclusion together with some recommendations on how new media technologies could be used in political communications to engage more young people and strengthen the democratic process in the United Kingdom.
Here's the introduction. It seems the footnotes which include the referencing don't appear. This is a bit of a pain and something I will try and recitfy so that everyone gets their fair recognition.
This work, of course, belongs to me and to the University of Westminster. Read it, comment on it, refer to it if you think it's useful but don't steal it!
INTRODUCTION
Political engagement in the United Kingdom, especially among young people, has caused growing concern over the past decade. In the 2005 general election turnout among 18 to 24 years olds stood at just 37 per cent.
The reasons put forward for low turnout are many and complex. One issue that has gained much attention during the period of the Blair Labour Government is that of political communications.
A debate has raged over the quality of political debate in the United Kingdom and whether this because of politicians’ attempts to manipulate news or the declining quality of journalism due to various pressures. This perceived decline in the quality of political debate is seen by many in politics and in the media as a primary factor in lower political engagement.
This dissertation aims to analyse whether, and if so to what extent, issues of political communications have had an impact on voter turnout, particularly among young people. It also aims to test the perceptions of different specific groups within society on the potential of new media technologies, particularly Internet based services, to address this problem.
Chapter 1 of this dissertation examines the debate on low levels of political engagement including the issue of whether, or to what extent, how politicians communicate and how the media reports on politics is affecting political engagement.
It concludes that although issues of communication and media are not the most important factor in political disengagement among young people in the United Kingdom, the use of new media in political communications could still have the potential to have a positive impact on democracy.
This will create the context from which to move forward to the main topic to be tackled by this paper. This will be an examination of the perceptions of different groups on what exactly the potential of new media is. How, if at all, can the proliferation of mobile telephony and the Internet be used to engage more people, particularly young people from ethnic minorities, in the political process?
The primary research for this dissertation was conducted in the London borough of Hackney. The borough was chosen for a number of reasons. Firstly, the two constituencies that represent the area both had a turnout of less than 50 per cent in the 2005 general election. Secondly, the population of the borough has a relatively youthful profile.
Chapter 2 will examine issues affecting democracy and political engagement in Hackney. This will establish whether the issues discussed in the first chapter are also relevant in the local context. Chapter 3 gives an overview of the methodology used in the primary research and lists the participants. Three separate groups were surveyed in order to test the perceptions on how new media might be used, and why it might help to address problems of political engagement. These were a group of local councillors, a group of community leaders including representatives from Team Hackney, and a group of young people of Afro Caribbean origin.
All agreed that new media technologies have the potential to strengthen democracy. But significant differences emerged on the particular issues that these technologies could be used to address. These differences were based on the different perceptions of what the causes of disengagement among young people are. The results of the research and their implications are discussed in Chapters 4 and 5.
The final chapter provides a general conclusion together with some recommendations on how new media technologies could be used in political communications to engage more young people and strengthen the democratic process in the United Kingdom.
Monday, 29 October 2007
About Time
Nearly three months since I last posted anything so it's about time i updated things. The dissertation came and went. I got 76 for my efforts which means a distinction in my Masters. I will get round to uploading it soon so it'll be out there for anyone who's interested.
Now for the excuses for not blogging. Moving house has meant no internet. Starting work full time has meant less time. And, obviously, I've been lazy. But I hope that things hace settled down a bit I'll get back into the swing of things
Now for the excuses for not blogging. Moving house has meant no internet. Starting work full time has meant less time. And, obviously, I've been lazy. But I hope that things hace settled down a bit I'll get back into the swing of things
Saturday, 4 August 2007
What I Learnt Last Night
Here's the first draft for my dissertation following a meeting last night at the Methodist Church on Mare Street.
On 3 August 2007 the author met with the group who had filled in the questionnaire in order to discuss the above findings. There was general agreement with the conclusions reached. However, a number of interesting points emerged.
