Has PR and spin undermined trust in politics? To a certain degree.

The original motion at the Westminster University debate was:  “PR and spin have undermined trust in politics”, and it is a complicated matter. It would have been much easier had the motion been “PR and spin is the only reason why people have no trust in politics” or “PR and spin had no part in undermining trust in politics” (the answer would be “no” in both instances).

Personally I think that PR and spin has some responsibility for the trust deficit, but that politicians and the media also has played their part. What can be done about it?

Knowledge is power. Too much power

First of all, the system under Blair with Campbell as the autocratic ruler of all information was bound to be bad both for trust, for transparency and for democracy. In most democratic systems of governance, power is divided (between executive, legislature, and judiciary branches) to prevent anyone getting too powerful and thus threaten the democratic process.

A free and independent press is also crucial to a democracy, and “rewarding” “obedient” journalist or “punishing” journalists who dare to write things you don’t like, is a very slippery slope towards corruption. And if there is anything that corrodes trust, it’s corruption.

Together we stand, divided we fall

But here journalists and editors also have a role to play. Playing along with this game is completely self-destructive for a so-called free and independent press. I totally understand that being the only one who says no will be catastrophic for that newspaper, being the only one not getting the juicy news.

And I also get (and have witnessed first-hand) that there is so little money in newsrooms these days. Journalists are under a colossal pressure to produce sensational news, without being given the time or resources to do their job properly. To also go up against powerful government aids, might be a little too much to ask for.

But seriously, there is going to have to be a change in culture, and the media will have to put their foot down to such un-democratic tendencies. THAT is their job.

And it’s PRs job, as an ethical profession to make sure such practices are not being used, no matter how tempting.

Politicians need to get their act together

And lastly, if the main problem is a lack of trust in politicians (rather than politics, which is the system, rather than the people), then of course the politicians themselves bears the biggest responsibility to act trustworthy. As an elected represent of the people it is your duty to them to be intensely ethical, transparent and above board with everything. All the PR and the media coverage in the world can’t make or break you as good as you can yourself.

After the whole debate I ended up (as one of few) voting for the motion. I think PR and spin has at least played a part in the break-down of trust. I was appalled by the stories of the spin doctors’ behaviour, and the lack of backbone in the media. But in the end, if the politicians want to be trusted, then they had better start to act the part.

Has PR and spin undermined trust in politics? NO!

Yesterday we looked at the arguments for why PR and spin should take the blame for the lack of trust in politics, today we'll here some opposing views. Francis Ingham and Lance Price were on the panel athe the Westminster University deabte speaking in defence of PR, and here is what they had to say:

Francis Ingham agreed that spin has played a part in the loss of trust in politics, and then especially the excessive control practised by Alastair Campbell. He also agreed the PR gimmicks and obvious lies make politicians less trustworthy, as the public sees right through it.

He however refused to accept that PR was the singular or even main culprit, and pointed to the politicians themselves and the media as other possible offenders.

He pointed to the expense scandal, tory MPs preaching about family values only to be exposed as cheaters, and the hiring of Russian beauties (who turn out to be spies) as examples of how MP behaviour undermines trust, entirely without the help of spin doctors.

The media crisis

An increasingly sensationalist media also has to take part of the blame, he said. Political journalists have gone from reporting without question what politicians say, to now assume that everything that comes out of their mouths is a lie.

24-hour news and the incessant need for new angles and stories coupled with vicious cuts in news teams, demands sensational and dramatic stories.

A politician having a re-think about a decision becomes “an embarrassing U-turn”, and not only in the tabloids. Ingham concluded that while PR does play a part, it is a junior part compared to the other two culprits.

Spin is nothing new

Lance Price then claimed that professional political communication is actually good for politics, and indeed increases democracy. He pointed out that 20-30 years ago only the Tory party were using all the classical spinning techniques, and that Thatcher managed to convince voters that there was no real alternative to a Tory government. He felt that since only one side used spin, democracy suffered.

His other argument was that spin doctors are only as good as the politicians they work for. The only reason they could help get Blair into power was that he was already popular, and no amount of spin seemed to be able to save Gordon Brown.

He was also of the opinion that the politicians did a fine job of eroding trust themselves, with the help of a witch-hunting media. He said: “trust in politics is lost when politicians say one thing and do the oposit” and mentioned examples like the changing stances on tuition fees, forests and the importance of libraries.

Tomorrow I will look at both sides and analyse what we can learn from this debate.

Have PR and spin undermined trust in politics? YES!

You often hear that political ‘spin doctors’ are to blame for the lack of public trust British politicians are experiencing these days.  PR practitioners claim that it’s the journalists who are doing the spinning, and that the British press is the cause of politicians being so untrusted.

Interesting debate

I attended a debate at Westminster University a few weeks ago where the motion: “PR and spin have undermined trust in politics” was put forward. On the panel we found Kevin Maguire (political editor of the Daily Mail) and Sheila Gunn (formerly political journalist and John Major’s press spokesperson) for the motion and Lance Price (Former Labour spin doctor) and Francis Ingham (Chief Executive PRCA) against the motion. It was a really interesting debate and I found myself being swayed each time a new person presented their views.

I will today sum up the arguments for the motion, and tomorrow I will look at the arguments against it.

