PR FROM THE BEACH

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.

 

 

Let's break public relations - and boldly head to the future

 

Everywhere in the world you can hear the same cries - ‘business is broken’ or, more worryingly, ‘government is broken’. If we are to help assuage these cries, then PR needs to break too - break away from past misconceptions, determine its role for the future and equip practitioners with the skills and understanding they need in order to get things fixed.

Public relations builds and sustains the relationships we need to keep our licence to operate - that is what we do. 

Relationships involve trust, satisfaction, commitment, loyalty and reputation. Poor communication undermines and breaks down even the best relationships, so communication (visual, written, oral and experiential) plays a significant part in public relations practice - but it isn’t the only element. There are many facets to public relations practice and to really determine the future and relevancy of the profession, those facets need to be recognised, acknowledged and explained within all types of organisations and at all levels, as well as to wider society.

Five awkward questions about the future of PR

Last year I gave a webinar for PRIA, the Public Relations Institute of Australia covering five awkward questions for the profession. As my blog languished during 2015, I thought I might pose some of the questions here via my edited notes for the session. To listen to the webinar  you'll have to head over to the PRIA site, but in the meantime, here's a long read covering a few of the issues I believe our profession must tackle in 2016.

Did Google's gifs shred media relations for good?

This week Google changed the media relations game. Now, it seems, we can send a cheery gif to mainstream media (via blog or our channel of choice) that expresses not only our organisation's perspective of the news story or issue but also a visual insight as to how we feel about it all.  

I have to say hats-off to Rachel Whetstone, SVP Communications and Policy at Google for her creative and honest approach.

Probably only Google - or possibly Facebook - could have got away with such a response at the moment but I suspect that other organisations will happily follow her lead as mainstream media diminishes in power and influence.

In the last year or so, other organisations have tentatively attempted to use their websites and other channels to correct the balance when it comes to mainstream media stories - even if it isn't with the panache displayed by Google's VP. All organisations are news publishers as well as news providers and so, as publishers, they can tell their own story, own their own narrative and explain their perspective on things. That's not to say that everyone will agree with their version of the story or even their perspective, but at least they have the opportunity to disagree with it at source rather than see a fragment, a smidge of commentary or a scanty quote buried in a third party's interpretation of a situation.

Over the decades, the journalist's call has struck dread in the hearts of many organisations - not because they don't want to comment or engage but because they know the chance of fair representation or balanced comment is remote. Publications and journalists alike arrive on the doorstep with an agenda (commercial or political) and will, in many instances, adjust the story to fit their predetermined frame - yet few practitioners have been brave enough to challenge the approach of those who are simply trolling for a tale.

Thankfully, journalistic integrity still exists - harder to find - but there nonetheless. For those journalists, concerned with fair reporting, breaking stories that inform, expose or prompt change, an insouciant organisational attitude will be unhelpful and damaging for all involved. 

It will be absorbing to watch the coming transformation. Will  journalists challenge the developing 'new norm' and will spokespeople be brave enough to challenge old school traditions in media relations? We shall see - but I suspect it may be some time before the evolution is complete.

 

 

 

 

Good behaviour - the X Factor that keeps your licence to operate

Links to media.nzherald.co.nz

There's been a huge furore in the last 24 hours over New Zealand's X Factor, thanks to some ill-considered comments by husband-and-wife judging duo Natalia Kills and Willy Moon. Now, New Zealand On Air has announced it is withdrawing funding from the show, although they suggest they made their mind up about this before the controversy. Both judges will be replaced because of their remarks - and currently face a tirade of abuse themselves on their social accounts - much of it absolutely despicable. Elsewhere, the discussion rages around whether the whole thing was a hoax designed to boost the show's flagging ratings and we are left with a million suit-and-hair memes littering the web. All in all, it's a shambles. So who is to blame?

Je Suis Charlie - Nous Sommes Charlie

 

The murders of 12 people at the offices of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in France yesterday have left 12 families bereaved and bereft. In Egypt, Al-Jazeera journalists are still held in jail.Worldwide, in 2014, 61 journalists were killed. Everyday, around the world, people are being killed for speaking out, for not agreeing, for holding a different opinion or belief. 

