• Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
    • Faculty
    • Current PhDs
    • Completed PhDs
    • Ongoing Projects
    • Completed Projects
    • Networks
    • Publications
    • Masters in Media, Power, and Public Affairs
    • PhD
    • Upcoming
    • Past
    • Stay Up To Date
    • Twitter
    • RHUL Politics & IR
    • Contact Us
    • Find Us
  • Search
Menu

newpolcom

Street Address
City, State, Zip
Phone Number

Your Custom Text Here

newpolcom

  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • People
    • Faculty
    • Current PhDs
    • Completed PhDs
  • Research
    • Ongoing Projects
    • Completed Projects
    • Networks
    • Publications
  • Study
    • Masters in Media, Power, and Public Affairs
    • PhD
  • Events
    • Upcoming
    • Past
  • Connect
    • Stay Up To Date
    • Twitter
    • RHUL Politics & IR
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
    • Find Us
  • Search

Kate Dommett - talk tomorrow: The Business of Elections - join us

January 18, 2022 Ben O'Loughlin

Does the Electoral Commission have adequate data on who is funding what in elections?

On 19 February 2022 at 1pm Dr. Kate Dommett, University of Sheffield (and her research website here), will join us to discuss her new research: The Business of Elections: A deep dive into election spending returns.

It's a project where Kate and her team looked at election spending returns to gain insight into the role played by different suppliers in election campaigns. It shows some really interesting things about the dynamics of election activity. The research is conducted with Sam Power, Andrew Barclay and Amber MacIntyre. It should give ideas for researchers to think of how to study this in different countries and elections.

Graduation for Dr. Amber Macintyre

December 16, 2021 Administrator

On Monday 13 December 2021 Dr. Amber Macintyre enjoyed our graduation ceremony. It was in the slightly more quiet atmosphere that Covid has brought to ceremonies, but still a chance to celebrate. In her PhD 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. Please find her abstract below.

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, the claims of 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 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 agents such as data scientists or algorithms. 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.

We Love the Planet - climate event, 14 February

December 16, 2021 Ben O'Loughlin

NewPolCom’s James Sloam is organising an event on 14 February 2022, We Love the Planet. It is designed for and by young Londoners, the Greater London Authority’s environment team, and youth activists. It will provide some good research about young people’s understandings of climate change and the political communication involved. It will allow James to develop recommendations for GLA.

For a leaflet with full information about the event, click here.

The event is scheduled to take place at the Museum of London, but Covid levels may mean it is online.

From Glasgow, to headlines across the world: UK media narratives of COP26

November 17, 2021 Administrator

Journalists in the media room at COP26.

This piece is by Charlotte Cameron, a student on our MSc Media, Power and Public Affairs.

Around 120 world leaders were gathering for what many believed was the last chance to avoid the worst effects of climate change. The world was watching, the cameras were focused and the journalists were ready. COP26, the biggest climate conference to date, was about to begin.

Each media article would have the world gripped, with the media playing a vital role in telling us about the deals being done. The media spectrum is vast and each platform would want to create their own narrative, telling their own story. I collated headlines from five UK media outlets: The Daily Mail, Sky News, The Independent, BBC News and The Guardian to track how different media outlets framed COP26.

News outlets will publish articles that engage their readers the most and, as climate change is the greatest risk facing us all, the implications of this are far-reaching. One narrative, one headline and one story could change the way everyone thinks about climate change.

The beginning of COP26

There was a lot of expectation for COP26 and while most media outlets focused their attention on PM Boris Johnson’s opening speech, some turned to the events unfolding outside. The Guardian focused on the “queueing chaos” whereas The Daily Mail drew attention to Glasgow’s image as “the city's refuse collectors went on strike hours before the start.”

Inside, the PM opened his speech by declaring that “it’s one minute to midnight.” This was a simple notion that the media portrayed in multiple ways. Sky News and BBC News quoted the PM, emphasising his warning. However, The Independent attacked the PM stating that “the children of tomorrow will watch Boris Johnson’s COP26 speech and ask – WTF, could you not have even tried?” The conference had not yet begun and media narratives were already being spun.

The deal for deforestation

Many activists were hoping that COP26 would see world leaders make a commitment to stop deforestation. In what was the first big deal of COP26, leaders representing 85% of the world’s forests committed to halting and reversing deforestation by 2030 – a significant step forward.

Considering how the various media outlets approached the beginning of COP, it is surprising that the first major deal was received almost unanimously. The Daily Mail, Sky News and BBC News focused on the fact that more than 100 countries had agreed to the deal, with The Guardian also emphasising the role of Biden, Bolsonaro and Xi Jinping. Irrespective of this, The Independent stood out again by highlighting that action is needed now and the deal was simply words on a page.

Is the end in sight for fossil fuels?