Abuse of power

Sheila Gunn told us about her experiences with Alastair Campbell during the Blair years. She told of how he had gotten himself in a position where he had full and absolute control of all information, and how he was not afraid to use this power to his advantage.

If journalists displeased him, he would refuse to talk to them again, and keep them from getting important info other, less upsetting journalists would get. If he was happy with you, he would drip feed you good stories.

Her point was that an all-powerful spin doctor is not healthy for democracy and that when good headlines becomes more important than running the country, a lack of trust will surely follow.

Personal experience

Kevin Maguire also blamed PR, saying that it’s the spin doctors that has to step up and take their part of the responsibility. And with a fine selection of anecdotes from his experiences with both Campbell and David Cameron when he used to work in PR, he made a very good case for the motion.

So spin doctors’ abuse of power and letting headlines become more important than politics are good reasons for why PR is guilty for the lack of trust in politics, but there are also very good reasons why they should not take all the blame. Find out tomorrow!

PR and journalism in the time of war – An uneasy relationship

War is by definition violent, bloody, ugly and gruesome. It’s a PR job to convince the people at home that it’s necessary.  

To do this job it is necessary to work with, and the PR practitioners find themselves in a bit of a catch-22. PR needs journalism to report stories that will make the people at home support the war, but by letting them have information and access to the front, they might lose control and end up with stories the world over damning the war.¨

The images of war

Pictures make the whole difference. They say a picture says more than a thousand words, and it is never truer than in wartime journalism.

There have been war reporting for as long as there has been journalism, but before the invention of the telegraph, the news was often not published until long after the events described, and contained few, if any, photographs.

With the new camera technology and moving images, the Second World War became the first war the people at home could SEE. But as cameras were still big and bulky, most of the images and footage was filmed by the army themselves, used in propaganda reports designed to boost morale at home. War journalists in those days mostly saw themselves as a part of the war effort, and happily kept in line with military policy.

As Hitler’s brutality spread across Europe, PR practitioners in Britain didn’t have a particularly difficult job getting across the message that the war was necessary.

In search of the truth

By the 1960s journalism had changed, and the wartime PR-business had failed to notice. Armed with SLRs and film cameras, independent journalists roamed free in Vietnam, reporting back on a war that was much harder to sell back home.

The journalists themselves were not playing ball anymore with the propaganda efforts. Showing the “true face of the war” was the new goal, and especially photojournalism became a nightmare for the American government.

Apart from maybe the Second World War, the Vietnam War is one of the most visually iconic wars in history. As striking photographs and film of Vietnamese suffering, and American brutality reached the American people, the protests and anti-war movement grew to astronomical hights.

This image, taken photographer by Nick Ut, of a little naked girl running away from a napalm attack won the Pulitzer Prize in 1972.  The girl’s story and new of the horrific burn damages to her back, was spread around the world. For the American administration it was a PR disaster.

Also on the home front was photojournalism a nuisance for the government. Millions of protesters make for striking visuals, and young girls putting flowers into guns is not something you forget easily

Blackout

American trust in war time journalism was none-existent after the war finally ended, and in the subsequent conflict, the invasion of Grenada in 1983, the US government decided that no journalists would be allowed in. “The Grenada Blackout” was seen by many as a direct result of the PR disaster that was the Vietnam war. The Reagan administration claimed that the Grenada invasion was a “special case” where media participation was not “appropriate”. (You can read more here)

This approach might work on the invasion of a small Caribbean island (an invasion that by the way had a lot of support in the US), but as the first Gulf War loomed, the PR machinery had to come up with a new strategy.

Strickt control

By 1991 we had mass media, including live coverage of the bombs raining over the enemy . The war was hailed as a “technological war” where the new weapons were so precise that there would be hardly any civilian loss of life

Still not wanting to lose control over what the media was reporting, they preferred keeping them in warehouses far away from the actual front, feeding them exactly the news they wanted to get out.

This strategy received a lot of criticism, and both the media and the people were suspicious that they were being kept in the dark, not allowed to know the “real truth”.

Embedded journalism

When the Bush-administration was gearing up for the war on Iraq, allegedly saving the world from Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, yet another PR strategy was implemented: Embedded journalism.

The PR people promised journalists full access to the front line, and the freedom to see experience exactly what the soldiers experienced, many journalists felt this was finally a good way of cooperation between the military and the media. The embedded journalists were in addition to those who stayed at the media headquarter, very much in the same style as the 1991 gulf war, being fed carefully selected bits of information.

The very bravest went in to Iraq as independent reporters, without military back-up. And although they undoubtedly got other angles and stories the military would rather be without, the practice is extremely dangerous and many paid with their lives (several as a result of friendly fire), including ITVs Terry Lloyd.

A success?

War is an ethical minefield for PR practitioners. You are required to routinely lie, mislead, keep journalists in check and hide any facts that might swing the public opinion against the war effort.

In many ways embedding journalists have been a PR success. It is obvious that it is hard for journalists to report negative stories of the men they live, sleep and sometimes risk their lives with. They come back with spectacular action shots of war, and it’s often even harder to know what is really going one, while you’re in the middle of it.

Whether it is a brilliant deal for the free press, is another story.

Here's a short, but quite good little documentary on the history of war correspondents: