OECD Webinar - ESG to deliver well-being in resource-rich regions: the role o...
The New Media and Democracy, Sir Peter Luff MP.
1. CIPR FELLOWS’ LUNCH JULY 25th
1
THE
NEW
MEDIA
AND
DEMOCRACY
SIR
PETER
LUFF
MP,
FCIPR,
FSA
CIPR
Fellows’
Lunch,
25th
July
2014
In
an
editorial
last
Saturday,
the
Financial
Times,
in
an
almost
perfectly
contrived
insult
to
all
of
us
here,
wrote,
“..
there
is
still
too
much
of
the
PR
man
about
Britain’s
Prime
Minister.”
Next
Spring
I
stand
down
after
twenty
three
years
as
a
Member
of
Parliament.
Throughout
those
years,
I
have
often
realised
that
my
previous
life
in
public
relations
consultancy
was
the
best
possible
training
for
the
job.
How
wrong
can
the
FT
be?
In
the
great
circus
of
life
that
is
both
PR
consultancy
and
politics,
you
must
learn
not
just
to
juggle,
to
keep
many
and
very
different
groups
–
of
clients
or
constituents
–
content,
but
also
to
tame
huge
issues,
lions,
that
threaten
to
devour
you
if
you
make
a
single
slip.
In
fact,
as
I
said
in
a
recent
CIPR
interview,
what
you
really
need
to
perfect
is
the
art
of
juggling
lions.
To
take
an
example
I
remember
particularly
clearly,
my
training
in
PR
proved
its
worth
within
two
years
of
my
election.
In
1994
I
bought
my
nine
year-‐old
daughter
a
girls’
magazine
–
and
was
genuinely
surprised
to
find
sexually
explicit
content
on
its
letters
page.
I
soon
discovered
it
was
one
of
many
magazines
aimed
at
girls
between
eight
and
eighteen
using
sex
to
sell.
There
was
a
race
to
the
gutter
going
on
in
the
name
of
circulation.
These
magazines
were
both
sexually
explicit
and
deeply
sexist.
Their
disturbing
message
was
simple.
Boys
did
real
things
but
girls
–well
their
role
was
just
to
be
girls
for
the
boys.
So
I
decided
to
use
my
position
as
an
MP
to
raise
the
issue.
During
this
targeted
campaign
I
applied
some
widely
appreciated
rules
of
communication.
Above
all
else,
I
focused
on
communicating
a
clear
and
compelling
message
–
never
prim,
condescending
or
lecturing.
Not
a
preachy
message,
just
a
sense
that
girls
were
being
let
down
by
the
magazines
that
were
supposed
to
help
them.
I
said
I
understood
the
need
for
sensitive
and
professional
advice
but
what
the
magazines
were
doing
was
excessive,
sexist
and
robbed
children
of
their
childhoods.
It
turned
out
that
I
had
articulated
what
thousands
of
parents
thought
–
and
public
opinion
was
on
my
side.
2. CIPR FELLOWS’ LUNCH JULY 25th
2
I
also
repeated
my
message
until
people
got
sick
of
hearing
me
say
it.
As
my
old
political
boss
Peter
Walker
often
told
me,
“It’s
only
when
you
are
sick
and
tired
of
your
message
that
you’re
just
beginning
to
communicate
it
to
others.”
I
focused
on
the
big
picture,
dealing
with
the
relatively
few
TV,
radio
and
print
titles
that
held
the
influence
nationally.
Success
with
those
would
move
opinion.
And
it
worked.
I
had
used
my
PR
training
to
run
a
one
man
campaign
that
actually
changed
something.
After
some
very
bad
publicity,
the
publishers
-‐
who
were
unable
to
believe
I
did
not
have
funding
and
campaign
mangers
behind
me
-‐
soon
capitulated;
a
new
independent
regulator,
a
code
of
conduct,
and
only
professionally
qualified
counsellors
to
offer
advice
on
the
problem
pages.
The
magazines
actually
improved.
Such
a
campaign
wouldn’t
have
succeeded
if
I
hadn’t
followed
the
advice
I
had
been
giving
clients
as
a
communications
consultant.
I
was
both
attacking
part
of
the
media
and
using
the
media
to
help
me.
It
was
an
exercise
in
the
triumph
of
democracy
over
commercial
interest.
I
don’t
tell
you
this
to
blow
my
own
trumpet.
I
tell
it
to
blow
yours.
PRs
have
a
genuinely
important
role
in
challenging
the
status
quo
and
gaining
profile
for
their
clients
and
causes.
We
won’t
all
agree
on
the
merits
of
those
causes
or
clients,
but
we
should
agree
that
they
have
the
right
to
be
heard.
That
is
democracy
after
all.
So,
contrary
to
the
views
of
the
FT,
we
PRs
make
good
politicians
–
we
serve
democracy
pretty
effectively.
Democracy
is
very
topical
at
the
moment
–
and
about
to
become
even
more
so.
Next
year,
election
year,
marks
the
800th
anniversary
of
Magna
Carta
and
the
750th
Anniversary
of
what
is
generally
recognised
as
the
first
broadly
representative
English
parliament.
Our
contemporary
freedoms
and
democratic
representation
began
their
evolution
from
these
two,
related
events.