Burning fossil fuels emits harmful gases, including methane, which is one of the biggest contributors to climate change. The next big deal from COP26 was the US-EU deal that promised to reduce methane emissions 30% by 2030.

Some media outlets focused on the number of countries who signed the deal, like before. The Independent focused on that fact that nearly 100 countries signed the pledge whereas The Guardian referred to the 90 countries except China, India and Russia. In comparison, The Daily Mail, Sky News and BBC News simply referred to the deal while emphasising its aim to reduce global methane emissions.

All good news? Well, so we thought. As news about the deal circulated, media outlets began revealing that COP26’s largest delegation was those who had something to gain from fossil fuels. In particular, The Daily Mail and The Independent both published stories questioning why the biggest delegation was from an industry causing the most significant amounts of climate change.

A cause for thought, when only a week later the ‘phase-out’ of fossil fuels became ‘phase-down’. Did the influence of this delegation put pressure on this change or was it decided independently? Only with further investigation would an answer be found.

Why was President Obama there?

One of the most surprising media events of COP26 did not come from climate deals but from President Obama’s appearance. On the day he spoke, many said there was chaos inside. When asked about the commotion, someone simply replied ‘Obama’.

Opinions were divided about the relevance of his appearance. The Daily Mail undermined his speech by finding comedy in the fact he referred to Scotland as the ‘Emerald Isles’. Sky News focused on what he said, highlighting that he believes the world’s effort against climate change is falling short. Similarly, BBC News focused on his motion for young people to stay angry whereas The Independent focused on how he brought political clout to the conference. While there is little doubt President Obama would have drawn attention to COP, The Guardian published a scarring review stating that he had a nerve preaching about the climate crisis.  

COP26 ends, or does it?

COP was due to end on Friday the 12th November with a deal that would help us fight climate change. However, as the day drew to a close, there was no deal.

In a time where the world needed collective action, it looked like we were far from getting it. The Daily Mail told of a “Climate deal in crisis,” Sky News emphasised the watered down vows, The Independent spoke of a deal hanging in the balance, BBC News emphasised that we were entering overtime and The Guardian stated that pressure was mounting. After two weeks of promised negotiation, were world leaders going to fail at the final hurdle?

At long last the deal was signed. The Glasgow Climate Pact aims to speed up action against climate change, with 197 countries signing. Will it be enough? Only time will tell.

The role of the media throughout COP26 was clear. They gave us ways of accessing news from COP as and when it happened. All the media platforms I analysed played a role in reporting the facts to the UK public. However, only one acted as a judge. The Independent held COP26 and world leaders to account by reporting all the facts, including the uncomfortable ones. As many followed the stories as they happened, The Independent was determined to tell the whole picture. Perhaps this is because they realised that this summit, and the fate of the world, was more important than selling a story.

Joe Manchin’s shadow looms large over COP26

November 1, 2021 Administrator

Joe Biden prepares for a potentially difficult trip.

By Harvey Michael Carlin, current MSc Media, Power & Public Affairs student, 1 November 2021

Much is being made of Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin’s COP26 no-shows, but the most consequential absentee will be in West Virginia, with an assist from the New York Times editorial board

It is a truism that there are three sides to every story, “my side, your side, and the truth”. However, when it comes to climate policy in the United States right now, there are two. Joe Manchin’s, and the planet’s. Manchin is single-handedly standing in the way of Democrats passing President Joe Biden’s signature climate bill. The bill, while far from perfect, would begin the process of retiring the coal industry. It would also expand in tax support for clean energy, along with electric cars, coupled neatly with curbing methane — a particularly gnarly greenhouse gas. Most satisfyingly for climate hawks, the bill contains a rather complicated Clean Electricity Performance Program (CEPP). Remember when Cap and Trade policies were all we had to get our heads around? CEPP is essence, will use a mixture of payments and penalties, truly the carrot and the stick, to put pressure on companies to phase out fossil fuels. Thanks to a neat Senate trick called reconciliation, and with the help of the Senate Parliamentarian, Democrats could pass this bill as part of a package with only 51 votes, the tiebreaker coming from Vice President Kamala Harris, bypassing the need for a filibuster-proof 60 votes.

However, Manchin, a Senator who receives thousands in campaign contributions from the energy sector, along with having the majority of his personal assets tied up in a coal brokerage firm, (Thank You, Joe, Very Cool!), does not much like CEPP’s carrot. He hates it so much that he is the holdout Democrat, wanting the climate policies to be watered down or eliminated. Even fellow professional objector and walking primary defeat, Kyrsten Sinema understands that we are staring down the barrel, with ten years to prevent complete climate catastrophe. She seems to get that we are wrestling with the prospect of over 1.5-degree warming in the next decade impacting millions of people. She gets that we are losing.