The use of new media technologies in political communications will not change anything unless it is accompanied by more profound reform in the political system. Asked to reflect not just on their own views but also those of their peer group, the participants felt that there was potential for new media to bring politicians and young voters closer together, to generate greater understanding, and to increase participation.
The idea that the traditional media have had an overtly negative effect on political engagement did not have much currency with the group who emphasised that they were able to distinguish between ‘serious news’ and more frivolous items. There was an acceptance that the media do sensationalise certain stories to make for more interesting reading but generally the participants felt both they, and their peers, were clearly able to prioritise issues.
In effect the participants were adamant that what has been referred to throughout this study as the theory of media malaise was not the main cause for voter disaffection and that this was also the case among their peer group in the Afro Caribbean community.
The main issues of concern for the group revolved around effective representation. Although there was some criticism of the performance of politicians, particularly the local MPs, what emerged was a clear feeling that the current political system is not able to represent their concerns as individuals nor as members of their community.
Encouragingly a number of solutions were put forward for reforming the way national democracy functions. These included the idea of creating an organisation along the lines of the Commission for Racial Equality, but specifically geared towards young people or the reform of the elective legislatures of this country to allow for a youth parliament which would have some kind of impact on the legislative process.
The above are clearly complex issues, and debate over whether the current system as operated in the United Kingdom is need of reform is ongoing and beyond the scope of this research. However, what this discussion does prove is that there is interest in politics, that young people would like to be engaged, and are willing to discuss possible alternatives to the current system with politicians.
It is for this reason that they view new media technologies as a positive communications tool. It has the potential to allow them to contribute to, or even initiate, a discussion of which they want to be part of. But the agenda for that discussion is not to reverse the decline in the standing of politicians due to media sensationalism or to encourage more young people to vote. The agenda for this particular group of young people is to address a deeply felt need for a commitment to reform and to a more effective form of representation beyond having a single MP to be made.
This feeling, which according to the participants, is generally reflected across their peer group, has serious consequences for the political class in Hackney who as we have seen do place a lot more emphasis on the role the media plays in creating a negative image of politicians and politics. There is little desire for politicians to be ridiculed and there is interest in issues but there seems but at present young people feel there is little point in bothering to engage in politics because concerns never seem to be addressed.
This failure is put down to unsatisfactory performance by politicians but the greater emphasis is on the fact that MPs can not really affect change and that, even if they could, one MP representing some 70,000 constituents simply can not be in a position to truly address the concerns of everyone. On this factor, the more favourable view of the local council which emerged from the questionnaires was also reflected in the conversation. Local councillors were seen as trying too hard to be in the local media and not looking after the concerns of constituents as much as they could. They were, however, seen as more representative of the communities in Hackney, and as being able to really influence matters of concern to individuals or neighbourhoods.
At national level another issue that was debated was the difference in political views between the parties. This part of the discussion was definitely a secondary theme for the group, whose emphasis on their feelings of not being effectively represented has already been made clear. It is still important to note a certain amount of confusion on what the main political parties stood for and whether there was any substantive difference between them.
A suggestion was made that perhaps classes on the political views of the major parties be introduced in schools in order for there to be greater understanding on what they represent. This brings us back to the issue discussed in the opening chapter of this study. Namely, that one of the reasons for declining voter turnout is that with the ideological battles between left and right which dominated politics over the twentieth century largely settled, political parties have coalesced around a centre ground with most people feeling unaffected by whether a particular party is in power or not and focussing on who might be the most able ‘manager’ of the country.
This lack of ideological conflict seems to have bread uncertainty about what the different parties stand for and although new media technologies could be used to help young people understand the differences that may exist, we should perhaps be willing to consider the possibility that current levels of turnout reflect the norm of a society which overall does not have any serious internal conflicts and view the situation throughout the twentieth century as being the exception.
Overall the experience gained from this aspect of the research was encouraging. Although the small nature of the sample must always be borne in mind and the conclusions reached can only be viewed as suggestive, it seems that young people within the Afro Caribbean community do care about politics and would like to get involved in shaping the future of their community and the country.
Although the lack of ideological conflict may mean that a return to voting figures of the latter part of the twentieth century may be unfeasible, young people do believe that new media technologies have the potential to play an effective part in enhancing democracy and participation in elections. However, the trend that emerged from the questionnaires, namely that there is great scepticism about whether politicians can really effectively deal with their concerns, and some scepticism over whether they really want to address those concerns, seems to hold true.
Communication is a good thing but the overwhelming feeling taken by the author from this follow up discussion is that what is really needed is reform of the political system, not of the way the media operates, nor of the way politicians communicate with their constituents. The potential of new media in political communication can only be fulfilled as part of a wider programme of reform which lets young people feel that their concerns are really represented in the legislative process and the Government of the United Kingdom.
On 3 August 2007 the author met with the group who had filled in the questionnaire in order to discuss the above findings. There was general agreement with the conclusions reached. However, a number of interesting points emerged.
The use of new media technologies in political communications will not change anything unless it is accompanied by more profound reform in the political system. Asked to reflect not just on their own views but also those of their peer group, the participants felt that there was potential for new media to bring politicians and young voters closer together, to generate greater understanding, and to increase participation.
The idea that the traditional media have had an overtly negative effect on political engagement did not have much currency with the group who emphasised that they were able to distinguish between ‘serious news’ and more frivolous items. There was an acceptance that the media do sensationalise certain stories to make for more interesting reading but generally the participants felt both they, and their peers, were clearly able to prioritise issues.
In effect the participants were adamant that what has been referred to throughout this study as the theory of media malaise was not the main cause for voter disaffection and that this was also the case among their peer group in the Afro Caribbean community.
The main issues of concern for the group revolved around effective representation. Although there was some criticism of the performance of politicians, particularly the local MPs, what emerged was a clear feeling that the current political system is not able to represent their concerns as individuals nor as members of their community.
Encouragingly a number of solutions were put forward for reforming the way national democracy functions. These included the idea of creating an organisation along the lines of the Commission for Racial Equality, but specifically geared towards young people or the reform of the elective legislatures of this country to allow for a youth parliament which would have some kind of impact on the legislative process.
The above are clearly complex issues, and debate over whether the current system as operated in the United Kingdom is need of reform is ongoing and beyond the scope of this research. However, what this discussion does prove is that there is interest in politics, that young people would like to be engaged, and are willing to discuss possible alternatives to the current system with politicians.
It is for this reason that they view new media technologies as a positive communications tool. It has the potential to allow them to contribute to, or even initiate, a discussion of which they want to be part of. But the agenda for that discussion is not to reverse the decline in the standing of politicians due to media sensationalism or to encourage more young people to vote. The agenda for this particular group of young people is to address a deeply felt need for a commitment to reform and to a more effective form of representation beyond having a single MP to be made.
This feeling, which according to the participants, is generally reflected across their peer group, has serious consequences for the political class in Hackney who as we have seen do place a lot more emphasis on the role the media plays in creating a negative image of politicians and politics. There is little desire for politicians to be ridiculed and there is interest in issues but there seems but at present young people feel there is little point in bothering to engage in politics because concerns never seem to be addressed.
This failure is put down to unsatisfactory performance by politicians but the greater emphasis is on the fact that MPs can not really affect change and that, even if they could, one MP representing some 70,000 constituents simply can not be in a position to truly address the concerns of everyone. On this factor, the more favourable view of the local council which emerged from the questionnaires was also reflected in the conversation. Local councillors were seen as trying too hard to be in the local media and not looking after the concerns of constituents as much as they could. They were, however, seen as more representative of the communities in Hackney, and as being able to really influence matters of concern to individuals or neighbourhoods.