So
this
is
a
good
time
to
reflect
on
the
health
of
our
democracy.
And
I
take
as
my
text
–
or
perhaps
my
warning
to
myself
-‐
that
famous
quote
of
Enoch
Powell,
“For
a
politician
to
complain
about
the
press
is
like
a
ship's
captain
complaining
about
the
sea.”
Nonetheless,
my
subject
is
a
simple
and
well-‐worn
one
–
the
relationship
between
politicians
and
the
media
and
the
consequences
for
our
democracy.
3. CIPR FELLOWS’ LUNCH JULY 25th
3
I
am
thinking
of
the
consequences
of;
• the
new
need
for
speed
which
drives
instant
reaction
to
often
complex
events;
• of
the
growing
commercial
pressures
that
drive
even
the
most
respectable
news
outlet
into
a
search
for
sensation;
• and
of
the
loss
of
journalistic
interpretation
in
the
new
social
media
that
leads
to
unmediated
news
triumphing
over
the
mediated.
My
thesis
is
simple.
It
is
that
democratic
societies
need
shared
places
-‐
particularly
in
the
media
-‐
for
rational,
informed
political
debate.
My
concern
is
that
the
decline
in
the
reach
and
quality
of
traditional,
“legacy”
media
coupled
with
the
fragmentation
of
the
population
caused
by
the
new
“social”
media,
endanger
those
places
-‐
and
so
it
is
ever
more
important
to
uphold
them
wherever
we
can.
These
changes
might
actually
help
some
politicians,
parties
and
interest
groups
;
if
they
use
media
management
techniques
and
the
social
media
well,
they
can
by-‐pass
objective
criticism
and
make
their
unmediated
case
direct
to
their
supporters
and
potential
supporters.
But
they
make
life
harder
for
democracy
as
we
lose
our
shared
national
narrative
and
understanding
and
as
the
essential,
constructive
challenge
to
politicians
provided
by
good
journalism
is
no
longer
as
effective.
The
conventional
view
is
that
a
free
press
and
technological
change
has
driven
increased
awareness
of
opportunity
and
liberty
–
and
so
played
a
major
part
in
ending
tyranny
in
Eastern
Europe
and
elsewhere.
But
are
the
new
social
media
always
the
same
force
for
good?
They
certainly
do
good.
Above
all,
they
spread
knowledge.
I
have
seen
their
power
and
positive
impact
as
they
share
news
among
specific
vulnerable
groups
such
as
the
elderly,
the
disabled
or
those
with
special
medical
needs.
The
same
public
service
can
be
performed
within
local
communities
as
events
and
issues,
like
flood
warnings,
are
spread
rapidly
to
residents.
And
in
times
of
conflict
they
can
give
the
lie
to
the
propaganda
of
ruling
elites
and
autocrats.
But
what
of
the
harm?
By
providing
channels
for
bad
men
to
recruit
converts
to
their
cause,
or
to
spread
poisonous
disinformation
in
an
instant,
for
example,
they
can
do
actual
harm
to
democracy.
More
subtly,
they
undermine
our
democracy
in
another
way.
The
social
media
reduce
society
to
groups
of
self-‐selecting
special
interests
who
spend
more
and
more
of
their
time
talking
to
those
with
similar
views,
isolating
themselves
from
contrary
points
of
view.
4. CIPR FELLOWS’ LUNCH JULY 25th
4
Who
do
we
talk
to
now
to
form
our
opinions?
In
the
seventeenth
and
eighteenth
centuries
it
was
the
coffeehouses
of
London
where
society’s
elite
formed
its
shared
understandings.
We
still
need
those
coffeehouse
forums,
actual
or
metaphorical,
where
exchange
and
debate
takes
place.
My
conclusion
is
that
the
diminution
of
such
shared
places
in
the
media
–
and
of
the
atomisation
of
public
debate
caused
by
social
media
-‐
mean
that
more
and
more
of
the
burden
of
nurturing
our
democracy
falls
on
the
shoulders
of
just
one
media
organisation
–
the
BBC.
Public
relations
professionals
need
the
ability
to
engage
in
a
free
exchange
of
information
and
to
conduct
public
conversations
that
are
well-‐informed.
But
democracy
needs
those
things
just
as
keenly.
My
argument
has
two
caveats.
NEVER
TRUST
A
POLITICIAN
Caveat
number
one.
I’m
not
about
to
issue
a
plea
for
politicians
to
be
liked.
A
degree
of
healthy
cynicism
is
essential.
One
of
my
favourite
lines
in
Shakespeare
comes
when
Lear
comforts
the
cruelly
blinded
Gloucester
with
these
words,
Get
thee
glass
eyes
And,
like
a
scurvy
politician,
seem
To
see
the
things
thou
dost
not.
i
I
think
that
modern
cynicism
has
reached
dangerous
levels,
yes,
but
the
politicians’
response
must
be
to
win
back
respect,
not
to
seek
popularity.
My
heart
sinks
when
I
hear
another
politician
is
going
on
“Have
I
Got
News
for
You”
to
try
and
be
funny.
