So once again the National Party has decided to take a pop at public relations and communications management professionals. Last time out, Katherine Rich launched an unwarranted attack on practitioners. This week, National has blundered its way into the fray with a media release from Gerry Brownlee which highlights the increase in the number of communications and public relations staff employed by central government.
Nothing wrong with that I hear you say. Of course not. Perfectly entitled to highlight staff numbers in any branch of government and I have no problem with that at all.
But what he doesn't have the right to do is to label hard working professionals as 'spin doctors', or phrase his release in such a way that it infers that those who work as public servants in a communications or public relations role are somehow fiddling the taxpayer simply because they are being paid to do their job.
The term ‘spin doctor’ was coined in 1984 by the New York Times following the Reagan-Mondale debate and was a reflection on the political advisors of the time. Since then, journalists - and anyone else who wanted to undertake a little cheap point scoring - began a blanket application of the name to public relations and communications practitioners, along with other pejorative terms.
Why? Because they don't understand the work we do, they (historically) only saw a tiny portion of that work during media relations campaigns and, in many parts of the world, journalists are paid less than public relations practitioners which has been a source of personal frustration to many on the mainstream media side. Falling numbers of staff journalists mean they are often even more reliant on the materials supplied to them by practitioners which is further source of angst.
Today, the term 'spin doctor' implies unethical practice and I would staunchly defend my fellow practitioners against such unwarranted and unfair implication. Those who are members of the Public Relations Institute of New Zealand adhere to its code of ethics (which is also aligned to the global code of practitioner ethics). Foolish is the politician who dashes off such inferences, tarnishing the good name and professional actions of the 505 people he numbers in his media release.
Practitioners who work as public servants for the government are involved in communicating essential day-to-day information to members of the public, industry groups, schools, colleges, universities, health, children, families, businesses - the list is endless because central government is the nexus of so many relationships in a country's life. The relationships built and maintained by public relations practitioners on behalf of their departments are essential if those departments are to adequately perform their tasks, whether that is collecting tax or communicating the latest strand of the digital strategy to the nation.
In particular, Brownlee highlights an increase in communicators in the Department of Conservation and the Ministry of the Environment. Duh. Of course there will have been, given the vital and necessary changes that have been made to environmental thinking, action and conservation globally over the last five years. What’s his plan then? Sack them all and make us guess what we should be doing?
There has also been an explosion in the channels we use, so a practitioner is more likely to be involved in face-to-face communication or web interaction of some sort. John Key and the National Party have been quick to build an online profile over the last twelve months so should be well aware of the challenges facing an organisation trying to connect with a myriad of stakeholders through rapidly fragmenting channels. Indeed, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe they have a team of communicators undertaking this work for them?
I rang Gerry Brownlee’s office to see what he had to say about the media release - you can find it on Scoop if you like - and I was told he would ring me back. I am still waiting. Somehow, I think they thought I was just another Monday morning crazy calling in. I wrote to John Key after Katherine Rich’s attack too - no joy then either, other than a patronising email from an assistant. I don’t work in government public relations role but I get very angry when those who do are victimised in this way for the sake of political point scoring - particularly when they cannot speak out on their own behalf.
As an ordinary voter and an ordinary public relations practitioner, such behaviour seems to me to be an illustration of the National Party’s complete inexperience. Why consistently attack an industry that contributes millions to the country’s economy? Perhaps the National Party feels that if or when it comes to office, it will not be necessary to communicate its policies - new or otherwise - to departments, businesses or other stakeholders, so can do without those who provide this essential interface; somehow we’ll all get the changes by telepathy. Maybe I should send my tax return back the same way if they get in.
One thing is for sure. The evidence offered so far from the National Party in its attacks on the public relations and communications profession indicates it has little understanding as to the process of building workable relationships, fostering dialogue and the maintenance of trust through ethical action - which is of course, what we do.
How scary is that from a group of people looking to run the country?
Fighting the politics of fear
There's much water under the bridge since I last wrote here. Billions of words have been aired on Brexit, trillions more on Trump and now we face a French election that could - if Le Pen wins - have devastating effects on both France and Europe. In the UK, an election is brewing and here in New Zealand, away from the world’s focus, we too will go to the polls. Not such a drama as elsewhere, but one that is beginning to feature disturbing echoes of the vitriol and nationalism that have pervaded countries elsewhere.
In the US, it was inevitable that Trump would win. They were never going to vote for a woman - as a country, the US is just not grown up enough to do so. Whether the US will vote for a woman in the future is yet to be seen - for now they are stuck with a trigger-happy President, seemingly more occupied with a love of personal power and showmanship than with the state of the people he governs. Just shy of the 100 day mark, I have yet to see evidence of any improvement for the people he promised to help - just a show-and-tell of signatures on executive orders that have led to immediate misery for many. I thought by now that an impeachment process might have begun - but then he let off some missiles and the fawning were awed by what they described as the ‘beauty’ of this violence.
I have to confess that as the latter half of 2016 unfolded, I found myself moving away from the keyboard, too angry, disheartened and powerless at the twists and turns of fortune that occurred throughout the world to add to the millions of words swirling through our newsfeeds.
The common thread through all the machinations - Brexit, US elections, France and now here at home - is fear. The political peddlers of fear have been ferocious in their creation of a popular sentiment that closing borders, isolating ourselves, holding others in deep suspicion and threatening others with ‘tit-for-tat’ retaliation is the only way forward. Even as deep tragedies have unfolded - from Syria to Sudan - the insidious shift towards national selfishness has left millions suffering. Dictators have risen and continue to punish, oppress and murder those who oppose them, while the rest of the world squabbles inside their borders, only looking beyond when threats or acts of terror look set to directly affect them. The peddlars have used the emotion of fear for their own purposes, which is, for the most part, to secure their power and position in the world.
So what can we do, as individuals, to change the downward spiral of circumstances with which we are faced? Perhaps the first thing is to accept that we can make a change, by speaking out, by using our precious vote, by discussing with others the various points of view and not existing in a filter bubble of our own making.
Deciding on governments, based on fearmonger policies hawked on the hustings by those anxious to retain or regain power, is not in the best interests of a population. In the UK, the shrewdly strategic Theresa May has made this snap election about Brexit but the reality is that the next elected government will enact more than a retreat from Europe. For the next five to six years, the people of the UK will have to live with whatever ‘terms and conditions’ are bundled up behind the bombast of the ‘winners’ and, as it stands, personal freedom, economic stability, heath, education and wellbeing will all suffer the consequences. Society is a contract - to quote Edmund Burke - and when we vote we are signing that contract, hopefully for better - more frequently for worse.
It is easy for politicians to latch on to one simple thread, pulling and pulling until it unravels the sensible thinking of the electorate. The common thread in Europe and beyond has been immigration, an easy wall of words to hide behind when the actual cause of the problems is governance itself and the policies being implemented over time. With every news story I am reminded of George Orwell’s 1984 - the phoney wars, the austerity, the persecution of those ready to speak out, all cloaked in a culture of amorphous threat. Edmund Burke - again - said: “"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” The need for the good to associate, to speak of tolerance and equity, has never been so great.
The tragedy of Syria began when, in 2011, people began to speak out against their President. It has become a proxy battleground for many in the period since then, but at its heart, it is still a battle for freedom and self determination. So for those, like us, going to the polls, speak out, discuss, reason with each other - don't succumb to phoney fear. Debate and look forward to what might come of a particular set of policies or a particular person in charge. Make your voice heard while you still may. The smallest whisper can make a difference.