At national level another issue that was debated was the difference in political views between the parties. This part of the discussion was definitely a secondary theme for the group, whose emphasis on their feelings of not being effectively represented has already been made clear. It is still important to note a certain amount of confusion on what the main political parties stood for and whether there was any substantive difference between them.
A suggestion was made that perhaps classes on the political views of the major parties be introduced in schools in order for there to be greater understanding on what they represent. This brings us back to the issue discussed in the opening chapter of this study. Namely, that one of the reasons for declining voter turnout is that with the ideological battles between left and right which dominated politics over the twentieth century largely settled, political parties have coalesced around a centre ground with most people feeling unaffected by whether a particular party is in power or not and focussing on who might be the most able ‘manager’ of the country.
This lack of ideological conflict seems to have bread uncertainty about what the different parties stand for and although new media technologies could be used to help young people understand the differences that may exist, we should perhaps be willing to consider the possibility that current levels of turnout reflect the norm of a society which overall does not have any serious internal conflicts and view the situation throughout the twentieth century as being the exception.
Overall the experience gained from this aspect of the research was encouraging. Although the small nature of the sample must always be borne in mind and the conclusions reached can only be viewed as suggestive, it seems that young people within the Afro Caribbean community do care about politics and would like to get involved in shaping the future of their community and the country.
Although the lack of ideological conflict may mean that a return to voting figures of the latter part of the twentieth century may be unfeasible, young people do believe that new media technologies have the potential to play an effective part in enhancing democracy and participation in elections. However, the trend that emerged from the questionnaires, namely that there is great scepticism about whether politicians can really effectively deal with their concerns, and some scepticism over whether they really want to address those concerns, seems to hold true.
Communication is a good thing but the overwhelming feeling taken by the author from this follow up discussion is that what is really needed is reform of the political system, not of the way the media operates, nor of the way politicians communicate with their constituents. The potential of new media in political communication can only be fulfilled as part of a wider programme of reform which lets young people feel that their concerns are really represented in the legislative process and the Government of the United Kingdom.
Tuesday, 31 July 2007
How much is too much?
I’ve been a bit quiet over the last couple of weeks mainly because life has been manic. The trip to Malta went well and it was good to catch up with everyone. Trying to fit all the social obligations in made it quite a hectic week but I still managed to get in a morning at Ghajn Tuffieha, enjoying a swim in the glorious clear seas before all the bloody tourists turned up (I suppose I’m a tourist too now).
The flight back was a bit of a nightmare. The flight was delayed by about four hours and then my case didn’t turn up this end. We are still chasing BA but I get the feeling that’s the last I’ve seen of it – and of the dissertation notes I made while I was out there. Urghh!!!
Since we’ve been back I have managed to get some writing done and to really start looking at the data collected. It seems that the community stakeholders of Hackney are somewhat more idealistic about things than the politicians.
The trends seem to show that politicians think they do an OK job but that media and society have turned against them (I am being very simplistic here!) while community stakeholders seem to think that politicians could do a much better job but that the most important factor in engaging voters is not necessarily a communications challenge but one of improving conditions in society.
Anyway, more of that as we get nearer the end of this project. I’ve also been doing some more research on the background of Hackney and the way society in the borough has changed over the last century. Apart from a few hours in Hackney’s central library, I’ll also be off to meet the people from the Methodist church who filled in my youth questionnaire to go through what they said and see what the reaction is. More on that at the weekend.
Apart from all this dissertation stuff there is of course all the ongoing stuff at Propeller and our efforts to set up an online PR unit. It’s going OK and I think we’ve pretty much worked out how the whole thing works so hopefully we’ll be able to get going soon. We are testing our product with Grasswhispers. Tomorrow I should be able to see the first results of our efforts. Fingers crossed!
Oh, and I’ve also been preparing some stuff for EiA and their new PR push over the next few months. Hopefully I can get them to come on board with Propeller Online to help us develop the offering further.
