Online Soapboxes: New Problems of New Communication

"We have a far more sophisticated audience today than in the past, one that sees more clearly behind the manipulations and stagecraft of its political leaders"

Allisa Quart

Technological developments were always substantial parts of any successful political communication campaign. Whether in ancient Greece during elections of their futures leaders by screaming on the marketplace to support their causes, or with the invention of the printing press throughout Europe in the 16th century, technological developments played a crucial role in any communication to the people. Political communicators quickly realized how important media communication was in any campaign, so mass media communication tools such as radio and Television were quickly adopted in their toolset soon after their introduction to the mass. Today, these tools are strategically used with very specific communicative tools in mind.

In contemporary political communication and public relations, social media and the digital space is not just a novelty, but a crucial tool for effective communication. Obama's 2008 political campaign is seen as the first successful and fully integrated political social media campaign in history. Obama's advisors quickly realized that social media communication was on the rise and that direct and open communication develops trust and transparency towards their potential voters. With their open approach to be transparent and more 'connected' to their audiences, the Obama campaign revolutionized political communication for future political campaigns around the world. But with this new communication tool and its power, new responsibility and problems occur.

When we look at the fundamental philosophical aspects of Social Media: transparency, sharing knowledge, information, contacts, content, profiling; we clearly see the importance for campaigning and political communication. Before the 'digital revolution' in our age of information, communication within politics had more control over their messages and how they distributed it. Now, with information traveling faster than ever and the highly tech-savvy average social media user, everyone has the power to manipulate messages and exploit political messages for their point of view.

While the political social media revolution changed the way politicians communicate with their audiences and spread their messages, individuals or 'enemies' have the same powert to change perceptions as well. At the same time, citizens are now actively being engaged to positively contribute to the cause and help winning elections. Clearly, social media not only changed the way we communicate with each other personally, but also on a political level.

The political digital revolution changed the way we support or destroy our causes. This development allows messages to spread faster than ever, which may be of advantage as well as a disadvantage for political communicators. Just like in crisis communication within corporations, social media should not be ignored but actively being followed and practitioners should manage the message by following the fundamental to give a feeling of trust within politics. A feeling that has been gone for far too long in this industry.

Politics 2.0 - The power of the Citizen shows how social media is now a fundamental part of any political campaign and how much power the citizens have.

‘Spinning Communication’ – Vice or Virtue of Democracy?

“We believe in shaping the mind of the public!”

Is this quote slightly disturbing to you or is this exactly how you see active engagement in democracy? With our freedom of speech we created, virtually anyone can say anything about anything they want and send their message across the public. This freedom of communication allows individuals to communicate in the way that suits them best. However, it is important to question which party is distributing what kind of information, in order to understand how information is being produced, processed and distributed.

The picture below is a small visual example of how the media could potentially ‘spin’ a story, following their own agenda. In the middle we see the actual picture. Left and right we see part of the picture, both telling a completely different story.

Every organization has their own agenda they follow and practice their activities according to it. With this in mind, how can we trust anyone if distribution of information is subjective on all levels? A fellow student at university provided an excellent example:

“If there is a suicide bomber in Palestine, CNN talks about a terrorist and Al Jazeera talks about a martyr”

Two news outlets that are supposed to ‘speak for the little man’ have two different approaches in providing information, eventually shaping the mind of the public with their own set of agenda. So if the media is subjective to their activities, how could anyone criticize political agendas and ‘spin doctors’? If the media is supposed to be a ‘watch dog’ of the government, but follow their own agenda, who are we, the public, to trust? It seems that there is little objectivity in providing political information and news for the public. This leaves us with little surprise that people trust more organizations that are ‘transparent and have honest practices’.

Public Relations practitioners within politics obviously have their own agenda and communicate accordingly. PR’s are the ‘advocates for just one voice’ and communicate between themselves and the public. However, if too much power over the communication is gained, how can a democratized environment be sustained? If Alistair Campbell chooses on purpose selected journalists during a press conference talking about critical issues, is this still part of the freedom of speech we are all proud of?

The line between representing the communication between a political party and their publics, and the distribution of selective information being sent is very thin. While one is a fundamental element of democracy and freedom of speech, the other one leans towards censorship and propaganda. So if both the media and other parties have their own agenda they follow, how can information be objective? If ‘spinning’ is a soft form of propaganda (Moloney, 2006), how can this happen in our political organization? Seems like our democratic system has some big flaws in it.

Clearly, this topic of contemporary theory and issues in public relations creates more questions than answers in an area of extreme importance for the industry and democratic practices.

So who are the real ‘spin doctors’ after all? It’s a question only oneself can answer.

Bibliography
Davis, Anthony. Mastering Public Relations. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. Print.