IT NEED NOT HAVE BEEN A CRISIS:

In many instances, a crisis is not born of events themselves, but of an organisation’s reaction to those events.  Indeed, it can be its “failure to meet the social norms and expectations of stakeholders” (Coombs, 2000, p.77).

Rupert Murdoch - not sure which 'social norm' has the bigger breach: the spread-eagled legs for the camera; or the almost knee-high socks with shorts combo; or perhaps it goes much deeper than that. Photo - Telegraph

Rupert, Rebekah and James have felt that it’s ‘okay’ not to have to answer for what has taken place on their watch, especially when it’s involved the families of murdered children, fallen soldiers and victims of terrorism.  To not feel the need to account for yourselves is almost as big a sin as the original crimes – thus compounding the crisis.

Almost childlike, they have felt that somehow, if they hide, it will go away.  If they don’t engage in the basics of relationship management – whether through media relations, public affairs, internal communications or investor relations – it will blow over.  Instead, they have just created bigger audiences for their original crisis, and added to their gripes.

A crisis demands “outside-in thinking”.  Instead, we have just seen a bunker mentality.

Sacrificing the News of the World appears to be a reflex reaction, dressed up as thought through strategy.  “If we throw the baying crowds a piece of meat, perhaps that will satisfy them, draw a line, and they will go away”.  Except it still didn’t answer any of the questions people had about past wrong-doing, and instead destroyed a piece of the News Corp empire that arguably was working well.  The News of the World need not have been closed down.

SHOCKING USE OF THE MEDIA FROM MEDIA PROFESSIONALS:

The three senior executives at the heart of the scandal have demonstrated a woeful understanding of the basics when  it comes to their own use of the media, which has usually involved them shunning interview opportunities (adding to the air that they have something to hide), or running away from a pack of journalists and cameras (in the process, creating the most defensive of photo-opportunities).

Rebekah Brooks and another defensive non-photo opportunity

This is from professionals (some of whom have been journalists themselves, so should know better) who lead some of the biggest media titles, many of whom are the catalyst for a crisis in organisation when they put allegations to them to ‘stand up a story’.  You would think they would be the experts at knowing how to handle a crisis, having seen it from the inside?  Think again.

Why no press conferences?  Why after hiding from the press for so long do you give an interview to only one publication?  Why do you have to resort to to advertising and letters to say your sorry?  When did you stop being a human being?

JOURNALISM AND PR PROFESSIONALISM:

Building from the last point, it is a cautionary tale about organisations assuming that high-profile former journalists always make the best PRs.  Some journalists make fantastic PRs – the ones that understand that the discipline is more than just media relations,and is about more than individual transactions.  At its heart, PR is about reputation.

Whether it is media professionals’ shocking handling of the media themselves, or the arrest of journalists turned PRs for their alleged involvement in this ‘scandal’, public relations needs to maintain a constant eye over standards in its own profession.  The discipline’s reputation itself is never that high – and the last thing it needs is to be brought into the eye of this storm by the actions of the likes of Andy Coulson and Neil Wallis.

AND FINALLY……

While writing this blog, it has been announced that Rebekah Brooks has finally resigned as Chief Executive of News International.  It may be a little late for the organisation to take control of the crisis, even though we have finally seen someone held accountable.

What price reputation? UAL's Rector, Nigel Carrington with Rebekah Brooks

Which brings me to the rather limp reaction of University of the Arts, London to calls for them to strip Rebekah Brooks of the honorary degree they awarded her last year for her ‘contribution to journalism’.  It was on behalf of constituent college, London College of Communication (LCC), from which Brooks originally graduated.

Rather than acknowledging the concern of academics, students and external audiences to how this award looks with hindsight, a university spokeswoman told the Guardian that they awarded honorary degrees to those judged to have made “considerable contributions to the creative and cultural industries“, while head of college at LCC, Sandra Kemp emailed all staff, warning it was inappropriate to comment while official investigations were ongoing (err… they will be for some time), and warning that all media inquiries should go to the university press office (err.. this to a college that includes countless journalism and PR students).

Excuse me, what about the bigger issues?  Am I missing something here – isn’t the university worried about it’s association with what will become the biggest scandal of our generation.  Perhaps the degree would be more aptly re-awarded for her contribution to causing a crisis?

With this year’s graduation ceremonies upon us, for the sake of avoiding its own crisis and denting its own reputation, London College of Communication/University of the Arts, London should withdraw her honorary degree.  You can join the Facebook group here.

References:

Coombs, T. (2000) Crisis management: Advantage of a relational perspective. In J.A Ledingham & S.D. Bruning (eds) Public Relations as relationship management: A relational approach to public relations (pp.73-93), Mahwah, New Jersey:  Erlbaum.

Right: The (now) 89 year old Frank Holland - the original 'Dutch'

Last week, my 89 year old ‘Gramps‘ was admitted by ambulance to hospital, with severe stomach pains, and bleeding.  He is like a second Dad, with me having been a latch-key kid during the 1970s and 80s – and it is from him that much of the inspiration for the name ‘Dutch‘ comes.

For five days since his emergency admission, there was little progress on a diagnosis of his problem.  He was in the very ward visited by David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Andrew Lansley, from where they kicked off their ‘Pause, Listen, etc’ consultation exercise on the NHS reforms in March.

NHS consultation, kicking-off at the local hospital where Gramps found himself admitted via A&E recently

This blog isn’t a rant against those changes (I’ve done that elsewhere), but more one against a general atmosphere which prevents us ‘little people’ ever really getting their hands on the source of a problem; of seeking accountability, and for people in their every-day work being given the autonomy to flourish (but also to take a sense of responsibility for what they do) – in short, it is against a ‘tick-box’ regulation culture that prevents any kind of resolution or authentic reaction.

My ‘Gramps’ lay in his hospital ward.  Cameron and Clegg have been and gone.  So, I am reliably informed has the regular and pre-announced Care ‘Quality’ inspection. Check  ✔. Check  ✔.  100% compliance laminated bar charts produced and placed on walls around ward?  Check  ✔.  Check  ✔.

Funny though, the shiny, new, wipe clean metal signs above every bed on the ward remained empty.  I’m told they were there for ‘Quality’ Care’s inspection and for Cameron’s visit (must have made a better photo opportunity), but actually, to fill them in breaches patient confidentiality.

Nil by Mouth? (Source: BBC: 'Getting On')

Staff needed to know that my ‘Gramps’ was ‘Nil By Mouth‘.  By relying on this tick-box approach to managing care, they have encouraged him to eat food when he shouldn’t;  then when it has been decided that it is too late and he should carry on eating, the message hasn’t kept up, and the people with the food have decided he is ‘Nil By Mouth’ again, even though he is not.  As a result, there is no progress on diagnosis, and he has not even advanced out of the care of ‘A&E’ to a surgical consultant.