But
I
suppose
it’s
better
than
going
into
the
jungle
to
eat
mealy
grubs
in
the
deluded
belief
that
“I’m
a
Celebrity,
Get
Me
Out
of
Here”
is
a
good
vehicle
to
engage
the
alienated.
Or
believing
that
sensational
Tweeting
is
a
satisfactory
substitute
for
serious
thought.
NO
MEDIA
GOLDEN
AGE
And
caveat
number
two.
I
am
definitely
not
making
a
plea
for
a
return
to
some
lost
golden
age
-‐
for
politicians
at
least
-‐
when
journalists
and
newspapers
knew
their
place.
No
such
time
ever
existed,
although
I
do
look
back
with
a
twinge
of
nostalgia
at
some
of
those
early,
intensely
deferential
television
interviews.
5. CIPR FELLOWS’ LUNCH JULY 25th
5
You
know
the
sort
of
thing
–
“Please
Mr
Macmillan,
do
tell
us
what
you
think.”
The
truth
is,
as
you
all
know,
that
the
British
media
have
always
been
robust
and
politicians
have
always
complained.
Somehow
democracy
survived
and
even
flourished.
Perhaps
no
complaint
was
more
famous
than
that
of
my
illustrious
predecessor
as
a
Worcestershire
MP,
Stanley
Baldwin,
who
famously
attacked
the
papers
owned
by
Beaverbrook
and
Rothermere
three
days
before
the
election
in
March
1931,
when
he
said,
“The
newspapers
attacking
me
are
not
newspapers
in
the
ordinary
sense.
They
are
engines
of
propaganda
for
the
constantly
changing
policies,
desires,
personal
vices,
personal
likes
and
dislikes
of
the
two
men.
What
are
their
methods?
Their
methods
are
direct
falsehoods,
misrepresentation,
half-truths,
the
alteration
of
the
speaker's
meaning
by
publishing
a
sentence
apart
from
the
context...What
the
proprietorship
of
these
papers
is
aiming
at
is
power,
and
power
without
responsibility
–
the
prerogative
of
the
harlot
throughout
the
ages.”
To
be
fair,
the
British
press
has,
rightly,
always
been
anxious
to
expose
wrongdoing.
But
their
targets
have
not
always
been
fair
ones.
Look
for
example
at
the
fictional
travails
of
Septimus
Harding,
warden
of
Hiram’s
Hospital,
at
the
hands
of
The
Jupiter
–
a
thinly
disguised
Times
–
in
Trollope’s
outstanding
1855
novel,
The
Warden,
first
in
his
glorious
series
The
Chronicles
of
Barsetshire.
The
warden
was
a
good
and
honest
man,
traduced
and
hounded
to
near
penury
by
the
press.
Good
people
have
indeed
been
hounded
unfairly
for
centuries.
That
can
be
the
price
of
a
free
press
–
that
it
can
make
mistakes.
So,
to
be
absolutely
clear
I
am
not
asking
for
journalists
to
stop
doing
their
job
–
politicians
must
always
be
treated
with
scepticism.
They
always
have
been
and
happily
there’s
little
prospect
of
that
changing
in
a
hurry,
even
in
a
post-‐Leveson,
post-‐phone
hacking
world.
So
I
am
not
saying
politicians
should
be
treated
with
kid
gloves,
and
I
am
not
saying
that
the
media
should
not
be
robust.
But
it’s
time
to
worry
when
hard-‐nosed
observers
like
Andrew
Marr
writing
ten
years
ago,
say,
“…
the
truth
is
that
we
political
journalists
have
spent
too
much
time
metaphorically
jamming
wastebins
on
politicians’
heads.
We
have
become
too
powerful,
too
much
the
interpreters,
using
our
talents
as
communicators
to
crowd
them
out.
On
paper
we
mock
them
as
never
before
and
report
them
less
than
ever
before.
….
We
are
overshadowing
the
institutions
that
made
us;
we
have
become
insufficiently
serious.
Once
my
father
bought
a
rose
bush
for
our
garden
in
Scotland.
He
supported
it
with
some
insignificant-looking
sticks.
The
rose
died
and
the
sticks
grew.
That
is
what
happening
in
Westminster
too.”
I
am
also
worried
about
a
declining
respect
for
the
truth
and
an
increasing
recklessness
in
political
comment
that
would
make
even
harlots
blush.
6. CIPR FELLOWS’ LUNCH JULY 25th
6
That
recklessness
is
in
large
part
a
product
of
the
need
for
speed
I
referred
to
earlier
–
forget
the
24
hour
news
cycle
–
now
it’s
more
like
five
minutes.
Snap
judgements
-‐
by
politicians
and
commentators
-‐
become
the
conventional
wisdom
and
deeper
reflection
becomes
challenging.
As
Andrew
Marr
clearly
recognises,
politicians
do
need
a
minimum
level
of
respect
-‐
and
facts
are
very
precious
things
indeed.
We
live
in
a
time
of
unprecedented
change
and
complexity
when
more
careful
thought
is
needed
than
ever.
But
our
politics
and
our
media
are
conspiring
together
to
drive
us
to
instant
reactions,
meaningless
sound
bites
and
gross
simplifications.
And
the
awkward
truth
is
that
politics
in
the
UK
has
become
rather
boring.
