If you are interested in how organisations can promote a national culture, Ben and his colleagues have published a new article which you can read here. They worked with the British Council to explore how the UK could promote Shakespeare throughout 2016 to commemorate his life. Money from the UK government was used to stage events, activities and online discussions around the world. This became the Shakespeare Lives campaign. The purpose was to create engagement with Shakespeare and his work. As a soft power project, this was intended to bring benefits to UK identity - an indirect or subtle form of promotion. It allowed audiences in different countries to talk about which artists they valued and why. This created an often cosmopolitan dialogue of undoubted value, even if the UK itself was not often mentioned. We hope you enjoy the article.
Reflecting beyond eye tests, broadcasts and banana bread: Should we reflect on the effects of the reporting of Covid-19?
Image taken from Newbury Today 4th January 2021
Our MSc Media, Power & Public Affairs student Eleanor Fogden offers a theoretical and personal response to a year of Covid lockdown. Thanks Eleanor and we hope you all enjoy this:
The 23rd of March marks one year since the first lockdown. Boris Johnson has called for a national day of reflection. Some people will reflect on the loss of life because of the pandemic. Some may reflect on the challenges of homeschooling and working. Some may reflect on how we filled time – from decorating, day drinking or binging on banana bread and rewatching Tiger King. I have been reflecting on the reporting and response to government efforts both through traditional news media and social media and the parallels between the Covid crisis and the crisis of conflict reporting.
When considering the communication of conflict within media, a key theory relates to the ideas of Ruge and Galtung. They suggest that conflict is reported like sports, with narratives of competition, fighting, being seen to have a winner’s or loser’s mentality, and regulation of truth to benefit the cause of war. They suggest that reporting should instead be similar to health journalism, examining the cause, effects, and routes to prevention.
Naturally, you would assume that the reporting of a health crisis would be addressed using the techniques of health journalism. We know the facts of the virus. It is often spread through droplets in the air and originated from Wuhan, China; mild symptoms include temperature, cough and loss of taste and smell. We know how to prevent it through mask-wearing, hand washing and distance (hands, face, space for old times’ sake). Now there is a vaccine. Breakthroughs and drops in numbers can be reported with hope and with an end in sight. However, what is unique about the reporting of Covid-19 is that it has not followed this structure. There has been more focus on comparison with other countries about how we tackled the virus. It is expressed as a competition.
A common theme throughout reporting in the UK was examining the response to the virus in New Zealand. New Zealand had an instantaneous shut down without concerns about herd immunity and has a death count of just 26. The lack of cases in comparison to the UK suggests that New Zealand took the right action and because of this, the media has focused on the re-opening of New Zealand and how we could have been New Zealand (see the Guardian‘s Britain been more like New Zealand? February 2021). This narrative structure has a winning and losing mentality. Instead of the UK media focusing on our success as we would in the progress of war, we are “losing”. We were promised a short lockdown when the first happened and things would be back to normal. It was reported that New Zealand’s approach was drastic. Instead, a year on we have “lost”, with colossal deaths in a third lockdown, whilst New Zealand has “won the fight” against covid with limited deaths and every day on social media platforms we see images of people enjoying concerts and clubs.
We can also see this idea through the use of linguistics to create a propaganda of hope through patriotic rhetoric. This involves stories of inspiration, charitable efforts, and self-sacrifice described as “a stitch in time save nine”. This reflects the legitimacy of a government-enforced lockdown. It implies public coherence is a patriotic duty. It draws attention away from scandals and those being let down by services. Those working on the front-line are depicted in a similar light to soldiers, being described as our heroes. Please don’t let me be misunderstood- of course, they are heroes, they are our backbone working hours upon hours and we should be beyond thankful for their efforts. But lack of PPE, disorganisation due to government involvement (or lack thereof) and complete burnout with no resources, are covered up. Tabloids encourage a nationwide clap with members of parliament taking part whilst deciding that there should be no pay rise. This rhetoric is almost echoed in that of soldiers at the end of Wilfred Owen’s poem “Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori” – it is sweet and fitting to die for the homeland.