Amongst all that we also managed to squeeze in a trip to the Emirates on Saturday so Clare has finally had her chance to see Arsenal at the new stadium and the odd 30th birthday part. It’s all the rage at the moment! Finally, it looks like we’ve also found somewhere to live after our contract at the University expires at the end of August. Because we’re not in full time employment at the moment we’ve going to have to pay £3,000 up front. Thank God for parents!
I can’t wait for this month to be over. By then this research will be over, I’ll have a full time job (hopefully?!), and we’ll be in a proper house. Maybe then I’ll be able to calm down a bit!
The flight back was a bit of a nightmare. The flight was delayed by about four hours and then my case didn’t turn up this end. We are still chasing BA but I get the feeling that’s the last I’ve seen of it – and of the dissertation notes I made while I was out there. Urghh!!!
Since we’ve been back I have managed to get some writing done and to really start looking at the data collected. It seems that the community stakeholders of Hackney are somewhat more idealistic about things than the politicians.
The trends seem to show that politicians think they do an OK job but that media and society have turned against them (I am being very simplistic here!) while community stakeholders seem to think that politicians could do a much better job but that the most important factor in engaging voters is not necessarily a communications challenge but one of improving conditions in society.
Anyway, more of that as we get nearer the end of this project. I’ve also been doing some more research on the background of Hackney and the way society in the borough has changed over the last century. Apart from a few hours in Hackney’s central library, I’ll also be off to meet the people from the Methodist church who filled in my youth questionnaire to go through what they said and see what the reaction is. More on that at the weekend.
Apart from all this dissertation stuff there is of course all the ongoing stuff at Propeller and our efforts to set up an online PR unit. It’s going OK and I think we’ve pretty much worked out how the whole thing works so hopefully we’ll be able to get going soon. We are testing our product with Grasswhispers. Tomorrow I should be able to see the first results of our efforts. Fingers crossed!
Oh, and I’ve also been preparing some stuff for EiA and their new PR push over the next few months. Hopefully I can get them to come on board with Propeller Online to help us develop the offering further.
Amongst all that we also managed to squeeze in a trip to the Emirates on Saturday so Clare has finally had her chance to see Arsenal at the new stadium and the odd 30th birthday part. It’s all the rage at the moment! Finally, it looks like we’ve also found somewhere to live after our contract at the University expires at the end of August. Because we’re not in full time employment at the moment we’ve going to have to pay £3,000 up front. Thank God for parents!
I can’t wait for this month to be over. By then this research will be over, I’ll have a full time job (hopefully?!), and we’ll be in a proper house. Maybe then I’ll be able to calm down a bit!
Tuesday, 17 July 2007
Ozzie Rules
Back in Malta for a week of sun ... Here's something that's just come up on timesofmalta.com.
Breaking News
Australian PM takes election campaign to YouTube
[17/07/2007 - 12:56]
Australia's conservative leader John Howard took his re-election campaign to the Internet, targeting youth culture as he delivered new measures to fight climate change.
Howard, who turns 68 next week and has been prime minister for 11 years, is trying to counter political attacks that he is old and out of touch. Dressed in a suit and with the Australian flag in the background, Howard launched the environment policy on the popular video Web site YouTube in a speech lasting about two minutes.
Viewers gave him a decidedly mixed response. 'This is another Howard sham. Another knee jerk reaction from a dinosaure (sic) in it's political death throws,' wrote YouTube contributor robbamcrobot. Many responses were even more blunt and a number called for the prime minister to retire, although some were supportive of his first foray onto the Internet. 'You rock John!! The others are stuck in their sorry world where anything and anything anti-government is 'cool'... its scary to think they have the power to vote. your doing an awesome job! (all sic),' wrote contributor shallowblue.
Until now, Howard has always preferred talkback radio to reach voters.