As
Kevin
Toolis,
author
of
“The
Confessions
of
Gordon
Brown”
observed
recently;
“In
the
olden
days,
the
Labour
and
Tory
Party
conferences
were
guaranteed
political
barn
fest.
Revolts
–
among
the
delegates,
errant
union
bosses
and
pro-hanging
Tory
wannabes
-
were
as
common
as
bare-breasted
women
in
Game
of
Thrones.
Passion
and
politics
mattered.
But
post
new
Labour,
bar
the
odd
expenses
scandal,
our
ideological
ground
has
narrowed.
Shut
your
eyes,
and
it’s
hard
to
tell
Tory
and
Labour
MPs
apart.
…
if
modern
British
politics
is
an
art
form,
it
remains
a
very
dull
one.”
No
wonder
colourful
but
implausible
figures
like
Nigel
Farage
-‐
or
eccentric
dissidents
on
the
government
backbenches
-‐
attract
support.
And
this
is
not
just
a
UK
problem;
as
the
now
very
elderly
former
German
Chancellor
Helmut
Schmidt
said
recently,
“Media
democracies
don’t
produce
leaders,
they
produce
populists.”
They
also
produce
robots.
In
one
particularity
cruel
briefing
recently
ahead
of
the
last
reshuffle
it
was
reported
critics
of
a
cabinet
minister
were
saying
of
her,
using
a
rather
dated
metaphor,
“She
puts
in
a
tape,
presses
play,
and
this
stream
of
stuff
comes
out.
She
doesn’t
listen.”
That
description
fits
most
political
interviews
I
hear
these
days
with
front
benchers
in
particular
too
scared
to
deviate
from
the
line
to
take.
No
wonder
voters
feel
disengaged.
MEDIA
CHANGE
7. CIPR FELLOWS’ LUNCH JULY 25th
7
As
Parties
have
declined
in
their
power
and
the
respect
in
which
politicians
is
held
has
sunk
ever
lower,
the
traditional
media
have
fragmented
and
decayed
and
the
social
media
have
blossomed.
Technology
and
commercial
competition
have
ravaged
the
newspaper
industry
and
proliferated
the
electronic
media.
And
so
often
in
the
explosion
of
television
channels
and
the
frenzy
of
commercial
radio,
news
broadcasts
play
second
fiddle
at
best.
Not
so
long
ago
a
couple
of
interviews
and
a
piece
dictated
to
the
Press
Association
were
enough
to
ensure
your
information,
as
long
as
it
was
sufficiently
compelling
or
important,
would
be
carried
to
a
majority
of
the
population.
I
can
remember
as
if
it
were
yesterday
a
world
with
just
two
television
channels
–
and
I
can
recall
the
day
our
first
television
came
to
the
Luff
household
in
about
1960.
I
still
tend
to
think
of
commercial
radio
as
pirate
radio.
The
Home
Service
and
the
Light
Programme
were
my
only
two
radio
stations.
Then
it
was
unthinkable
to
start
the
day
without
reading
a
national
newspaper.
Now
most
people
never
pick
one
up
at
all.
And
that
is
a
shame.
Or
should
be.
There
still
is
a
shared
news
agenda
that
the
country
as
a
whole
hears,
but
it
is
spread
over
more
and
more
platforms
and
is
becoming
fragile.
Our
shared
national
understanding
is
at
risk
of
decay
as
news
sources
proliferate,
and
become
more
superficial,
as
politics
is
taken
less
seriously
and
as
news
bulletins
become
briefer.
As
much
as
ever,
perhaps
more,
we
need
the
media
-‐
and
that
means
journalists,
good
journalists,
to
mediate,
to
explain
and
to
comment.
To
put
in
context.
To
provide
background
and
reason.
Journalists
and
commentators
like
Matthew
Parris
and
Danny
Finklestein,
like
Steve
Richards
and
Robert
Peston,
like
Andy
Marr,
John
Humphries
,
Jeremy
Vine
and
Nick
Robinson
–
who,
whatever
their
personal
views,
clearly
care
about
politics
and
society.
But,
in
many
cases,
the
approach
to
politics
of
too
many
journalists
and
editors
has
become
trivial
at
best,
destructive
at
worst.
What
worries
me
now
is
that
the
ever-‐deepening
contempt
for
politicians
in
which
so
many
newspapers
seem
to
hold
us
is
matched
only
by
an
equal
contempt
for
the
truth.
Here
are
some
recent
examples.
• First
the
Daily
Mail
and
the
Daily
Express:
8. CIPR FELLOWS’ LUNCH JULY 25th
8
At
the
beginning
of
the
year
both
these
papers
played
to
the
gallery
in
the
most
exotic
terms
over
the
coming
wave
of
Romanians
and
Bulgarians.
“Benefits
Britain
Here
We
Come;
Fears
as
migrant
flood
begins”
screamed
the
Express
on
New
Year’s
Day.
The
Mail
headlined
one
of
its
stores
that
same
day;
“Sold
out!
Flights
and
buses
full
as
Romanians
head
for
the
UK.”
Except
it
just
wasn’t
true.
The
flights
were
not
sold
out
–
there
were
seats
at
reasonable
prices
on
all
of
them.