However, we can distinguish from the reporting of the Covid crisis the regulation of truth. Previously in times of war, media have been regulated to prevent a lack of legitimisation of conflict and to keep public spirits high. The development of new media, such as social media, means that if the government were to try and regulate during times of crisis through media, it would be near impossible – as reflected in the reporting of Covid. People on the frontline have a platform. They can and continue to expose the reality of working, living or grieving without the input of an editor having to follow regulation. Individuals have the ability to call out government actions and place a spotlight on those exploiting rules or norms. Take Domonic Cummings travelling to test his eyesight. Once the news broke, complaining and disdain didn’t stay home, it was on Twitter, Facebook, TikTok; it was everywhere and many were in agreement that his actions were appalling and a reflection on a divide between government and people. The “us and them” mentality used in conflict reporting came not from regulated media, but from the public and social media. This differs from how the mentality is created but could be a nightmare for a government trying to create a message of hope and fighting spirit through media.
Covid will never be forgotten, rightly so. Its impact will be felt for many years. It’s been a strange and troubling time. The parallel between conflict and covid reporting is an area that would be interesting to examine, perhaps best with the hindsight of when things are more steady. This is speculation, but I think there are similarities that can be explored. Looking at Covid from an individual point of view, when I had it, it felt like a fight because it was horrible and having contracted it going to work didn’t feel worth it. I wasn’t in healthcare. I’m certain that my two weeks spent in bed eating ice lollies watching old horror films, coughing and listening to the clapping from neighbours and not being able to join because I was so weak I couldn’t stand, isn’t worth comparing to a conflict nor should be reported with messages of hope. We should remember those who have passed and should hold those accountable who had the power to prevent the spread to today’s catastrophic levels.
Our class will be in conversation with Facebook's Sam Freeman about how platforms can police harms
On 22 March 2021 our MSc students will take part in a conversation with Sam Freeman from Facebook. Sam is Production Engineer in the Integrity Foundation team. He works on integrity systems to fight abuse at scale across all platforms; Facebook, Messenger, Instagram, and others. Specifically, he helps ensure that these systems are reliable, scalable, and efficient when dealing with billions of users. Sam will give a short opening and then he will take your questions.
This conversation comes about because of talk in our Media, War & Conflict seminar this term about how social media platforms are trying to police users from posting content that could make conflict more likely. We know Facebook itself is implicated in action that brought ethnic cleansing in Myanmar (story here). We may know friends or family who have received hostile messages from anonymous users. Many of you will be familiar with the role of social media in other conflicts, terrorism and other atrocities, often close to home. We will ask Sam about how they are trying to manage that.
Thanks to our MSc student Abigail Swindlehurst for making this event happen.
Amber Macintyre - PhD success
Dr. Amber Macintyre has passed her PhD, titled, Campaigning by Numbers: The Role of Data-Driven Practices in Civil Society Organisations. Amber used ethnographic research to explore how campaign organisations Amnesty International and Tactical Tech follow what Amber calls 'data logic' despite their openly critical stance on the use of big data. Amber's thesis was examined by Dr. Alison Powell (LSE) and Prof. Karin Wahl-Jorgensen (Cardiff). Her supervisors were Ursula Hackett, Ben O’Loughlin, and Cristian Vaccari. You can read the abstract of her thesis below.
Congratulations!
Abstract
This research examines common claims about how personal data is used in political communication, focusing on civil society organisations (CSOs). Two ethnographic case studies are carried out to investigate the differences between an older membership-run CSO, Amnesty International, and a younger grant-funded CSO, Tactical Technology. The findings are threefold. Firstly, new civil society organisations, such as Avaaz, 38 Degrees and Change.org, assert that data-driven technologies support their efforts to decentralise strategy-setting power from their staff to their audience. However, both organisations in this research engage in data practices to persuade the audience to support the strategy set by organisational staff, corroborating the critical claims that data practices centralise power. Secondly, rhetoric around the uptake of new data practices has been based on the assumption that distinct data-driven ways of working have become normalised. The findings show, however, that these two CSOs still rely on face to face discussions, intuition, and relationships to make strategic decisions. Finally, decision-making surrounding data practices can be influenced by the opaque role of data scientists and the data technologies. The technology-era organisation was more likely to understand how to involve these agents in decision-making processes than the older organisation, which affected their ability to manage personal data. The research is significant in understanding the complexity and nuance in the adoption of new data practices. Further, the research makes a case for practitioners and researchers alike to be cautious about claims that data practices can support the decentralisation of strategy-setting power.