Breaching patient confidentiality?  The same information was kept on a chart in the corridor of the ward for ALL passing to see, but somehow, that did not breach confidentiality.

'Nils By Mouth' - not the actual state of the walls

By Day Five of his stay, and no further forward on his care, the Hospital told him he could go home.  Before he had a chance to leave the grounds of the hospital, he had been manhandled by a three-strong security team, who saw fit to prevent him leaving the hospital, and having done so, did not seem to have an idea of how to manage the intervention in someone’s physical space without winding him up further.

Back on the ward, but after I had whisked him off site bruised and incensed, a doctor had finally read his notes – and realised that he should not have been discharged – and because of his medication regime, should have been treated immediately, as we had been originally told.  Too late – I’m not sure he’ll ever set foot in a hospital again.

This is not an issue about a single hospital, or nursing staff – although who orders an 89 year old with a violent stomach condition and an unlikely relationship with ‘exotic’ food sweet and sour pork for dinner?  He was also discharged with someone else’s medication – another breach of confidentiality that was somehow ‘ok’.

For me, this is about an issue prevalent in every walk of life.

It hits the headlines in the regulation of private care homes; bonuses and credit availability in the banking sector; railway companies and ticketing; the Press Complaints Commission and ‘phone hacking‘; and quality of care in the NHS through the Care Quality Commission.  I had first hand experience this last week of how the latter’s pre-announced inspections are more interested in the punctuation used on a member of staff’s CV, than they are the real life experiences of people like my Gramps (I saw such an incident happen).

Closer to home, in higher education, students at my former university, University of the Arts London were vindicated recently, when in a landmark ruling, the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) made a general ruling under its ‘Cause for Concern’ procedures about the issues I have been blogging about for some time (and resigned my job over in November 2009).  This is a big deal, as it is difficult enough to find your way around the system, let alone have the confidence to do anything about it.  And for it to take 18 months to get ‘justice’ after exhausting the democratic procedures of the elected college structure; one-to-one meetings; demonstrations; occupations and public meetings.

But the result of that regulator’s ruling?  Nothing!  While it found in favour of the student complainants, It also found that there were no future issues for concern likely to impact on the student experience.  This is from a university that left students on courses with NO dissertation supervisior for a term, no personal tutor, and countless examples of courses with no lecturers, purely as a result of the decisions of the head of college – and this was courses that did NOT close.

LCC's Head of College, Sandra Kemp

Who is to say that cannot happen again?  It happened because one senior member of staff decided to make changes without sticking to the relevant course change procedures, and ignoring warnings about lack of staff cover on existing courses.  Guarantees of quality, yes, but look more closely, and you would have seen courses having very little money spent on them, few unique resources, and in the case of the degree I am proud to have resigned from rather than ‘play the game’, they have been unable to appoint a permanent, specialist replacement in over 18 months, despite advertising, shortlisting and making job offers – because everyone else has seen through them too.  They, like me have made an ethical judgement.

"Nil By Mouth" you could say - Jacob Black finds himself gagged, just like lecturing staff

We were even asked to lie to parents of incoming students about whether courses were to close – “Nil By Mouth” you could say.

When I asked QAA if they were interested in my testimony, after six weeks of no reply, a prod resulted in another “Nil By Mouth” response.  Now they have got what the THE described as their “unprecedented” slap on the wrists, it is likely that my former College will seek to shore up what is left of its reputation by seeking accreditation from the Chartered Institute of Public Relations for the PR degree course it kept.  There is no way it should get it, purely on the staffing situation alone.  But they will pay their accreditation fee.  Someone will ask a ‘difficult’ question.  Its answer will be minuted.  And all will be well in the world?

Regulation isn’t working.  Unless citizens or consumers are given the tools to become more active in using the channels available to them, I despair.  Unless we all reflect a little more about how power is at play, we may as well all give up.  Fees will increase next year from around £3k per year to £9k – effectively a ‘blank cheque’ for the unpunished institution, which was making in the region of £100k per year clear profit from courses such as this even back then!  It is also about effective policy-making (or lack of) which often is responsible for creating the messes which need regulating in the first place.

If any of those students did want to try their hand at securing compensation for what even the regulator described as disrupted studies, they wouldn’t get it from the university, they wouldn’t get it from the university funding body (HEFCE) – they wouldn’t get it from the regulator, QAA.  No, they would have start a whole new separate process, through a totally different body, the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA)!  Run for your lives!!!!!

I think Charles Dickens perfectly fingered the regulators in Little Dorritt.

“The Circumlocution Office was (as everybody knows without being told) the most important Department under Government. No public business of any kind could possibly be done at any time without the acquiescence of the Circumlocution Office. Its finger was in the largest public pie, and in the smallest public tart. It was equally impossible to do the plainest right and to undo the plainest wrong without the express authority of the Circumlocution Office.”

Idealism? Take a Stand? or Give Up? Chicken Soup with Barley

If you’ll excuse me, I’ve got my own laminated bar charts to produce – another successful year you’ll be surprised to hear.  If you are interested in the issues raised, I thoroughly recommend Arnold Wesker’s play “Chicken Soup with Barley” at the Royal Court till July 16th.  After a slow start, tracking one family’s fight against the fascists in the East End of London in the 1930s, by the end I didn’t think the tears would ever stop – and that was a matinee performance!

Do we give up on our idealism?  Maybe we need to adapt our tactics to the terrain?  But surely we can’t cease caring in the face of a ceaseless, faceless bureaucratic onslaught?  It is tempting when the weight of forms take us away from the frontline, and from our talents, but when we remind ourselves that we are part of a wider human fraternity: real people like my 89 year old Gramps;  young people starting out on their careers?  We must put them at the centre of everything we do – in life, and in professions, such as mine of public relations.  Ethical codes and regulation are a sign that we have already failed, as are playing too safe in the delivery of our communication strategies in PR.  Kirsty Maccoll could have taught Ed Miliband a few things about Labour’s message and delivery had she still been alive.

Gramps meanwhile has forbidden the family from getting involved, but he needs us to bat on his behalf and navigate the official procedures.  He has already started seeking justice – in his mind, he ‘naturally’ went to the local police force.  They have since referred it to the neighbouring police force (where the hospital is based), who have since referred it back to the Hospital, who insist he submit a formal complaint about the hospital – but he does not want to complain about nurses personally, and does not understand these elaborate procedures.  We all know, “Computer Says No“!  ’PALS’ process activated?  Check ✔  Letter to CEO?  Check ✔  What’s the betting the computer will still say ‘No’, even if it says ‘Yes’?

