Eurovisions

The Eurovision Song Contest was set up in 1956 as a kind of experiment in live television by the Switzerland based European Broadcasting Union but also had an ethos of bring together the nations of Europe, for the first contest just seven, and for much of its history just the Western, non-communist countries, but peace was a theme. It is now somethign of a monster production, with 43 countries vying to make the grand final, but arguably also somethign of a travesty with the key accusation beign that "voting system is a fix with judges from different countries forming political alliances that overlook any possible musical merit" [The Times]. The Baltic and Balkan nations are now favoured and Russia's win which Terry Wogan highlights as evidence of the strategic alliances that underpin voting.

Eurovision has become a huge PR event, Serbia clearly used it to reposition the nation away from any negative associations from its histroy. It can present the nation's culture, history, trade and tourism to an international audience, one which includes China, India and Korea. Therefore winning is a serious prize despite the contest's association with the camp and kitch. The new democracies of the Balkans, and indeed Russia itself, wants every opportunity to sell itself and so may be motivated to encourage tactical voting in some way, but is this possible?

According to the EBU, Eurovision homepage, all voting is by telephone. However we have no idea of how many people actually vote in any of the countries. This lack of transparency dogs the UK broadcasters as they seek to raise as much revenue as possible from phone voting and some have cut corners to ensure revenue is raised independent of the result. Also any single number can vote as many times as the owner likes, I know for a fact that one agent had five phone constantly voting for his client to win one of the Celeb dancing shows (I say no more). So if Russia did want to influence the vote perhaps an entire embassy staff in each country could be voting - maybe!

But if it is the people that are voting for their neighbours, is this just normal and should we criticise it? We may think something is rubbish, or at least Sir Terry might, but it could be that Spain got more votes because they judged the audience better than UK voters. But, to quash these accusations, and the obvious benefactor of the 12 points (Norway to Denmark or Sweden; Finland usually to Russia), perhaps what is required is an overhaul of the voting to ensure some sort of transparency at the very least. But when so much PR is at stake, is it any wonder, if it is true, that any nation may use the event to gain publicity and market itself; maybe the problem is that British public sense of fair play means they are missing a trick.

You cant get too much PR

The Chartered Institute of Public Relations [CIPR] has delivered a robust response to recent media commentary that has criticised the increase in the number of press officers working within government departments. The press release argues "large government departments need specialist and skilled communicators to help explain their policies" this is in response to "public demand for information and the number and range of communication channels"; true! However he latter part of their response seems on somewhat shakier ground. Civil servants must be seen to be impartial, that is an ideal certainly, and true the CIPR has supported moves to strip the Special Advisors [SpAds], such as Alistair Campbell, of the power to instruct civil servants on how and what to communicate. But the claim that this such developments have enshrined the impartiality of the civil service and the assumption that the appointment of more communication SpAds will reduce the pressure on the civil service seems highly dubious.

The majority of SpAds become temporary civil servants, as heads of communication, or at least communication advisors, they act as a conduit through which information produced by civil servants passes on route to the media and so the public. This process, which politicises all communication, means that civil servants become automatically implicated in the government spin cycle. Equally, as the SpAds are not always on the front line, and civil servants have turns of duty in manning the phones and answering queries, they must repeat the line given by the SpAd and so impartiality fails. While this is a complex problem that would be difficult to solve, and one that has evolved over several decades, the only real solution is for information to be released,with no spin whatsoever, by civil servants, and the only role for the SpAds would be to advise their minister. But this does not and cannot happen. Any ministerial statement is contested in the media, a response is developed by the SpAd, and then all communication must include the party political rebuttal. Hence more SpAds will probably mean more spin and a greater problem for civil servants keen to maintain impartiality but who de facto if not de jure end up working alongside a SpAd. Perhaps the CIPR should think again and get a real handle on the workings of the government communication machine.

Tools of the State(s)?

It seemed a neat little feat. The Iranians appear to have used the captured sailors as a tool of state PR, the British MoD went one further and allowed the media to produce an independent rebuttal and pay the former captives for the pleasure. While now it seems they have pulled the plug on the venture, as two have already been paid the stories are out. So perhaps it is a neat little feat after all. Faye Turney's fee of £100,000 for appearing on Tonight with Trevor McDonald and giving an exclusive to The Sun (and why not), secures the story in the limelight and that 'the truth' will be broadcast. Given the media training offered but the MoD this may well be the spin-processed version and will paint the picture HMG wants; this makes the role of services personnel as a 'weapon of the war' as quite different.

If the Tories win, will the Guardian change tack?

In a worrying little piece in The Independent media section on Monday, Stephen Glover notes that the Guardian maybe in trouble should the Tories come to power. A veleid threat by George Osborne suggested the government may shift some of its media planning towards an online strategy. If the Guardian lost public sector job adverts, Glover predicts "it would be near catastrophe"; a handy way of silencing a paper that will probably be no friend of Cameron and Osborne. Whoever claims governmental control of the press is impossible seems quite misguided!

Ahmadinejad and State PR

The somewhat bizarre way that the British sailors were released by Iran yesterday demonstrates that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the real political power that lies behind the public face of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, knows a thing or two about perception management. As my friend Roman comments, not a bad 10 days work.

Iranians made several points yesterday; Ahmadinejad's speech was a largely an anti-western polemic, within that he neatly tied together hostility to the Iraq war, their position on nuclear weapons and the British sailor's alleged incursion into Iraqi waters. But then, in the spirit of the religious festivals Ahmadinejad gave the grand, generous gesture.

Then the stage managed greeting of the captives reinforced the perception of the nation as forgiving, in the right in some way, while also providing a possible bargaining tool for later negotiations. It brings to mind an apocryphal story that may well be true. George W. and Carl Rove were discussing the President's image. Rove tells Bush that many of the people in Europe think he is an idiot; Bush's response "so what, they don't vote for me". Rove then carefully explained the importance of having international support. Iraq may not have won too much public support yesterday but the intention was there; and perhaps Ahmadinejad prove he does PR better than George W.