And
the
numbers
of
Bulgarians
and
Romanians
in
the
UK
actually
fell
slightly
in
the
first
quarter
of
this
year.
But
reports
like
these
set
the
context
for
the
most
sensitive
debate
in
our
democracy
at
present
-‐
immigration.
• Second,
The
Times
Not
to
be
outdone
in
the
“Let’s
drive
the
reputation
of
MPs
even
lower”
contest
the
Times
joined
in
last
month
with
the
extraordinary
headline
“
MPs’
£750,000
bar
bill”.
It
turned
out
the
£750,000
bill
was
the
total
for
all
alcohol
served
at
the
bars
and
restaurant
to
MPs,
their
staff,
Commons
staff,
journalists,
all
these
groups’
guests
–and
included
bottles
of
whisky
sold
to
the
general
public
from
the
gift
shop
and
the
alcohol
drunk
by
people
at
the
many
events
hosted
in
Parliament.
Incidentally,
The
Times
went
one
better
on
July
11th
with
its
devastating
-‐
and
truthful
-‐
revelation
“Scissors,
stapler
and
plastic
ruler
among
MPs’
latest
expenses”.
Yes,
our
office
costs
budgets
really
are
used
to
pay
for
–
shock
horror
–
running
our
offices.
• Third,
the
Sunday
Times:
I’m
specially
troubled
by
The
Sunday
Times’
growing
reputation
for
sensationalised
reports
that
hang
by
the
barest
thread
to
a
semblance
of
the
truth.
Here
is
the
home
of
investigative
journalism
of
the
highest
kind.
Now
though,
it
gets
so
much
just
plain
wrong.
On
15th
June
under
the
headline
“RAF’s
new
fighter
gets
so
hot
it
melts
runways”
it
reported
on
what
it
went
to
on
to
describe
as
“Britain’s
troubled
new
£100
million
fighter
jet.”
Leaving
on
one
side
that
the
F35
is
for
the
RAF
and
the
Royal
Navy,
it’s
most
egregious
error
was
its
“revelation”
that
we’d
only
just
worked
out
that
it
got
rather
hot
where
the
powerful
jet
engines
point
when
it
lands
vertically.
Apparently
none
of
the
clever
people
at
the
MoD
–
or
the
US
DoD
-‐
had
thought
of
this
and
so
we
were
having
to
rush
to
install
concrete
landing
pads
at
UK
bases
for
the
planes
in
yet
another
defence
cock-‐up.
Sadly
for
the
Sunday
Times
and
its
scandalised
readers,
the
story
was
wrong
on
every
count.
Of
course
we
knew
it
got
hot
when
an
F35
lands
and
we
had
always
budgeted
for
and
planned
these
landing
pads.
But
don’t
let
the
facts
get
in
the
way
of
a
good
story.
9. CIPR FELLOWS’ LUNCH JULY 25th
9
And
let
me
repeat
that
point
about
investigative
journalism
–
great
scoops
like
the
Sunday
Times’
hard
work
on
the
Qatar
World
Cup
story.
We
need
the
occasional
brilliance
of
this
paper
to
manifest
itself
more
often,
but
it
lets
itself
down
every
time
it
runs
a
story
like
the
F35
one.
How
can
I
believe
its
investigative
scoops
when
I
know
its
routine
news
is
so
often
just
wrong?
How
can
a
democracy
flourish
if
the
voters
are
so
grievously
misled
or
only
partially
informed
at
best?
So
the
traditional
media
–
newspapers,
television
and
radio
-‐
facing
a
daily
battle
for
survival,
have
become
more
varied,
less
coherent.
Our
news
now
is:
• Fragmented
• Transitory
• Sensationalised
and
• Often
just
wrong
Thank
God,
you
may
say,
for
the
extraordinary
decline
in
national
newspaper
circulations.ii
Every
single
national
daily
and
Sunday
paper
has
seen
serious
falls
since
2010,
typically
after
long
periods
of
decline.
Only
the
good
old
Daily
Mail
has
held
its
head
high,
bobbing
around
the
two
million
mark
for
the
last
fifty
years
–
but
it’s
still
down
from
2.3
million
in
2000
to
1.7
million
now.iii
But
the
fact
is
that,
while
newspapers
remain
very
important
sources
of
views,
if
not
news,
nowhere
near
enough
newspapers
are
now
sold
in
the
UK
to
use
simply
printed
media
to
communicate
your
political
philosophy,
your
policies
or
your
views
sufficiently
widely.
Indeed,
unfair
criticism
or
plain
error
of
the
kind
I
have
described
may
be
less
significant
to
politicians
and
parties
than
once
it
was.
We
can
shrug
off
what
the
papers
say
more
readily
than
our
predecessors
ever
could.
Apparently
Andy
Coulson’s
successor
at
Downing
Street,
Craig
Oliver,
a
former
television
journalist,
doesn’t
think
newspapers
matter
much
and
avoids
speaking
to
them
if
possible.
Ed
Miliband
has
let
it
be
known
he
doesn’t
read
them
often.
Downing
Street
does,
though,
worry
about
the
television
and
social
media
–
and
they
are
right.
As
The
Economist
put
it
recently,
“For
the
tyranny
of
the
leader
column,
Mr
Oliver
has
substituted
the
terror
of
the
tweet.”
But
television
offers
a
ray
of
democratic
hope
–
step
forward
the
BBC.
BBC
TV
News
reaches
around
two
thirds
of
UK
adults
every
week.
This
reach
has
remained
remarkably
resilient
over
the
last
decade.
10. CIPR FELLOWS’ LUNCH JULY 25th
10
Radio
One
Newsbeat
reaches
42%
of
all
15-‐24
year
olds
with
its
two
daily
programmes.
And
the
BBC
website
is
a
remarkably
reliable
source,
attracting
some
20%
of
all
UK
news
website
visits.iv
Over
80
per
cent
of
people
consume
some
BBC
news
every
week
–
and
it
seems
many
of
them
use
the
BBC
to
verify
stories
they
have
first
head
from
social
media
or
less
authoritative
websites.
Encouragingly
for
the
BBC,
it
is
by
far
the
most
trusted
news
source
in
the
country
–
58%
of
us
say
it
is
the
single
most
trustworthy
source
of
news
–
no
newspaper
scores
more
than
2%
on
that
measure.
The
other
sources
of
national
news
are
also-‐rans
by
comparison
-‐
although
honourable
mentions
must
go
to
ITV
News
and
Sky.
And
I
must
note
the
magnificent
role
of
local
papers
in
supporting
a
sense
of
community
at
local
level
–
a
healthy
relationship
between
those
hard
pressed
institutions
and
their
local
BBC
radio
station
is
crucial.
Much
of
the
health
of
our
democracy
really
does
rest
on
the
shoulders
of
the
BBC,
to
spread
a
measure
of
common
experience
that
is
mediated,
contextualised,
interpreted,
all
of
which
is
essential
for
our
democracy
to
work.
SOCIAL
MEDIA
So
what
of
the
social
media?
For
me,
and
I
suspect
for
you,
they
are
often
my
prime
source
of
news.
But
the
problem
with
the
social
media
is
that
they
amplify
something
that
was
also
true
of
the
conventional
printed
media
–you
choose
your
sources
of
information
and
you
tend
to
choose
things,
sources,
people
you
agree
with.
As
constituency
parties
decay
the
real
danger
for
MPs
is
that
they
hear
too
much
from
a
smaller
and
smaller
and
less
representative
section
of
their
electorate.
One
of
my
least
favourite
phrases,
and
one
often
used
to
trump
opposition
to
a
contrary
point
of
view
is
“And
all
my
friends
agree
with
me”.
Well,
they
would,
wouldn’t
they?
That’s
why
they’re
your
friends.
As
we
all
use
social
media
more
and
more,
just
like
the
decaying
political
parties
in
our
nation,
we
retreat
into
ghettos
of
mutual
reinforcement,
only
choosing
as
“friends”,
or
only
to
“follow”,
those
who
share
our
view
of
the
world.
This
is
a
mistake
made
by
both
politicians
and
the
public
–
as
Simon
and
Garfunkel
so
famously
put
it
in
The
Boxer,
“A
man
hears
what
he
wants
to
hear
and
disregards
the
rest.”
11. CIPR FELLOWS’ LUNCH JULY 25th
11
But
to
be
in
politics,
to
understand
politics
is
to
need
to
listen
to
conflicting
points
of
view
and
to
reach
judgements
on
them.
Not
just
to
do
what
your
friends
would
like
you
to
do.
Even
the
most
strident
newspaper
forces
you
to
look
at
stories
that
didn’t
immediately
interest
you
and
exposes
you
to
opinion
pieces
from
writers
dissenting
from
the
paper’s
editorial
line.
Not
only
do
the
social
media
build
ghettos
of
mutual
reinforcement,
they
also
lend
themselves
to
brevity
and
assertion,
often
abuse,
more
than
to
reason
and
explanation.
140
Twitter
characters
are
just
too
few
for
the
complexity
of
most
important
arguments.
But
it
is
surprising
just
how
abusive
you
can
be
within
that
limit.
One
recent
favourite,
from
my
near
namesake
Davie
Tuff,
and
directed
at
me
and
on
or
two
others
just
for
canvassing
in
the
Newark
by-‐election
said
simply,
Evil
scum
who
prey
on
the
disabled.
#nazis
Pathetic
and
harmless?
Perhaps
not.
Davie
Tuff
or
@bigtwix
has
108,000
followers.
Social
media
are
not,
in
fact,
media
at
all.
They
are
publishing
technologies,
and
the
views
in
them
are
unmediated
–
that
is
a
large
part
of
their
problem.
Companies
with
reputations
to
protect
have
to
maintain
a
close
watch
on
the
potentially
ruinous
rumour
or
libel
that
can
“trend”
on
a
social
media
platform
in
nanoseconds.
And
the
skilful
modern
politician
will
work
out
how
to
exploit
the
lack
of
mediation
in
social
media
to
promote
his
or
her
cause
without
the
tiresome
intermediation
of
the
public
spirited
journalist
–
and
that’s
what
many
of
them
still
are.
This
is
not
just
a
British
problem,
of
course.