* Apologies for being away so long

Theories in the shape of Cognitive Dissonance Theory more usually used in understanding the mechanics of persuasion can help us understand just what the Lib Dems are up to.

The feeling of ‘dissonance’ (just like that uncomfortable feeling at the bottom of your stomach when you feel sick) hits when an individual:-

a) holds two clearly incongruent thoughts;

b) freely performs a behaviour that is inconsistent with an attitutude they hold;

c) makes a decision that rules out a desirable alternative behaviour;

d) expends effort to participate in  what turns out to be less than ideal activity; or

e) in general, is unable to find sufficient psychological justification for an attitude or behaviour he or she adopts. (Perloff, 2010)

In order to get rid of this feeling, Perloff (2010) suggests that we can do one of the following.  Alongside each, I will give an example of the party doing just that – except the path that would provide it with the option of getting rid of the most dissonance – change it’s behaviour and either voting against specific measures, or leaving the coalition, or at least more likely, waving a white flag, apologising, and admitting they had done a volte-face.  No – that would involve them admitting they were wrong.

1. Change your attitude: It’s not just student fees, or social housing. Here, Chris Huhne does an about turn on nuclear power.  The video shows his position BEFORE the election; weeks after the election, Huhne is announcing the green light for a new generation of nuclear power.  It is not a compromise, as it is clear those involved didn’t seem to want to put up a fight for the abandoned policy.

2. Add consonant cognitions:  Suddenly, there are new ways of appreciating the policy that, according to the proponents, we could not possibly have known before the election – except we did!  For example, the depth of the financial situation;  the compromises of coalition;  sticking to the ambition of progressive outcomes by targeting the number of those on free school meals going to Oxford and Cambridge.

3. Derogate the unchosen alternative:  If in doubt, ignore the questions, and just ‘slag-off’ the opposition in a less than subtle form.

4. Spread apart the alternatives:  This is an interesting one.  Compare with an imaginary situation had the Lib Dems not been involved, which implies that your Coalition ‘friends’ are beastly.  That’s not nice, is it?

5. Alter the importance of the cognitives elements:  It doesn’t matter that students will be saddled with three times as much debt (a proposition which will put poorer students like my 17 year old self off going to university), they will be paying off less per month when they pay it back.  Yay – it sounds like a Paul Daniels trick!

6. Suppress thoughts:  I was good friends with Tim Farron as a student politician – I’d like to think he still is a friend.  But this clip is a classic example of ‘Keep Calm and Carry On’.  Ignore the fact that everyone in the party is talking about what is going on.  Tim is at a local party function in Islington, and it’s as if all he can find to talk about is the content of the vol-au-vents and the fact that Trident’s renewal has been delayed for a year.  On that basis, members should be reassured – “we are getting so much out of the coalition”.

7. Communicate:  Newly elected Party President-Elect Tim Farron MP here appeals for votes as he runs in an internal elections, promising members he will make them feel better about themselves again – just like they did when they campaigned against the Iraq War.

8. Alter the behaviour:  99.9% of Liberal Democrats have not taken this option.  The vociferous response of a generation of voters lied to at the ballot box, whose idealism and enthusiasm has been smashed, let alone their vote lost is just a foretaste of what the party can expect to reap in return for not having altering its behaviour.

It is difficult to change your behaviour – to admit that it is out of step with your attitudes and beliefs – but it is the only way to TRULY eradicate cognitive dissonance.  To do so involves admitting that you have been wrong, or have completed changed your mind – and that is something politicians just don’t do.  Instead, they wriggle, they self-justify, and as a result, self-combust.

As a result, they obviously become less persuasive – and the case of the Lib Dems, to many people, an obscene let-down; to others, a laughing stock.  For example:-

Sadly, the only people who cannot see it are the afflicted themselves.  It’s very much like the behaviour of an addict.  For me, it is heart-breaking to see a party I have campaigned and worked for behave in such a way.  I have had no alternative but to let my membership of the party lapse.

The title of one of the most readable books on the subjects sums up where the party finds itself.  ”Mistakes were made, (but not by me): Why we justify foolish beliefs, bad decisions and hurtful acts.” (Tavris and Aronson, 2007)  If only THEY had been able to say they got it wrong.

The history of PR is too easily entwined with propaganda, when it could just as easily be associated with activism, such as the Suffragettes

One of those was Karen Russell, associate professor at the University of Georgia, and editor of the Journal of Public Relations Research.  She gave a keynote address, encouraging us to ‘embrace the embarrassing‘.  She was referring to those names in the history of PR (Bernays, Ivy Lve, Barnum, etc), because only by doing so might we actually start to look around these figures, and beyond them.  As Jacquie L’Etang pointed out in her keynote address, we are allowing these figures to dictate what the history of PR is, as if there was no public relations activity going on throughout the rest of history between the times of Ancient Greece (at the birth of Rhetoric), and the American Revolution.  We jabe allowed them to ‘spin’ their own role as creators of PR.

In modern day public relations, one of the most embarrassing corners of our profession for many due to negative headlines is that of Public Affairs.  The spur of professionalisation was one of the drivers that moved fellow PR lecturer Sarah Roberts-Bowman and myself to develop to the new CIPR Diploma in Public Affairs, which we will be delivering for the PR Academy from September.  It is not a ‘Westminster Explained’ type course, but is instead designed to put Public Affairs in a wider theoretical framework, and provide space for practitioners to reflect about their work in a Masters level environment.

The Thick of It's Malcolm Tucker, continues to act in a not too professional, yet utterly entertaining fashion

Part one of the Diploma looks at the trends and challenges facing the political and public policy landscape.  As well as political communications and the nature of campaigning and decision-making, the course brings in perspectives on the nature of power, democracy, pluralism and the ‘public sphere’.

Part two of the Diploma looks at the art and science of lobbying and campaigning, through the psychology of campaigning, how to influence decision-making, messaging and the media, the role of political marketing, the concept of relationship management, moving from channels to conversations, dialogue and discourse – and finally, ethics and codes of conduct – probably the biggest issue of the moment as the new Coalition Government (and the industry, in the shape of the UK Public Affairs Council, bringing together APPC, CIPR and PRCA)  looks at the role of lobbying in the ‘new politics’ and considers what form of regulation is most appropriate for the profession.

Part three of the Diploma puts public affairs into the context of managing organizational reputation, including its link with issues and crisis management, CSR – and stakeholder theory.

The project is assessed through a 6000 word research project, for which candidates are prepared for research philosophies, methods and techniques in a fourth part of the Diploma.

