It's all about the media

Reflecting on Guto Harri's appointment as Communication Advisor to new Mayor of London Boris Johnson, a former BBC journalist and PR policy advisor; It is interesting that many of the top communication advisors in politics have a background in the media. It seems the skills of the journalist the receiver are most sought, rather than in public relations, advertising, marketing or the more outward facing corporate communication. While there is a lot of cross-over between the journalism and PR particularly, it would seem that the journalist (Alastair Campbell, Bernard Ingham etc, etc) and the knowledge of how the media operates as well as the contacts, is what politicians think they need most. While Harri is an exception perhaps, I wonder if journalists are the right advisors. Journalism has a whole set of norms that politicians must work with and adapt to, but other profession's skills may be more able to advise on how to communicate to and interact with the public effectively - just a thought!

Boring and predictable scuffles

The war goes on between our journalists and our party leaders, they hunt in packs and their target at the moment is Gordon Brown. So every journalist, Boulton, Marr et al, all want Brown to admit it is a disaster and he is failing, he knows that is true but plays up the positives and talks about communicating better. I just wish that these journalists would watch each other's programmes and not just replicate the same worn script. Yes it is a disaster for Labour, Brown will never admit it, live with it, move on and if that is all you want to say just don't bother. Is it any wonder that television audiences are less interested in political magazine programmes when they do not add anything to what most viewers already know. I am sure opponents do enjoy watching the leader they dislike squirm but there are limits surely.

When old media meets new media

There is much debate whether the advance of new media tolls the death knell of old media. True, it is easier to access the news you want, from a range of media outlets, from a single PC screen (an it is more environmental). However a safer bet is that old media will evolve to provide an online resource (as most do) but as a brand trusted for providing a certain style and content will retain a large audience. This allows the media brand more scope to offer a wider range of news and serve their audience better.

Newbury Weekly News has certainly taken these ideas on board and are offering the local people a political forum and their council election candidates the potential of the Internet without the hassle of creating their own online presence. Their website is putting readers questions to the candidates and publishing the answers on the hottest topics: today it is recycling! Given that council elections seem preoccupied with a mixture of local and national issues, and that voters like the big issues to be translated into political outputs that shape their life experience, this seems invaluable for democracy.

Why invaluable, because it forces the parties and candidates to engage with the issues people really care about. As commented elsewhere on this blog, for politics to appear interesting it must engage with voter's lives and aspirations and offer real choice. I suggest it is not about who leads the party, but what will the leader do for me that gets voters into the ballot box. Whether the party responses to the question posed by Carmel Owens (44 yr old Newbury resident) offer real choice is debatable without understanding the full context of their comments, and I don't live in Newbury so I do not claim that; but such initiatives offer the responses voters need when asked to make their choices. Maybe this should be a key function of the local newspapers during elections!

What must be remembered is that new media is not a magic bullet, you must have the 'pull' factor. If you wonder what theat means see the blog by Lisa Chambers (left) a Forest Heath District Councillor, it reads as little more than a chat between her and Robin (who uses the comments to tell Lisa that: May get a call from Sue McAllister about a visit at Studlands this week) sadly her efforts seem to have no pull at all.

Ming in a spin

Sir Menzies (Ming) Campbell, the elder statesmen among party leaders, yesterday laid out a variety of challenges for the next Labour leader. Interestingly the media decided to follow their own highly spurious agenda. Following an off the record briefing they were asking whether Ming's speech declared an intention to enter a coalition - was Ming also blowing a dog whistle to be heard by those who want power and are not totally anti-Labour?

A coalition may be likely, given the proximity the parties enjoy in the polls, but is Ming really setting himself up as the power broker? Or is the media just desperate for something interesting to write about the LibDems spring conference? Whatever the answer it is hard to see Gordon and Ming working together, even less likely a cabinet that may include John Reid and Lembit Opik; Margaret Beckett and Vince Cable; John Prescott and Steve Webb. But now the media have placed the idea on the agenda it will run, influencing attitudes and perhaps voting behaviour across the country. This could mean that tactical voting takes on a whole new meaning by the next UK election.

Two little words - Nick Robinson!

Nick Robinson, BBC's News political editor has had a blog for some time now, it is really an extension of his reports to camera on the ongoing Westminster sagas that he brings into the homes of millions on a nightly basis; but is it also a place for Nick to offer his own perspective on events?

The style is instantly recognisable, often with journalists you can umagine them saying it as you are reading. So is the general framing of news. Important news is Blair's slip of the tongue, adding the 'it has' to the statement that the situation in Iraq since the toppling of Saddam has been pretty much a disaster. In fact the use of words and phrases, or their absense from conversations between Blair and Musharraf, is standard fare for both the blog and Nick's reports to camera. Is there something missing?

The problem with the Newslog is that it is stuck within the confines of the BBC news format. Yes the sideswipes at politicians recur, the reports fit in to the narratives of the Blair/Brown conflict, or Blair's protracted demise, but we do not get anything of the experiences of Nick Robinson.

This man is followign Blair around the world, he is party to so much that he cannot report, but that would be the interesting stuff wouldn't it? Sadly we have to wait for his memoirs in years to come to find out the gory details from behind the scenes. But this leaves us with a question, why read the Newslog at all, why not watch the pictures accompanying these comments at 6pm or 10.30? There is an answer, sure you can scream at the TV, but you can actually publish a comment to a blog.

And here we find the interesting stuff. Replication of the negative attitude towards politicians by many, or Mr Siddelley's criticism of the disdain demonstrated by Nick through his semi-sarcastic tone. Here we find out what the public think, or do we? Perhaps this is worthy of some study, or perhaps it is simply a conversation between a few people that anyone can access but do not. Whatever the case this attempt at interaction is at times vibrant, though one gets the sense that Nick Robinson is actually talking past many of the contributors; rather than responding the next report goes up. So why is this any different to screaming at the TV?