His age has become a political issue in Australia in the lead up to elections due within five months. Climate change has also become a hot topic for voters after the worst drought onr ecord. His government's perceived lack of action in tackling global warming, such as failure to sign the Kyoto Protocol climate pact or reluctance to agree to targets to cut greenhouse emissions, has angered many voters.
The opposition Labor party stepped up its attack with its own YouTube and television ad showing Howard in bed and sleeping through four alarms warning of the dangers of global warming and his refusal to set greenhouse gas targets. 'But he won't set targets, until after the election. Howard's asleep on climate change. 11 years. Still asleep,' the narrator says as Howard sleeps on. Centre-left Labor has a strong lead in opinion polls and has attempted to portray Howard as a man who is stuck in the past compared to Labor leader Kevin Rudd, who is 18 years younger. Rudd turns 50 in September.
In the United States, presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have used the Internet to reach a new generation of supporters. Clinton used the Internet to post a send-up video of the final episode of the hit television series 'The Sopranos', announcing the winning anthem for her presidential campaign would be Celine Dion's 'You and I'. A video song 'Obama Girl' on YouTube, where women swoon for Clinton's rival Obama, has received more than one million hits.
Howard's performance was more conservative in style as he announced millions of dollars for schools to install solar hot water systems. 'Australia will more than play its part to address climate change, but we will do it in a practical and balanced way, in full knowledge of the economic consequences for our nation,' he says.
Hours after it was posted, Howard's YouTube message had received thousands of views and hundreds of comments, the vast number uncomplimentary.
Breaking News
Australian PM takes election campaign to YouTube
[17/07/2007 - 12:56]
Australia's conservative leader John Howard took his re-election campaign to the Internet, targeting youth culture as he delivered new measures to fight climate change.
Howard, who turns 68 next week and has been prime minister for 11 years, is trying to counter political attacks that he is old and out of touch. Dressed in a suit and with the Australian flag in the background, Howard launched the environment policy on the popular video Web site YouTube in a speech lasting about two minutes.
Viewers gave him a decidedly mixed response. 'This is another Howard sham. Another knee jerk reaction from a dinosaure (sic) in it's political death throws,' wrote YouTube contributor robbamcrobot. Many responses were even more blunt and a number called for the prime minister to retire, although some were supportive of his first foray onto the Internet. 'You rock John!! The others are stuck in their sorry world where anything and anything anti-government is 'cool'... its scary to think they have the power to vote. your doing an awesome job! (all sic),' wrote contributor shallowblue.
Until now, Howard has always preferred talkback radio to reach voters.
His age has become a political issue in Australia in the lead up to elections due within five months. Climate change has also become a hot topic for voters after the worst drought onr ecord. His government's perceived lack of action in tackling global warming, such as failure to sign the Kyoto Protocol climate pact or reluctance to agree to targets to cut greenhouse emissions, has angered many voters.
The opposition Labor party stepped up its attack with its own YouTube and television ad showing Howard in bed and sleeping through four alarms warning of the dangers of global warming and his refusal to set greenhouse gas targets. 'But he won't set targets, until after the election. Howard's asleep on climate change. 11 years. Still asleep,' the narrator says as Howard sleeps on. Centre-left Labor has a strong lead in opinion polls and has attempted to portray Howard as a man who is stuck in the past compared to Labor leader Kevin Rudd, who is 18 years younger. Rudd turns 50 in September.
In the United States, presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have used the Internet to reach a new generation of supporters. Clinton used the Internet to post a send-up video of the final episode of the hit television series 'The Sopranos', announcing the winning anthem for her presidential campaign would be Celine Dion's 'You and I'. A video song 'Obama Girl' on YouTube, where women swoon for Clinton's rival Obama, has received more than one million hits.
Howard's performance was more conservative in style as he announced millions of dollars for schools to install solar hot water systems. 'Australia will more than play its part to address climate change, but we will do it in a practical and balanced way, in full knowledge of the economic consequences for our nation,' he says.