While the climate consequence of this is a catastrophe in the long term, in the immediate term, it is going to likely force President Biden to arrive at COP26 in Glasgow empty-handed. For the biggest carbon polluter in history, that is, to quote Joe Biden, a big deal. Ok, maybe I’m paraphrasing. The U.S. President has a vital role at these summits. He twists arms, makes deals, and puts pressure on other nations to make significant commitments. Most importantly, he pressures developing nations such as India and China to make sacrifices in their development that America did not make in its own development, in the interest of the planet. Barack Obama had some success with this in 2015 in Paris — Biden needs to repeat that success this time, and more. For him to be arriving empty-handed makes him look hypocritical and weak, it makes it less likely he will be able to achieve his goals. If the U.S. cannot convince China and India, along with Brazil and other developing nations, to make significant commitments for the sake of the planet, our fight for the future may be futile. Leaving us chasing 310 with our middle order and a bowler’s wicket. For Manchin to put parochial political interests ahead of any of this and block the climate bill that Biden could use to pressure these nations is an act of eco-sabotage that will look particularly cruel in the history books.

Why does Manchin do this? It does not seem likely he will be re-elected in 2024, in a state Donald Trump just won by 40 points. He will also be 76 by then, facing another six-year term. The reality is that Machin is incentivised to do this by a broken media system in the United States that often rewards moderation as a form of independence and loves nothing more than to ‘both sides’ every issue —

‘Democrats Say Humans Need Oxygen, Republicans Disagree’.

Many within the mainstream media also constantly fear being accused of having a liberal bias. While some in the press own this more partisan identity, there is a sizeable portion of wannabe “Just the Facts, Ma’am” reporters who fear that appearing overtly partisan will de-legitimise their entire industry. Sidebar, but Facebook also has this fear, and it goes to show just how successful the right has been in scaring societal institutions into toeing the line, lest they be accused of bias(!), and lose viewers to OAN (spoiler alert: they are going to lose viewers to them anyway). As a result of this, editorial desks all across the land have taken to labelling many climate policies as some type of “Liberal Wish List”, “Democrat mega Spending”, or “Activist Demands”. This creates a permission structure wherein Manchin can oppose a critical bill aimed at prolonging human existence on a habitable planet, while the legacy media gives him all the cover he needs to present this as a brave, moderate stance, crowning him as the heir to John McCain, the maverick man. Considering this, it is not surprising that Manchin has never had a hard time finding reporters to speak with, on the record, off the record — Joe Manchin, otherwise known as a Senior Senate Source —, and on deep background. He does not have a hard time securing lengthy Op-Ed where he cries out for civility and begs his colleagues to moderate their demands,

 “Oh won’t somebody think of the poor coal miners!"

A love of moderates who provide constant access to the D.C. press corps permeates through entire swathes of the media, as much of a scathing hatred of 5 pm lids. Play the Washington game, and they will build you a reality where you can tank climate legislation that sends Biden to Glasgow empty-handed without feeling a single consequence. It is less the Society of the Spectacle, and more Our Political Society is a Spectacle.

So Biden heads off to Glasgow, with nothing to push other nations with. The Senior Senator from Virginia can watch Murder Xi Wrote in his Manchin, with nothing of value to Putin to COP. Oops. This week’s Politico Playbook can list media access and perforative centrism as its winners of the week, and the losers column can contain the planet. It is a joke. A cruel one, a practical one, played on all of us.

Welcome Week debate – The Dissident – and some communication dilemmas

September 24, 2021 Ben O'Loughlin
The Dissident.jpeg

In Welcome Week, before term starts formally next week, our students had the chance to discuss the film The Dissident with journalists Jonathan Rugman and Ali Hashem. The Dissident is a documentary film released in 2020, directed by Bryan Fogel. It tries to explain the assassination of Saudi Arabian journalist Jamal Khashoggi, who entered the Saudi consulate in Istanbul to get documents allowing him to marry his fiancé, was dismembered, and his parts were removed in a truck. This opened up questions about what kind of rule the Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman has in mind if he is in power for the next 50 years. But it opened up wider questions about how Saudi Arabia manages relations in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region and how countries outside the region should deal with Saudi Arabia. 

Both Rugman and Hashem put Khashoggi’s killing within the context of patterns across the region. The Arab Spring went wrong and now many regimes demand a black and white relationship with their people: support us, or be our enemies. This puts journalists under pressure. Being independent and having freedom of expression is now difficult. In The Dissident Khashoggi says his journalism is guided by the goals of objectivity, credibility, and neutrality. That is precisely what the leaders of Saudi Arabia and several other states in the region feel is a threat to them. 

Khashoggi was himself in transition. He didn’t see himself as a dissident because he loved Saudi Arabia and had been part of the regime. But suddenly not an inch of grey was allowed. Khashoggi was writing from within a grey space because he supported Saudi women being allowed to drive and was critical of Saudi Arabia’s dispute with Qatar and war with Yemen. His killing set an example to reinforce that no grey is permitted in the kingdom. The fact Khashoggi’s reporting was far from radical meant he might get a large audience, and for a leader with thin skin this added to the sense of being threatened.   