It
can
be
a
much
more
serious
problem
in
the
developing
world
or
in
cases
of
extreme
social
disorder
where
there
are
no
established
news
sources
local
people
can
rely
on.
The
experience
of
newspapers,
radio
and
TV
stations
in
Kenya
in
the
wake
of
the
disputed
2007
Presidential
Election
was
a
case
in
point:
many
regular
journalists
reported
that
they
felt
'left
behind'
or
'irrelevant'
as
SMS
and
web-‐based
systems
to
report
and
track
the
violence
of
the
post-‐election
crisis
rapidly
overtook
their
conventional
journalism
techniques.
Skip
forward
to
2011
and
the
events
of
the
Arab
Spring,
and
there
was
an
explosion
in
the
role
of
social
media
in
not
just
overtaking
legacy
media
correspondents
but
in
the
very
organising
and
mobilising
of
revolutionary
movements
leading
to
regime
change.
The
media
development
organisation
Internews
Europevi
observed
across
the
region
a
dramatic
void
rapidly
open
up
between
the
discredited
remnants
of
state-‐media
propaganda
machines
and
the
all-‐powerful
social
media
across
Libya,
Tunisia,
Egypt
and
Syria.
12. CIPR FELLOWS’ LUNCH JULY 25th
12
The
freedom
of
speech
and
free
expression
seemingly
being
offered
by
digital
media
rapidly
led
to
citizens
regularly
citing
social
media
as
their
primary
source
of
news,
information
and
analysis.
Internews
has
witnessed
both
the
dramatic
success
of
social
media
journalism,
but
also
the
pitfalls
and,
at
worst,
abuses
where,
for
example,
actuality
and
images
from
one
place
are
passed
off
as
events
elsewhere
some
months
later.
This
has
led
Internews
Europe
to
test
and
deploy
the
first
versions
of
a
highly
sophisticated,
semi-‐automated,
News
Verification
tool
to
make
sense
of
the
social
media
chaos
in
the
region.
The
algorithm
and
editorial
principles
behind
it
are
being
trialed
directly
with
newsrooms
and
media
outlets.
The
system
is
felt
to
be
helping
editors
distinguish
rapidly
fact
from
fiction
and
also
preventing
them
falling
behind
the
agenda.
In
time,
greater
citizen
education
of
the
need
for
the
curation
of
social
media
and
for
news
verification
is
absolutely
critical.
Perhaps
technology
can
help
to
authenticate
the
accuracy
and
reliability
of
social
media
and
make
the
news
these
media
propagate
trustworthy.
But
perhaps
that
has
dangers
of
its
own.
Who
writes
the
algorithm?
He
or
she
is
the
new
but
anonymous
editor
with
immense
power.
What
subjective
judgments
have,
knowingly
or
unknowingly,
been
written
in
to
them?
VOLUME
AND
NOISE
And
the
other
challenges
prompted
by
technology
include
volume
and
immediacy.
We
live
in
a
transactional
world
where
the
customer
is
king.
Our
on-‐line
gratification
through
Amazon
is
immediate
and
we
expect
the
same
service
from
our
politicians.
Campaign
groups
like
38
Degrees
who
bombard
us
with
emails
from
constituents
who
have
been
hoodwinked
by
brief
campaign
messages
from
the
organisers
do
harm,
not
good.
They
breed
a
sense
of
entitlement
that
their
view
should
prevail
on
the
bogus
basis
that
volume
outweighs
reason
-‐
and
that
anything
short
of
acquiescence
to
their
often
ill-‐
considered
demands
is
a
rejection
of
democracy
–
when
quite
the
opposite
is
generally
the
case.
My
contention
is
that
democracy
is
diminished,
not
enhanced
by
electronic
communications
–
but
the
perception
is
very
different.
Electronic
communications
have
created
a
false
sense
of
access
and
engagement
but
have
actively
separated
MPs
from
direct
personal
responsibility
to
respond
to
all
communications;
the
sheer
volume
makes
it
impossible
to
do
so.
The
volume,
the
aggression,
the
ability
for
your
enemies
to
transmit
one
of
your
unguarded
thoughts
to
the
world
at
the
press
of
a
button,
makes
politicians
seem
more
remote,
more
guarded.
I
am
by
nature
a
glass-‐half
full
man
so
on
reflection
I
do,
just,
remain
optimistic.
13. CIPR FELLOWS’ LUNCH JULY 25th
13
Most
obviously,
people
contact
MPs
in
increasing
numbers
to
solve
their
problems
or
to
address
their
concerns.
An
institution
experiencing
such
sharp
increases
in
demand
cannot
be
said
to
be
irrelevant.
People
still
form
opinions
on
political
issues
and
of
politicians,
but
do
we
understand
how
this
happens?
Fresh
ideas
can
still
be
communicated
powerfully
but
it
requires
a
new
approach
–
or
is
it
largely
a
question
of
being
diligent
about
the
tried
and
tested
methods?
Twenty
year
ago
in
my
teenage
magazine
campaign
I
learnt
for
myself
the
power
of
advice
I
was
always
giving
to
my
clients.
And
if
you
have
a
message
to
communicate
that
advice
is
still
powerfully
valid.