There will be some skeptics about the whole idea of having such a qualification.  We have consulted widely around the industry, and had a warm welcome to it when we have taken people through it.  As with the CIPR Internal Communications Diploma which was launched last year and proved extremely popular, it is seen as a way of helping to professionalize public affairs, and a perfect step for personal development.  And for those industry figures who don’t think you can teach such things, we want you to be part of the delivery of this diploma.  Any theory is only effective if it is delivered in the context of professional practice, and we want top embrace as many people as possible to share their expertise as guest speakers or mentors, and create a real community of professional development.

*Labour MP Bessie Braddock packs a punch against singer Frankie Vaughan! Much of the terrain may have changed over time, but have the principles?

Back to the International History conference, it was great to meet the author of one of my favourite journal articles, which I use to give undergraduate students a taste for diving into a wide range of journals and articles to inform their final year research.

McGrath, C. (2006) “The ideal lobbyist:  Personal characteristics of effective lobbyists”, Journal of Communication Management, 10 (1) pp.67-79

At the conference, Conor McGrath was presenting a paper arguing for a re-writing of history, presenting the first UK parliamentary lobbyist as Charles Weller Kent, working for the NFU between 1913 and 1916.  Prior to McGrath’s paper, accepted wisdom has been that Lt. Commander Christopher Powell was the pioneer of lobbyists in the UK.  He set up the parliamentary consultancy Watney and Powell in 1928.

If McGrath’s research proves correct, it would mean that we would nearing the centenary of the profession in 2013 – and an ideal time just ahead of that for the CIPR to launch a Diploma in Public Affairs, so that when it comes, we no longer have to ‘embrace the embarrassing’ in order to celebrate it!

[*Credit for the fantastic Bessie Braddock photo to the Pool of Life blog on the Liverpool Daily Post site]

This week has campaigns from each of the three hitting the headlines in the ‘old media’, and while I would still describe them as being more evocative of ‘Blanche Hunt‘ (the dear departed, pensioner queen of the sour one-liner in ITV1′s ‘Coronation Street’) than the ‘Gene Hunt‘ from BBC1′s ‘Ashes to Ashes’ contained in the imagery in some of them, things are looking up in the sophistication of their ambitions.

Blanche Hunt, played by Maggie Jones, who died on 2 Dec 2009

The first to come under the spotlight is Labour.  Rather than deciding to use an agency for the creative in their next advertising poster, they decided to invite members and supporters to take part and share their creative ideas.  It provides a way of scouring the horizon for potential creative ideas that the party may have missed, and provides a route for conversation with supporters, enabling them to feel they are getting involved.  It was dubbed “The People’s Poster“, with updates on entries provided via Twitter, and behind the scenes video of the competition given on You Tube.  Some of the entries were negative, some were very funny, and some were iconic.

Brilliant!  All of this provided perfect material for media relations too when the eventual winner was announced.

Labour's winning "People's Poster"

Labour could have intervened on the quality control, as one of the problems with social media is there is no control over what will be said or submitted.

In this case, Labour were too caught up with the message submitted, and its essential negative content to be able to stand back and see its essential weakness, that other people on social media, and the Conservatives were able to turn to their advantage.  The main character depicted on the poster – Gene Hunt – is a national hero, who despite tending towards the racist and the sexist, is essentially viewed as a redeemable fictional character of a particular time.  He is also a ‘bit of a dish‘, from an award-winning programme that regularly tops the ratings – a bit like The Sweeney, and A Touch of Frost too, for example.  Oh dear – cue Conservative mash-up of poster.

Conservative 'mash-up' of Labour's poster

I think it would be even stronger if you view it while playing this jingle, as sourced from the car horn of the ‘General Lee’ car in “Dukes of Hazzard” – another immigrant from TV in the 1980s.

It’s humour, and use of rhetoric are stronger, and so it is able to deliver its attack back with a a more memorable, stronger punch.

The Conservatives tried their hand at viral humour on April Fools’ Day, with a mock story about the Department of Government Waste.  A quick look at the view counter will demonstrate that it has not been as effective as the Liberal Democrat campaign for a spoof political party called the ‘Labservatives‘ complete with Twitter and Facebook presence.  The lesson here appears to be better research, with the Lib Dem message appearing to have a stronger resonance with voters, and delivered in a not particularly tribal fashion that has worked well.

The Conservatives may have made more productive use of new media through their use of ‘crowdsourcing‘ in their analysing of the budget’s effects on pensioners, and it may be behind the scenes use of new media which help supply old media with stories which may prove the most effective during the coming campaign.

Before signing off, a better example of how social media (working in tandem with old media) works best, with The Guardian newspaper’s own spoof April Fools’ Day story about Labour’s fictional ‘Step outside posh boy’ campaign.

Guardian spoof

Not only did it go viral on social media, and get reported as a spoof on old media, the paper encouraged readers to submit their own versions of the artwork, tapping into this alleged ‘side’ of the PM’s character.  It became a top trending topic of discussion on Twitter, is still accepted as one of the better ideas, and now the Guardian is even retailing limited edition T-shirts.  If only it had been real!

The lessons from all of this, if there are any, are:-

>  to let go a little, and employ as many sets of eyes and ears as possible – audience understanding.  In my limited experience, the political party activists need to get out and live life a little bit.  The press conference where David and Ed Milliband announced the “People’s Poster” looked a little odd.  It looked like the brother’s didn’t get out enough, or knew enough about popular culture.  If they had, the initiative might have worked a lot better;

> to continue getting rid of the bile in their campaigning efforts in favour of humour juice.  They are still too much like Blanche Hunt than Gene Hunt in how they conduct themselves.

These types of attack-ad inspired campaigns only scratch the surface in terms of what is possible with regard to integration with other comms channels, and nimbleness of foot.  For that, I sense we will be looking towards the pressure groups, and less formalised groupings of campaigners.

Non-aligned InVinceCable We Trust campaign

Observers are told that whoever can best harness the power of new media – whether to reach new audiences, to build movements through more engaged conversations, or to tap into new pools of creativity – is most likely to have the key to this election campaign.  It is why Obama, with a grassroots campaign, engaging people from outside of politics, giving them ways of getting involved, behind a positive message of hope was able to successfully use new media.

Just a few weeks of pre-campaign electioneering, sat for the bulk of my day in front of the computer, and making full use of Twitter and Facebook have left me thoroughly depressed as to the prospects for the role that ‘social media’ is set to play in this election.  While there have been some positive campaigns, such as Power2010 and #InVinceCable , these are for the most part NOT run by the political parties.

So far, both Labour and Conservatives deserve on-line ASBOs, such as the degree of  ’anti-social behaviour’ when it comes to social media.  Rather than talking to the electorate in meaningful, two-way conversations, they are instead shouting at each other, which may have the perverse result of providing them with less time to talk to the electorate.