Hours after it was posted, Howard's YouTube message had received thousands of views and hundreds of comments, the vast number uncomplimentary.
Wednesday, 11 July 2007
Politicians vs Media
The report of the the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee relating to the actions of the PCC with regards to coverage of Prince William's relationship with Kate Middleton and the News of the World's royal vociemail tapping incident continues to build on the theme increasingly put forward by this country's political class.
While stating that there is nothing better than self regulation and that a free press is a cornerstone of democracy the message is becoming ever stronger that standards in the media are simply not good enough and that self-regulations has to be seen to be effective to be credible etc.
In other words we are in a period of very thinly veiled threats to the media to improve its behaviour. After all, falling standards means a less well informed public and would be a threat to democracy.
All this talk, of course, goes back a long way. It is just the latest manifestation of the inherent tension between politics and media. Politicians themselves are to blame for declining standrads of debate beacuse they want to be on TV and TV isn't the place for debate, it's the place for entertainment. They are also the ones who want to avoid discussion and focuse on personalities because this helps them to avoid tackling issues. Politics is not about policy or principal anymore, it's about getting elected.
Meanwhile the media, which is also in business to entertain and make money, and not to inform or educate plays along with the show, focussing on the trivial and cutting resources focsussed on policies and issues.
So why now all this fuss from the politicians? Why was one of Tony Blair's final parting shots aimed at suggesting that something had to be done to help improve the nature of policial discourse in this country? I suppose concerns over the legitamcy of Parliament and the nature of the UK state are reaching a critical point. Perhaps both sides have realised they have pushed things too far. Gordon Brown's first inititiaves seem very much to have been aimed at re-engaging the electorate.
But, I don't see how any of this is going to work. If you regulate the media, it will become dull and no one will watch or listen. How can you regulate content if you are operating ina dregulate dfree market economy. Unfortunately the commercial pressures on media created by the structure in which they operate and the need of politicians to have a high profile means that I can't really see a way for the quality of debate to improve.
What we need is for people to genuinely become interested in politics and policies and that is simply not going to happen when there are no fundamental ideological differences to debate and when life is simply too fast to sit down and think about what you actually might belief or want.
While stating that there is nothing better than self regulation and that a free press is a cornerstone of democracy the message is becoming ever stronger that standards in the media are simply not good enough and that self-regulations has to be seen to be effective to be credible etc.
In other words we are in a period of very thinly veiled threats to the media to improve its behaviour. After all, falling standards means a less well informed public and would be a threat to democracy.
All this talk, of course, goes back a long way. It is just the latest manifestation of the inherent tension between politics and media. Politicians themselves are to blame for declining standrads of debate beacuse they want to be on TV and TV isn't the place for debate, it's the place for entertainment. They are also the ones who want to avoid discussion and focuse on personalities because this helps them to avoid tackling issues. Politics is not about policy or principal anymore, it's about getting elected.
Meanwhile the media, which is also in business to entertain and make money, and not to inform or educate plays along with the show, focussing on the trivial and cutting resources focsussed on policies and issues.
So why now all this fuss from the politicians? Why was one of Tony Blair's final parting shots aimed at suggesting that something had to be done to help improve the nature of policial discourse in this country? I suppose concerns over the legitamcy of Parliament and the nature of the UK state are reaching a critical point. Perhaps both sides have realised they have pushed things too far. Gordon Brown's first inititiaves seem very much to have been aimed at re-engaging the electorate.
But, I don't see how any of this is going to work. If you regulate the media, it will become dull and no one will watch or listen. How can you regulate content if you are operating ina dregulate dfree market economy. Unfortunately the commercial pressures on media created by the structure in which they operate and the need of politicians to have a high profile means that I can't really see a way for the quality of debate to improve.
What we need is for people to genuinely become interested in politics and policies and that is simply not going to happen when there are no fundamental ideological differences to debate and when life is simply too fast to sit down and think about what you actually might belief or want.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