The
message
matters
most
Get
the
message
right
and
everything
else
falls
into
place.
You
can’t
repeat
the
message
too
often
As
I’ve
done
on
many
campaigns
since
–
and
as
I’ve
seen
politicians
so
often
forgetting
to
do
-‐
repeat
the
message
until
you’re
heartily
sick
of
it.
Don’t
make
a
speech
and
move
on
as
we
so
often
seem
to
do
Repeat,
repeat,
repeat.
Be
relevant
and
authentic
Don’t
sound
like
just
another
politician.
Don’t
condescend,
don’t
lecture,
and
don’t
parrot
lines
to
take
-‐
but
be
human,
authentic.
Say
what
you
believe.
Be
more
like
Boris.
Understand
the
media
landscape
In
a
sense
this
is
the
same
as
it
always
was
-‐
learn
how
the
media
work
and
use
them.
But
proliferation
and
the
social
media
have
made
this
much
more
complicated
So
there
are
my
four
rules.
On
reflection
they’re
no
different
from
the
old
ones,
just
more
important
than
ever.
These
golden
rules
answer
the
problem
of
how
to
communicate
your
view,
your
proposition,
and
your
message.
They
don’t,
though,
guarantee
that
democracy
will
be
well
informed.
So
still
I
worry
–
we
face
a
dangerous
combination
of
circumstances.
Newspapers
that
say
things
that
are
not
true
to
sell
copies,
social
media
that
isolate
and
reinforce
prejudice,
and
politicians
who
can
exploit
the
unmediated
social
media
to
their
own
ends.
14. CIPR FELLOWS’ LUNCH JULY 25th
14
That’s
the
bad
news.
The
good
news
is
that
this
all
makes
work
for
public
relations
professionals
like
you.
So
continue
to
do
your
job
with
pride
and
passion.
And
two
final
thoughts.
Crucially,
whatever
else
you
do,
be
careful;
never
Tweet
after
a
drink.
Always
pause
before
pressing
send,
post
or
tweet.
So
put
your
phones
down
–
now!
And
never
forget,
something
you
won’t
hear
many
fellow
Conservatives
say;
we
democrats
should
thank
God
for
the
BBC.
To
return
to
Enoch
Powell’s
warning
about
politicians
who
complain
about
the
media
being
like
sea
captains
and
the
sea
–
the
BBC
is
our
democracy’s
lifeboat.
ENDS
i i
Or
again
from
Shakespeare,
as
Hamlet
contemplates
poor
Yorrick’s
skull
he
muses,
It
might
be
the
pate
of
a
politician,
one
that
would
circumvent
God.
In
the
interests
of
etymological
exactitude
I
should
explain
that
“politician”
meant
something
rather
different
in
Elizabethan
times.
One
source
says
it
meant
a
“...
trickster,
one
who
follows
Machiavelli’s
‘policy’
“
Another
source
offers
a
“…
schemer,
intriguer,
plotter”.
So
perhaps
it
did
mean
much
the
same
thing
after
all.
ii
At
its
peak
in
1960
the
Daily
Express
had
a
circulation
of
over
4
million.
Now
it’s
just
half
a
million.
In
1965
the
Daily
Mirror
sold
nearly
five
million
copies.
Now
it’s
just
a
million.
In
1980
the
Daily
Telegraph
managed
1.5
million
copies.
Now
it’s
half
a
million.
In
1990
The
Guardian
was
selling
over
400,000
copies,
now
it’s
half
that.
The
circulation
of
The
Times
is
actually
up
on
1960,
1970
and
1980
–
but
it’s
still
down
from
678,000
at
its
peak
in
2000
to
under
500,000
today.
iii iii
And
of
course
its
website
is
a
phenomenon.
In
May
it
attracted
4.7
million
browsers
daily
in
the
UK
and
a
further
6.3
million
in
the
rest
of
the
world.
This
makes
it
the
world’s
biggest
news
website.
• iv
iv
iv
Average
daily
audience
for
6pm
&
10pm
bulletins
(2014
figures):
5m
and
4.6m
respectively
15. CIPR FELLOWS’ LUNCH JULY 25th
15
• The
combined
weekly
audience
for
both
bulletins
is
22m
• Both
bulletins
skew
marginally
more
female
(53%).
And
both
are
slightly
older
(62%
over
55s
for
the
Six,
52%
over
55s
for
the
Ten)
• The
8pm
one
minute
news
bulletin
has
a
weekly
reach
of
12m
and
an
average
daily
audience
of
3.9m.
The
audience
for
the
8pm
bulletin
skews
even
more
female
(61%),
is
younger
than
the
6pm
and
10pm
news
bulletins
(54%
under
55)
and
slightly
more
C2DE
(53%)
• Radio
1
Newsbeat
reaches
8.9m
weekly
–
within
that,
the
15
min
Newsbeat
bulletins
at
lunchtime
and
in
the
evening
reach
2.1m
and
1.8m
respectively.
R1
total
news
audiences
are
balanced
in
terms
of
gender
and,
as
you
would
expect,
younger
(59%
under
35)iv
vi vi
"Internews Europe is an international development organisation specialising in supporting independent
media, freedom of information and free expression around the globe"