This has most clearly been exemplified by the ‘#cashgordon‘ versus ‘#cashcroft‘ battle on Twitter recently.  The activist bases of the two parties have been too wound-up, too pre-occupied to notice that, in the case of the Conservative campaign, the open tag nature if its Twitter-feed meant that the front-page of its website could easily be hijacked by negative messages.  By the end of its first day, just a few hundred people had signed up, likely to all be activists already.  By the end of the week, it has only reached a thousand.

#cashgordon

Similarly, the Labour campaign (the party of government) fail to understand that be throwing cheap, playground names at the opposition, and by not even attempting to answer policy questions, they make it more likely that the same will come back.

#cashcroft parody from mydavidcameron.com

What is so depressing is that this is nothing new.  The two parties have not undergone a full cultural shift in embracing the full possibilities of what social media can deliver in campaigning.  Instead, they have chosen to repeat the mistakes highlighted by the deliciously viral video, ‘The Last Advertising Agency on Earth‘.

For that is the strategy they continue to adopt, albeit online – negative advertising, or ‘attack ads’.  And there wasn’t even agreement that it worked for old media.  They had a role because of the research that showed negativity (within an overall positive message) attract more interest, provide higher recall of a message/campaign, and thus have a greater impact – especially important in a short-term, four week campaign.  Research suggests that this effect is not universal though, and that it depends on the audience’s level of involvement with what it is going on – the lower the level of involvement, the more likely negativity will work (Dermody & Scullion, 2000; Dermody &Hanmer-Lloyd, 2005).

But of course, it’s also argued that overall, such adverts switch people off politics, and maybe they feed off the declining the levels of trust they encourage.  In terms of source credibility and message factors research, there might be an argument to be made for negative attacks on your opponents helping to mobilise your core support.  In fact, there is more research to justify ignoring your opponent (and their arguments) completely if that’s all you are trying to do (Perloff, 2003).  I’m also a little old fashioned in feeling that some attempt should be made to engage, to persuade, and for a candidate to be held to account for their views.  Dominant political marketing paradigms too easily ignore democratic, and even public relations traditions.

Save Our Sure Starts

Of course, it’s not all that dark, and there’s a mix of party-led and non-aligned initiatives. Labour’s “Save Our Sure Start” which has a strong presence on Facebook has a good potential to reach out beyond the party’s supporters.  Something like Mark Thomas’ “The People’s Manifesto” shows the potential for bringing new and old media together, using stand-up events, and books to engage an audience to create a unique, but credible manifesto.

I have to admit to a soft-spot too for the Parliamentary Education Service’s ‘MP for a Week‘ virtual adventure-style game, which although a little pedestrian, does go beyond the barking headlines to give some insight into what it means to be an MP, and provides for some form of participation.

But that’s besides the point.  The MyDavidCameron.Com website in particular shows the blurring of the lines between political advertising, and online parody.  Beyond their own supporters (and throwing pies at the opposition’s activists), the political parties so far have demonstrated that they have not fully embraced social media.  And worse than that, there is a danger that the investment of energy it requires of activists on keyboards and Blackberries will take them away from talking to talking to real voters – and converting a few swing or non-aligned voters.

I would argue that the kind of people who engage in spaces such as Twitter, or in political debates in social media spaces are typified by high levels of involvement in terms of consumer behaviour.  For party activists, it creates a fantastic space to engage their creative energies.  But for non-aligned individuals such as those in specialist pressure groups, charities and social enterprises (and the parties seem to have forgotten that in most people’s networks, that will be a great deal of such people), their kind of turbo-charged, finger pointing negative campaigning could very well backfire.  Let’s hope they’ve maybe got a little more creative viral content, and some engaging conversation-led ideas up their sleeves that may also provide excuses to mobilise.

And we’ve only just begun. Oh no, we haven’t yet!

References:

Dermody, J. and Hanmer-Lloyd, S. (2005) “Promoting Distrust?  A Chronicle of the 2005 British General Election Advertising Campaigns”, in Journal of Marketing Management, 21, pp.1021-1047

Dermody, J. and Scullion, R. (2000) ” Perceptions of Negative Political Advertising: Meaningful or Menacing?  An Empirical Study of the 1997 British General Election Campaign”, in International Journal of Advertising, 19 (2), pp. 201-223

Perloff, R.M. (2003) “The Dynamics of Persuasion”, New Jersey:  Lawrence Erlbaum Associates  [An excellent general resource on persuasion issues]

Each have a role to play, but ‘old’ is too easily given the ‘heave-ho’ in the rush to embrace new technology.  The best example I can signpost here are new music releases – giving me an excuse to plug the ‘Music’ tab on the top right hand side of this blog.

Take this track ‘Hustle’, by the band Tunng.  The band have a social media presence – Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, You Tube and the like – but I have never had cause to stumble across them, despite them having been around for a bit.

It was due to them coming to the attention (no doubt through some nimble PR) of Mark Radcliffe and Stuart Maconie on BBC Radio 2, who then proceeded to play the track to the millions listening to their radio show, and to champion it from then on.  Magazines could have played a similar role, but radio is in a stronger position when it comes to music.

I fell in love with it immediately – the power of third party endorser no doubt helping, a trusted guide helping the track (and the artist) stand out above the noise.  That, together with the mass audience, which could then be used to take traffic to various online sites to find out more about the track brought others, like me to the track I’m sure.

The story does not end there. ‘New’ media picks up the baton from ‘old’ as someone who has discovered the track, like me, is able to share their new found love, by blogging about the track, ‘tweeting’ links to the video, and – well, you get the picture.  As word spreads, ‘old’ media jumps back on the bandwagon to report the successful phenomenon – interviews with the artist and reviews of the track in more mainstream newspapers, magazines, tv, radio and online – justified by the social media activity the PR can point to when pitching in, sometimes even providing a story to back it up.

All aspects of the campaign need to integrated and planned with precision.  In effect, there is no ‘old’ and their is no ‘new’ – just many more different forms of media than there used to be.

The ‘Music’ tab is where I post, for the most part ‘new’ music that I have usually had the pleasure of being signposted by the likes of Mark Radcliffe, Stuart Maconie, Janice Long, Steve Lamacq, Trevor Nelson, Gilles Peterson, Kissy Sell Out, Huw Stephens – and even the odd older rare find showcased by Jarvis Cocker on his BBC 6 Music show.  I’m sure most of you will not share my taste, but I hope that it at least explains what it is for, and its relevance to PR.  I remain a luddite when it comes to my passion for the medium for radio, as it comes closest to sharing many of the social, interactive, instant and communal aspects of new media. But that’s a post for another time.