The magazine satirises everyone - religions (of all kinds) politicians (of all kinds) and any topic, person or subject deemed worthy of lampooning. Since the murders, debate on the perceived 'rights and wrongs' of Charlie Hebdo content has been heated - here in New Zealand, remarks by a former broadcaster have prompted a storm of social protest.

But the focus should not be on debating the rights and wrongs of content. Instead, words and images that accurately describe the evil men who perpetrated this crime should be chosen with care. They are not fighters for a cause, warriors in a war or any other of the descriptors assigned to them.

They are murderers, pure and simple, who took the lives of 12 people and injured seven others. Their actions contravene civil and religious laws. They will be caught and granted a fair trial.

As for the rest of us, such murders should not constrain our thinking or our speech. The spontaneous vigils held throughout the night of the murders showered sparks of hope on a dark day - would that such vigils continue for the thousands upon thousands around the world currently at the mercy of other ruthless murderers.  

I would urge you to use your words to affect change - write on behalf of those, like the Al Jazeera journalists, imprisoned for doing their job. If you don't know where to start, then Amnesty International can guide you. Write to your politicians and media urging them to do what they can to encourage, rather than suppress freedom of speech and the spread of ideas. Speak out when someone is hounded on social media for an opinion or idea that contradicts, satirises or challenges convention. 

As Edmund Burke possibly remarked: 

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."

Nous Sommes Charlie - nous devons tous parler.

 

 

Leading Ladies - why the future of business is female

With the number of women on boards at woefully low levels in many parts of the world, it is unsurprising that initiatives designed to increase representation are being introduced. Trouble is, these initiatives move at a glacial pace and the big loser isn’t women - it is business itself.

The significant finding in the recently published Ketchum Leadership Communication Monitor  (alongside the poor performance of leaders in general) was ‘a new leadership model, driven by the new breed of ‘Leadership eVangelist’, centered on a more ‘feminine’ leadership archetype and based on a set of clear guiding principles’.

In short, the study found that effective communication is critical but leaders aren’t performing against expectations. However, when present, female leaders outperform male leaders when it comes to the most important ‘leader attributes’ of leading by example, communicating in an open and transparent way, admitting mistakes, bringing out the best in others and in their calm handling of controversial issues or crises.

And realise the robots are on the rise...

Lots at CES this year. Most noteworthy - the rise of the robots.  This video from The Verge gives a flavour of what's out there.

 

Len Brown Affair: More 'Go Girls' than 'West Wing'

New Zealand doesn't really do political scandals so the recent revelations surrounding newly elected Auckland Mayor Len Brown have, for some, been quite absorbing. For most, it has been a storm in a rather sordid tea cup despite the significant speculation as to whether the timing, revelations and subsequent debate were a political set up designed to force another election.

From where I sit, it reminded me of the New Zealand series called 'Go Girls', where a group of hapless 20-somethings stagger from one disaster to another. The whole episode had an air of comedy that outweighed the whiff of tragedy that Brown's family must have experienced and demonstrated that if there was a plot afoot, those involved need to be a lot sharper in their scripting if they want be involved in the style of political machinations to be found on the US series West Wing.

From a public relations perspective I was interested in the Brown camp's strategy which was dominated by the old school 'duck, cover and say nothing'. His one mea culpa on John Campbell was something of a shambles while his calls for media to 'respect his family' had a hollow ring given he had himself been sufficiently disrespectful to his family to indulge in his two-year affair.  

I suspect there will be more revelations in the weeks ahead which will need to be dealt with - running for cover will not improve matters at all.

Expect data denouements to punctuate political performances

The news that the Obama official tweeting for some time under the username @NatSecWonk has been unmasked is no surprise.  They were bound to find him out in the end. The most interesting thing for me about the story was closeted in a simple sentence: 

"It said his travel and shopping habits had been profiled by parsing over 2,000 tweets"

This is an approach we will see more and more of in the months ahead as people become much smarter about using the data available to them. The trail we leave online is long and winding and the option of anonymity reduces by the hour.

Organisations - once they wake up to the fact - will increasingly use data mining to reach their stakeholders and, if they are savvy enough, stakeholders will use data mining to benefit themselves.

The rise of data journalism is not unexpected, but again, is mostly ignored by those who should have woken up to this approach many moons ago. 

So, data, data everywhere - when will they stop and think?