PR Studies

PR and the media (latest from the US)

Here are three observations on contemporary public relations from a media perspective (most positive first):

1. The Power and the Story: Michael Wolff's analysis in Vanity Fair of President Obama's powerful media operation. (Note the difference in style between a magazine and a blog: there's a 76-word sentence containing no fewer than nine commas here. But don't let that put you off reading this elegant article.)
2. Spinning the Web: PR in Silicon Valley: New York Times business section (and note Richard Edelman's scathing reaction to this exercise in self-promotion).
3. PR Girls Who Don't Know Where Darfur Is Bask in Bruno Press Blitz: New York Times fashion section (via PROpenMic). Nuff said, probably, though there's already a tribute blog - Hot Twin PR. 

What are we to make of this? In brief, it shows the problem of simplifying an activity that spans political and technology communications and also includes celebrity publicity. But I suspect it also shows something of an east coast, west coast divide in the US. Here in the UK, Max Clifford, Matthew Freud, Alan Parker and Roland Rudd all work in London (see post below) - a political, financial and media hub.

Dirty tricks and special advisers

A political PR story has people talking. I'll limit myself to four observations:

1. The blogging dimension has been overstated. Political PR has often been conducted through leaks (known as non-attributable briefings), so there's nothing fundamentally new in the use of blogs to disseminate (mis)information. What's new in that blogging appears to favour opposition voices in a more pronounced way than happens with the traditional media, hence the desperate tactics from government advisers that have been exposed by this story.
2. It's a truism that Conservative politicians are vulnerable to sex scandals while Labour politicians are vulnerable over money. In a recession, the public seems more shocked by stories of bath plugs on expenses than allegations of sexual misconduct.
3. There are rules governing the party political activities of civil servants. Why not enforce the existing rules before rushing to create new ones?
4. There are such strong practical grounds for rejecting dirty tricks campaigns that we don't even need to start discussing principles. 'Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.' There is a danger that no normal people will choose to enter political life, knowing the scrutiny it will bring on their families and on their past lives. David Cameron was right to refuse to give a direct answer to the question about drugs; public figures deserve some privacy. Besides, what's the point of principles if we don't stand by them? Sure, it's wrong to lie... Except when lying, even black propaganda, is the lesser of two evils - as was surely the case with the wartime Special Operations Executive. So let's stick to the practical point: dirty tricks campaigns are wrong because they're so often ineffectice and counter-productive. 

Surprisingly, the business world appears in this regard to be a more genteel place than politics. I suspect this is because in business there's very rarely a simple binary choice as there so often is in democratic politics. And the principle of denying your competitors free publicity means that direct attacks tend not to be used.

In reality, politicians have much in common with each other and often behave with remarkable restraint and dignity. For me, the highlight of the US presidential election did not directly involve the successful candidate. In a campaign walkabout, John McCain was approached by a woman who suggested that Barack Obama did not deserve support because he was an Arab. 'No ma'am, he is a decent family man and citizen.' The right thing to do (in terms of winning) might have involved playing the race card; McCain did the right thing for democratic politics.

Dynasty

John Harris has written an extended feature on Matthew Freud's connections to the worlds of politics, media and celebrity. It reads rather like an appendix to Miller and Dinan's A Century of Spin: the author can't quite pin his subject down, but clearly senses there's something wrong in someone having this much influence.

Having a famous great-grandfather, being the son of well-known MP and broadcaster, having Rupert Murdoch as father-in-law must confer advantages. I suspect it encouraged him to take risks, because you can see Freud's progress as an entrepreneurial success story - how someone who did not go to university built a business and became connected to the most powerful people in the country. He's earned the money he's spending on private jets and lavish parties, though John Harris sees him as the Great Gatsby of our age.

Change

Faced with a financial crisis and with growing cynicism about party politics, we needed this. The US election campaign has been compelling, dignified and engaging.

That both candidates for president were to some extent outsiders has helped. As commentators have pointed out, president-elect Obama has defeated in turn the two most powerful political machines in the US: the Clintons and the Republicans.

Of course, money still talks. But Obama has raised the money he's spent, mostly from small donations. His victory shows the groundswell in action, as well as reminding us of the power of rhetoric to effect change.

Peter's friends

For me, the most interesting narrative - the only interesting narrative - of the story concerning George Osborne, Peter Mandelson, Oleg Deripaska and Nat Rothschild is this: Don't mess with Mandelson.

It appears to be his revenge for the leaked private conversation from a Corfu taverna that caused embarrassment when he was recalled to the UK government. That's certainly the angle taken by the Daily Mail. In revenge, Mandelson - through friends - has turned the news spotlight on George Osborne.