Messages for Head of College, Sandra Kemp from LCC students

Students applying for 2010/11

It’s that time of the year when students are considering their applications through UCAS for university in 2010/11.  I’ve felt it necessary to do a quick post after being contacted by a number of potential students, enquiring about the forthcoming academic year.  Despite having ‘left the building’ in November, I’m still listed on the website of the London College of Communication ‘LCC’ as the course director for their BA (Hons) Public Relations, and rumours are doing the rounds that the degree is set to close.

Set the record straight

I’m happy to use my blog to set the record straight on that front – it is not.  But the College does have serious issues that many feel it needs to address.  I am not going to use this blog entry to go through those arguments in detail, but do feel it is fair that students applying to ‘LCC’ know that I am no longer employed there, and that students at the university have major issues about the institution.

Those issues are caused by the impact of the closure of a range of other degree courses on the delivery of the PR course, and the cancellation for the third consecutive year of a revalidation (re-writing of the course) that would have addressed concerns over a lack of specialist PR resources.  Instead, I am going to group together a number of links that are already in the public domain, so that potential applicants are fully informed.

Student voice

This is the first of a series of You Tube clips of the Head of College, Dr Sandra Kemp, attempting to address the concerns of PR students, following news of my departure.

What the papers say

Here you can read links to reports of what has gone on in the Times Higher Education supplement [1], a reply from Sandra Kemp (Head of College) [2], and a further response from all of the students on the course [3] showing that, in PR terms, the Head of College’s reply may have been a little misguided.

Peaceful protest

Having exhausted democratic structures, and feeling they were not being listened to, students inevitably turned to peaceful protest (see links to coverage below).

The response of the university was the introduction of heavy handed security personnel who had to be prevented from physically man-handling students, and the issuing of high court injunctions against students who weren’t even present at the demonstration to which it referred.  The university ‘cack-handedly’ collected names by ‘hoovering’ them up from the adminstrators list on a Facebook group.  It was when the university sought to serve costs against the one person they could get an injunction upheld – a recent alumni of the university (the indefatigable Joana Pinto) – estimated at approx. £20,000 that the judge intervened to dismiss the attempt, and asked the university to consider its actions most strongly.  The independent ‘Oppose’ group of students has an excellent blog which keeps a good eye across broader issues associated with the restructure at ‘LCC’ and associated redundancy programme.

Students demonstrate through occupation

Some other useful links include this piece of local media coverage, plus a number of reports from the university’s student newspaper, Arts London News.[1]; [2]; [3]; [4]; [5]; [6]

If you are a student considering studying public relations in 2010/11, please consider your choice very carefully.  This was my ‘dream job’ – I would not have chosen to resign lightly.  I felt I could no longer put my name to the course.

By all means email me if you think I can be of any assistance in your choice.  I hope to be teaching at another university in some capacity.  I think my students will tell you that I have always been fair and open in my discussion of the choices open to you.  I continue to raise my hat to Leeds Metropolitan University and Bournemouth University for the reputation of their PR degrees and helped to write the CIPR approved PR degree at the University of Greenwich so am supportive of that institution too.  I am likely to be a visiting lecturer at the latter.  A good starting point for consideration has to be the CIPR’s list of approved courses.

BA Public Relations (2009/10) - Emma Edwards (Year 3 course rep) and Thom Will (Year 2)

The elected student course reps have kindly offered to make their email addresses available to any potential students with questions.  Ask questions of the real experts – the students.  Get under the skin of provision.  They are:-

Tove Nordstrom (Year 2):  tove_nordstrom[AT]hotmail.co.uk

Sammy Khan (Year 2): samiyahkhan[AT]btinternet.com

Emma Edwards (Year 3): missysugarlump[AT]hotmail.com

Megan Morewood (Year 3):  meganmorewood[AT]hotmail.co.uk

I have been privileged enough that I think with almost near unanimity amongst my students (and beyond on other courses on which I have taught in the last two years), they and colleagues have been supportive of the decision I have reluctantly felt compelled to take.  This blog (link) was produced by another group of PR students during the recent events.  I’d like to take this opportunity to thank all of the students I have had the pleasure of teaching during the last three academic years at LCC.  They were a special group, and many of them have already gone on to excellent opportunities on graduation.

I could have said a lot more, but felt it best to leave it to what was already in the public domain – and leave the rest to the students themselves.

Photo credits: Jennifer Watt and Thom Will.

Students demonstrate outside the recent meeting of the university governors

The Face of Student Protest (I) - the Sandra Kemp face mask makes its first appearance at the demonstration in front of the meeting of the university governors

The Face of Student Protest (II) - more 'in your face' peaceful protest

Reflecting on what is the best shape for the most effective professional education for public relations seems to take up an ever increasing amount of my pondering time.  The relevance of PR degrees is a topic that has been much discussed before.  I have always been a strong supporter of the need for the profession to have academic degrees (every profession must have academic underpinning), but have begun to consider too whether the current set-up provides the best return for all students, for industry and academia alike.

Role for Coach and Talent Scout

Watching the excellent new series ‘Glee’ on E4 has emphasized the need to me in particular of two popularized roles – that of ‘coach’, preparing students effectively for the PR workplace, and that of ‘talent-scout’ for the industry that a conventional higher education based course director, quite rightly could not provide.  Cue tenuous excuse for a link to an extended trailer:

It could be argued that neither of these two roles is being particularly well fulfilled by the current set-up.  Providing more of an involvement for industry in the delivery of such education would also provide better scope for engaging critical reflection on the more theoretical aspects of the PR discipline, making innovation more likely, and research better informed.

Involving PR practitioners

It may also crack the thorny issue of more effective delivery of ‘Personal & Professional Development’ units, to tackle some of the more general ‘soft skill’ issues of the workplace in a more meaningful way, with the more active involvement of professionals (it could form part of their CPD).  I have heard many students compare their experience of such units to that of ‘Music and Movement’ in school.  Such issues have been explored recently in an excellent report, ‘Effective Education for Employment: A Global Perspective’, commissioned by Edexcel and Pearson, and prepared by White Loop.

Whistle-blowing, dirty washing, or too quiet?

I resigned at the end of November as course director for the BA Public Relations degree at the University of the Arts London, based at the London College of Communication.  I may return to that particular issue in a future blog entry.  It explains my radio silence for so long since my last entry.  While I was still in their employ (and in the immediate aftermath), this was for fear of an institution bigger than I ‘taking it down’ and ‘using it as evidence against me’ of something more malicious on my part.  More recently, I have not been able to decide whether I would be judged to be whistle-blowing, or merely to be washing dirty laundry in public.  Transparency can have its limits – let’s just say much of what I have seen in the HE sector would have relevance to such a discussion.