O'Loughlin publishes new book on EU-China strategic narratives
Ben O’Loughlin has published a new book, One Belt, One Road, One Story? Towards an EU-China Strategic Narrative. The book is with the prestigious Palgrave Studies in European Politics series and co-edited by Alister Miskimmon and Jinghan Zeng. In their previous work on strategic narrative, Ben and Alister have shown that when countries have alignment on how they view the past, present and future, then cooperation becomes possible. In this book they explore whether such alignment exists between the EU and China, two great powers that are seeking to manage world order. Through its Belt and Road Initiative China has expanded its relationships across several continents, while the EU and its member states also have long-standing ties in Africa and Asia. The result is a degree of competition and each pitching a direction for international relations to take — a direction that they hope other countries, companies and organisations will buy into.
This book show how central communication is to international relations. Anybody trying to understand how world order is changing should check out this book.
Collignon and O'Loughlin testify to Belgian Senate on fake news
On 27 November 2020 Sofia Collignon and Ben O’Loughlin were keynote speakers testifying to the Belgian Senate, presenting evidence of their research on digital politics. The Committee for Transversal Affairs of the Belgian Senate is currently preparing an information report on the necessary cooperation between the Belgian federal and regional governments in the fight against fake news.
Collignon talked to the Senate about how there is a fine line between misinformation, smear campaigns and intimidation. Her data show smear campaigns have strong emotional consequences for candidates. She has also found Important variations on the causes of smear campaigns depending on the kind of politician that is being targeted.
O’Loughlin began by noting the lack of large scale evidence about digital politics across multiple platforms, the problems of transparency when handling such data, and how citizens now require media literacy about how data is produced, circulated, shaped by algorithms, and other dimensions that make media literacy far more than simply knowing if a fact is true or false. He then gave a set of recommendations to policymakers and journalists.
NPCU expects the report to be published in 2021.
New article by O'Loughlin on the positive side of the disinformation panic
Ben O’Loughlin has published a new article arguing that debates about disinformation actually open a wider discussion about politics and democracy that can have positive consequences for public life. The article is Media Regime Disruption and the Conditions of Public Reflexivity, in International Journal of Communication. It is free to read and available here.
Ben shows that while disinformation gets attached to geopolitics, scandal and manipulation, it forces all to think about how connectivity can be better organised in a digital era and how the social can be better organised so that people have an understanding of the data they encounter. These are fundamental questions in this historical period. The transition from one media regime to another is just a part of that.
International Journal of Communication is ranked #3 in communication and #5 in the humanities. The article was written while Ben was Thinker in Residence at the Royal Academy of Arts and Sciences in Brussels.
O'Loughlin review of the book Strategic Conspiracy Narratives is published
International Journal of Communication has published a book review by Ben O’Loughlin of Strategic Conspiracy Narratives by Mari-Liis Madisson and Andreas Ventsel. The review is free to read. If you want to know how citizens in different countries create conspiracy narratives about George Soros whenever anything is in the news, this is a good book. If you want to know how conspiracy narratives are constructed and used politically in the first place, this is an even better book.
New article by O'Loughlin on the role of visuality in the Iran nuclear deal
Ben O’Loughlin has published a new article, The visual politics of the Iran deal: narrative, image and verification. The article is in Cambridge Review of International Affairs, co-authored with Alister Miskimmon. In it, the authors argue that leaders in Iran and the US made deliberate attempts to orchestrate a shared narrative that it would suit all sides to reach a deal for Iran to have nuclear power and the international community to monitor Iran’s facilities. However, there was much visual evidence of efforts by Iran or by those against Iran to paint Iran in a good or bad light, respectively. Why? For an actor in international relations to be trusted by others, there should be visual evidence that they are behaving as others would desire. To have a credible identity requires others to “see” your character, and international relations provides a lot of each character or country to see. Despite these difficulties, the authors illustrate how Iran, the US and other leading powers agreed a deal.
The article should stimulate readers to think about how narrative and visuality are linked, and how actors try to do this strategically to build a positive impression of themselves, or, sometimes, a negative impression of others. Foreign policy involves some careful communication.
Ben is grateful to the Institute of Advanced Studies, University of Bologna, where much of this research was conducted in 2016 while Ben was Visiting Professor there.
O'Loughlin publishes new book Spaces of War, War of Spaces
Ben O’Loughlin and the rest of the editors of the Media, War & Conflict journal have published a new collection of brilliant essays about how media enable Spaces of War, War of Spaces. This comes out of the conference they held on this theme in Florence in 2018.
Click here to purchase. Use 35% online discount code: GLRTW5
Thanks to Bloomsbury for publishing the book and to Simon Norfolk for use of his photograph on our cover. Ben and the team will hold the next conference in Florence in May 2021, covid permitting.