I don't expect this story to run and run, though the BBC's Nick Robinson thinks it may still have legs. At times in the last 24 hours, it has seemed this is the biggest story on the BBC since the Large Bank-run Collider.

For students who may not recall his earlier role in the creation of New Labour, the noble lord is sometimes viewed as a 'prince of darkness' - a modern Machiavelli.

The honourable gentleman is . . . a spin doctor

What do you do if you unwittingly mislead the press based on the information you've been given?

If you're senior government communicator Mike Granatt, you resign.

The moral dimension of political PR has never been better dissected than in Spin Cycle by Howard Kurtz, a book about Bill Clinton's White House propaganda machine. His spokesperson Mike McCurry managed to retain his reputation for honesty and openness in the face of daily inquisition by the media. At times he only achieved this by avoiding asking direct questions of his boss.

Leaks, damn leaks and assassins

Amidst all the discussion of Charles Kennedy's removal as Liberal Democrat leader in recent days, little has been said about the campaign to force his resignation.

On the one hand, it was a triumphantly successful whispering campaign. Triumphant in that it achieved its objective whilst largely concealing the identities of the assassins (because there were so many: 'et tu Brute'). Ever since the anticipated departure was leaked to Andrew Neil's late night political programme before Christmas, the pressure had been mounting on Kennedy. In the event, it became a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Yet two dangers remain. One is of a backlash by party members (who should have a vote for Kennedy's successor) against the conspirators. If the favourite (Menzies Campbell) becomes implicated in the plot, then there will surely be a swing against him.

The other is a reaction by the electorate at large. The appeal of the Liberal Democrats has largely been that they're not Labour and not the Conservatives; unsullied by national power, they have been seen as a principled, even 'nice', party. This act of ruthlessness sends a confusing signal and they are sure to suffer in the polls.

In a few years time, I predict that Charles Kennedy will be held in rather higher esteem.

The drugs question

On The Message on Friday, Anne Gregory and others gave the opinion that 'truth will out' and that David Cameron would be well advised to make a statement to clear up the suspicion about his possible past involvement in hard drugs. I don't agree.

There's no right answer to the question 'did you take drugs as a student?'. 'No', if truthful, would seem the best position. But Conservative politicians are keenly aware of the experience of William Hague: fashionably unprivileged upbringing in South Yorkshire, outstanding academic mind (Oxford First), bright McKinsey consultant, brilliant performer in Parliament. So bright, so political, such a prodigy that he did not communicate well with the people who held his future in their hands in the polling station. William Hague would have benefited from appearing to have a more 'normal' past - though he was ridiculed for the baseball cap and the story about drinking 14 pints. Sometimes you can try too hard.

If the drugs question is answered, then what answer do you give to these: Have you ever driven over the speed limit in a built-up area? Did you have pre-marital sex? Have you had an extra-marital affair? Do you pick your nose in private? The last one is ridiculous, but it makes a point. If the answer given is 'no', then we suspect you're lying. And picture editors will pay good money for the image that seems to prove it. You're inviting further intrusion into your privacy. Is 'yes' a better answer, then? It establishes that you're willing to give a straight answer to any question that's asked of you, so the chase is back on to find a question that would embarrass you. Don't go there.

Who'd be a politician? And do we want to be represented only by saints and the sanctimonious? How did Bill Clinton survive the public shredding of his private affairs and get re-elected in a nation with a strong Puritan tendency? In Spin Cycle, Howard Kurtz tells the compelling story of PR under pressure in the Clinton White House.

A lord, not a god

Great name, interesting career. Andrew Adonis has completed his political rise through elevation to the House of Lords, allowing him to serve as a government minister.

I recall him as an Liberal Democrat Oxford city councillor. For a fuller account of his changing career and political allegiances, I'm impressed how up-to-the-minute his Wikipedia entry is.

Political PRs

There's a UK general election today (and county council elections also). A colleague has spent the last two days in a helicopter touring marginal constituencies, though he's back in time to assess student presentations today.

I'm aware of two PR consultants who are standing for parliament. Clive Booth of Lewis PR in York; and Ed Vaizey in Wantage. The latter seems ashamed of his PR background, preferring instead to state that he was a partner of a 'small business' who works as a freelance journalist. Both are Conservatives though you can find PR consultants actively campaigning for all three main parties.

Later: ePolitix has a fuller account of the advent of many aides and advisers.

Later still: How could I forget Rob Wilson, a former consultancy colleague who has just become an Conservative MP?