PR 'guru' Mark Borkowski with LCC Yr 2 PR students Colleen Mcleod & Course Rep Sammy Khan

Championing PR Industry Involvement

While in post for just over two years, one of the first things I did to make the academic content more relevant was to ramp-up the involvement of industry.  High profile guest speakers, specialist insights, real briefs and assistance with placements, which often turned into full-time employment on graduation were a priority.  These included:  Max Borkowski (Borkowski PR);  Sao Bui-Van (then Vice President Communications UK & Ireland, MTV Networks; now at BBC);  Colin Byrne (CEO UK & Europe, Weber Shandwick);  Dan Chung (Staff Photographer, The Guardian);  Max Clifford (Max Clifford Associates);  Bernard Donoghue (Head of Government & Public Affairs, VisitBritain);  Jill Franklin (MD, Franklin Rae PR);  Dan French (Clifford French – sports & entertainment consultancy);  Colleen Harris (former Press Secretary to HRH, Prince of Wales, Prince William and Prince Harry);  Julia Hobsbawm (CEO, Editorial Intelligence, & London’s first professor of PR);  Ian Johnson (MD, Ian Johnson Publicity);  Mike Lee (Chairman, Vero; former Director of Communications & Public Affairs, London Olympic 2012 bid);  Janice Long (Music broadcaster, BBC Radio 2); and Donald Steel (BBC Chief Communications Advisor), to name but a few.

However, whether it was on pedagogical grounds, on economic grounds (I doubt this, as the course made a substantial profit, and such an approach would be even more cost effective in the long run) – or as I suspect, simple institutional inertia, getting any of this content (which is what the students quoted as why they were on there) formalised as part of the course, or prioritised was near impossible, beyond the personal commitment of myself and my colleague, former BT corporate PR, Sarah Roberts-Bowman.

BA Public Relations graduates (2008-09) Jemma Arjun & Susan Kellie

Kate Tartsus, Lucy Pond, Cally Sheard, Richard Cain and Triinu Linhein

Wai-Lum Wong

Watching ‘Glee’ has reminded me how much I miss teaching the students on the course, and how proud I was of the recent graduating cohort.  It has also made me re-double my efforts at reflecting on what future directions education in this area might most effectively take.

A social entrepreneurial model for PR education?

Alongside university based provision, rather than seeing the number of such degrees continue to expand, is there scope to look at developing a degree model that has feet placed firmly in the profession, with validation provided by academia (rather than the reverse), built around a social entrepreneurial model of delivery?  Are there other alternative shapes for provision?  Or is the current set-up just fine, and ready for changes that will also present themselves in government HE policy?

BA Creative Advertising graduates (2008-09) Brenda Adoch-Moro & Alfred Malmros. I was lucky enough to be Alfred's supervisor for his dissertation on the role of rhetoric in advertising, for which he secured a first. He has already been snapped up by leading agency Anomaly.

New School PR? An alternative approach?

- Could such a model provide a structure for graduates to continue to deploy their skills in a supportive environment as freelancers, on behalf of the third sector or to widen the availability to PR services to those who find themselves ecluded from them, should these graduates not be lucky enough to secure employment immediately on graduation?

- Are there ways that such a model could encourage greater collaboration between industry and education, providing more scope not only for research and creativity, but for individual practitioners to reflect, and challenge the way the things are done?  It could provide a more informal or social space for practitioners at all levels (and in a range of disciplines) to network, and be joined by the brightest of the new generation of students.  As a social enterprise, the driver for events could be content, rather than prohibitive conference fees.

- Or might it simply be a case of being contracted by universities to provide more relevant work-related learning opportunities, and to coordinate top placement opportunities across the PR profession – you could say a place for the industry to do a bit of CSR on itself?

During the coming term, I’m doing some visiting lecturing for the PR Academy (which delivers the teaching of CIPR qualifications for practitioners) and the University of Greenwich (where I was part of the team that wrote the BA degree programme), but am determined to spend time reflecting on this, and talking to potential collaborators.  Do let me know what your thoughts, even if you think I’m barking up the wrong tree.  I’ve already stumbled across a similar model that is being put together in the advertising world – the School of Communication Arts – so have not been completely put off.

Photo credits:  Thom Will, Susan Kellie, Lucy Pond, Wai-Lum Wong and Brenda Adoch-Moro.

Rhetoric is a subject that public relations has tried to grab for itself.  Like bonnets, black death and morris-dancing, Rhetoric is one of those items that finds itself discarded by time.  My adopted profession, and the subject I teach – PR – doesn’t really have any specialist areas of its own.  It was one of the things that originally drew me to teaching the discipline – the way that it raids marketing, psychology, sociology, corporate strategy, business, design, English, and Cultural & Critical Studies for deeper reflection. But I soon found that even Rhetoric had been embraced by other disciplines, such as linguists and postmodern philosophers.  Perhaps Rhetoric could be about to shed its ‘discarded’ label, and do a ‘ballroom’ rather than a ‘morris’ dancing.  That was my argument – that Rhetoric should be among the mainstream ‘Saturday night TV’ of communication tools.  Let me explain.

Are parts of inner city UK really comparable to episodes of The Wire? Good or bad rhetoric?

Like anything else, Rhetoric can be done badly as much as it can be done well.  We only usually ‘finger’ it when it is done badly – cue Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling‘s recent comparison of parts of inner city UK with episodes of The Wire, for example.  Or Gordon Brown‘s shocking performance on YouTube.

Done well, Rhetoric can be the substance as well as the word or deed.  Done well, it is as if it is instinctive, when you learn to dance or ride a bike.  Done badly, it is like Manuel in Fawlty Towers:  “I learn it from a book.” As Bill Clinton described it in a recent BBC documentary, there is a written speech, and then there is the moment it is delivered too.  It is like a jazz piece.  It is about how you play it too.  Equally, you should never hog the stage, showing off for showing off’s sake, or in the case of a dancer, your steps eclipsing those of your dance partner.

Most people begin their criticism of Rhetoric from the father of the subject, Aristotle‘s definition of it as “the art of using language to persuade.” In terms of plumbing, that is a technical skill which embraces patterns of language, structures of argumentation, and tugs at our emotions.  It also taps into the personalities of the communicator and the audience.

Equally though, he called it “the art of discourse”, suggesting this is something that is two-way, something more organic.  Not necessarily just for show.  This links it in with two-way symmetrical models of excellence in communication championed in public relations theory.

For those new to the concept, Rhetoric was born in ancient Greece during the birth pangs of democracy.  The three main concepts to rhetoric are Ethos, Logos and Pathos.  They are three pedals that one could play to a greater or lesser extent, depending on the communication challenge.  Ethos is the character of the speaker (do you trust them?);  Logos is the nature of the message (does it add up? is there expertise?); and Pathos is the emotional response generated in the audience (the dynamism and warmth of the performance).  There is a fourth, lesser highlighted concept of Kairos – the moment, the timeliness of the communication.  I particularly like this concept, as it allows for the individual contribution of the communicator and what might commonly be called ‘nous’.

Pauline - 'do I look like Deirdre Rachid?'

Deirdre Barlow, nee Rachid

A number of alternative definitions from the 20th century show up just how far away from the jibes our understanding of Rhetoric should be. (all collected by Booth, W.C. (2008) The Rhetoric of Rhetoric: The Quest for Effective Communication, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pg. 7-8)

Rhetoric is:-

“the study of misunderstandings and their remedies.” I.A. Richards (1936)

“that which creates an informed appetite for the good.” R. Weaver (1948)

“is rooted in an essential function of language itself, a function that is wholly realistic and continually born anew:  the use of language as a symbolic means of inducing cooperation in beings that by nature respond to symbols.” K. Burke (1950)

“We should not neglect rhetoric’s importance, as if it were simply a formal superstructure or technique exterior to the essential activity.  Rhetoric is something decisive in society…. There are no politics, there is no society without rhetoric, without the force of rhetoric.” J. Derrida (1990)

And this bring us to the centre of my case for celebrating rhetoric, thanks to the excellent book by Bryan Garsten (2006), Saving Persuasion: A Defense of Rhetoric and Judgment, Cambridge:  Harvard University Press.

First, rhetoric is not about ‘show’ or performance.  It is just as much about creating the conditions for a ‘call to arms’ to invite us to make a judgement.

Pushing an audience to the point of making a judgement, particularly with politicians is quite a novelty these days.  Surely sticking one’s neck out is a good thing, to be applauded.  The enemy of good rhetoric is usually more establishment forces, dismissing such activity as ‘empty’, and defining itself as the ‘public good’.

Second, rhetoric has a role in encouraging deliberation. My life has been typified for many years by so many daily ‘pins in the eyes’ moments, created by standardised rules enforced by faceless bureaucracies; technocratic or functional decision-making which seems to lack a heart, and a lack of autonomy for anyone even a significant way up the career food chain.  It means communicator and audience lack interest.  Heads aren’t turned.  Responsibility isn’t taken.

Rhetoric can be used to draw people into the process of deliberation, making them more attentive, and giving them more of a stake in the eventual outcome of the process.  Cue Obama’s “Yes We Can” campaign.  Again, for the most part, we only ever get told about the bad examples, because we don’t embrace rhetoric.  These include cack-handed, or cliche ridden consultations.  Indeed, most attacks on Rhetoric are doing what they accuse Rhetoric of.

Thirdly, by provoking a reaction, or a ‘swash’ if you will, Rhetoric disturbs, and as a result is great for creating space for reflection.  It is often mistakenly assumed that silence is an essential requirement for reflection, when sometimes we require the opposite, which can be provided through the passion Rhetoric stirs.

In my talk, I was charged with deliberately provoking argument, and so suggested that Rhetoric be reintroduced to the school curriculum.  Until a couple of centuries ago, it was part of the ‘trivium’ with Logic and Grammar and was a central part of the school curriculum across Europe.  Interestingly, I found some agreement for my cause, particularly because it would give children a reason for studying many of the devices they learn in English Language.  With Rhetoric, they would now have a reason for using them in ‘performance’ in daily life – whether participating in political debates, holding those in power to account, challenging line managers, shoddy service, getting off with someone, cutting a good deal on Tottenham Court Road, or at a job interview.

One of the devices I most use (or over-use) is humour, and the particular device of antithesis.  There is a character in the BBC comedy League of Gentlemen who works in the Job Centre called Pauline (pictured above).  To one exchange to an unruly workshop, she replies rehtorically, “Do I look like Deirdre Rachid?” Here she is trying to make a point by trying to compare herself with a character from the popular ITV soap Coronation Street who she thinks she is the exact opposite of in terms of looks.  That is antithesis.  It’s just made more funny in this case because she DOES look like Deirdre Rachid (also pictured above) – so this is a slightly different case.

For a full list and examples of the kind of devices that rhetoric embraces, one of the best books is Cockcroft, R. & Cockcroft S. (2005) Persuading People: An Introduction to Rhetoric, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. (Chapter 7 and Appendices)

Shirley Williams

Malcolm Wicks

I attempted to illustrate my case with some example of practitioners of the art of rhetoric.  Who has ‘got it’?  In politics, obviously, Bill Clinton.  I think Shirley Williams too.  In an understated way, I have always admired Malcolm Wicks MP for the way he always manages to engage me, even though I usually disagree with the policy he is articulating.  Somebody in the pub audience rightly suggested John Reid, somebody who I think is particularly skilled.  One of my original heroes, David Penhaligon (who died in a car crash in the mid 1980s) was so particularly gifted that I’m starting to see conspiracy theories in his death in order to prevent the first Liberal Prime Minster since Lloyd George!  Outside of politics, suggestions included Len Goodman, Sir Bobby Robson, and of course, my granddad Frank Holland.  Alix Salmond and the SNP were held up by me, not in terms of their programme, but their Rhetoric.  By being prepared to invite voters to make a judgement, they had transformed their electoral fortunes.

John Bercow

Stuart Hall

In terms of not so good, new speaker John Bercow was suggested as someone who was too interested in the technical aspects of rhetoric (too frilly in the cuffs, as I would say).  Barack Obama had it on the campaign trail, but it has not transferred so well into office.  There was some discussion of just how much bigger a politician Gordon Brown would be than Tony Blair, if only he had half of Blair’s rhetorical skills.  Stuart Hall was held up as somebody who once had it, but somehow only seemed to eat, sleep and breath Rhetoric, which left him appearing a little, well…….

I think one of rhetoric’s main uses is a kind of personal log-book; a way for us all to seize the controls more efficiently of our communication abilities.  To be more human.  It doesn’t mean rejecting more scientifically grounded theories of persuasion.  Rhetoric could just be an easier way of the individual operating by them.

I love Rhetoric, and think we all have something to gain by deploying it.  Equally, if I’m the only person who sees its good side, that’s as good, because I will find it even easier to prosper through using it.  I first discovered it after finding that it gave a name to many of the little things that I had been doing professionally for a number of years to good effect, but that weren’t in any training course or textbook.  I cannot understand why more people aren’t benefiting from using it.  Let it roll!

And if you fancy a brawl over a philosophical problem together with a pint, upstairs in pub every month, I can heartily recommend Big Ideas.  It worked for me, and I will certainly be returning to join in the other end of an argument.