This has made it a lethal risk to challenge Saudi leaders’ narrative from within the country. Some Saudis living outside the country could say things online, on social media, but they would face opposition too. 

The assassination attempt by Russia on the Skripals in the UK only reinforced a context in which danger seemed normal and widespread. 

This was a reminder that political acts become acts of communication. Instead of simply allowing agents to gun down Khashoggi in a street, his death in a consulate – in a city that historically has bridged East and West – had symbolic value. It showed Saudi Arabia could silence its critics. It might have been done clumsily, but the basic fact of the assassination remained. Saudi leaders must have calculated that any reputational damage was less significant than that symbolism. 

This then creates a communication dilemma for Western leaders when dealing with Saudi Arabia. To prioritise human rights over commercial interests? To prioritise commercial interests over strategic interests in the region? 

We also learnt of the role of hacking, software, social media mobs and other techniques used by Saudi Arabian figures to damage the reputation of those who opposed them. This is not going away, and a real challenge for journalists to report. 

Thanks to my colleague Adam Lerner for organising the event, and his dog Moose for making an appearance on screen. We encourage you all to read Rugman’s book The Killing in the Consulate and to follow Hashem’s reporting in the region. 

From Waves of Crisis to Sustainable Public Policy: The Everyday Politics of Young Londoners

September 15, 2021 Administrator
Most Important Issues of Young Londoners (16-24)

Most Important Issues of Young Londoners (16-24)

NPCU’s James Sloam and Ben O’Loughlin have published a short piece in Political Insight reporting on how young people in London think politically about growing up in a difficult world. They find that while they feel they should care about climate change and other vast problems, their actual daily concerns are very direct. Having mental stability and a safe place to live are their most urgent worries. This feeds into what Ben and Marie Gillespie called ‘cycles of insecurity’ in their research during the war on terror. Anxiety about one issue feeds into stress about another, creating an endless cycle of problems that makes them feel trapped and pessimistic.

How to escape this? What James and Ben find it that young Londoners want to be part of the conversation about the public policies that decide things like travel costs or safe streets, and this should be ongoing, not a one-off event. This leads to questions about how to make a sustainable public policy process in which young people can participate on a long-term basis. Being disconnected or excluded from public debate is not helping them. This is a fundamental issue in UK politics for the coming decade.

Their piece is here, or email ben.oloughlin@rhul.ac.uk for a copy. Thanks to Political Insight editor Peter Geoghegan. They will also present the paper at the American Political Science Association (APSA) Annual Convention, Seattle, September 30 - October 3.

Spaces of War reviewed in European Journal of Communication

August 31, 2021 Administrator
Spaces of War cover.jpg

The book Spaces of War, War of Spaces, edited by Ben O’Loughlin and his editor colleagues at the journal Media, War & Conflict, has been reviewed in European Journal of Communication. The review is by Richard Stupart, University of Pennsylvania, and you can read it here.

Deplatforming life - O'Loughlin speaks at Aarhus University

June 22, 2021 Administrator
Screenshot 2021-06-22 131306.png

Ben O’Loughlin will speak about deplatforming and politics at Aarhus University on 22 June 2021. Other speakers are Geoffrey Bowker of University of California, Irvine and Hanna Krasnova of the University of Potsdam in Germany.

The event, Deplatforming Life, is organised by Anja Bechmann, Professor & Director of DATALAB at Aarhus University. Deplatforming is chosen in the light of platforms having the power to deplatform/delete influencers and politicians from their service AND deplatforming at the same time calls for the underlying questions of how/if the internet should avoid being centralized in too few large platform conglomerates and If so what we as a society can do about this especially in the light of regulation.

Ben will consider the dilemmas around deplatforming politicians and political candidates.

Why do some voters penalise candidates accused of sexual harassment and while some others don’t?

April 22, 2021 Administrator
Elijah Nouvelage / Bloomberg / Seth Wenig / Getty / The Atlantic

Elijah Nouvelage / Bloomberg / Seth Wenig / Getty / The Atlantic

Stephanie Stark and Sofia Collignon recently published their work in Political Studies Review. They ask why some voters penalise candidates accused of sexual harassment and while some others don’t? Using an original experiment, they find that voters are less supportive of candidates accused of sexual harassment…. until partisanship is taken into consideration.  Democrats are more likely than Republicans to believe claims of sexual harassment and assault—and more likely to conclude that a politician who commits such acts will also abuse the powers of his office in other ways.

This article is the result of work that started with Stephanie’s MSc dissertation, supervised by Sofia. The New Pol Com Unit is proud of its long-term commitment with students and the deep relationships formed between them and members of staff. 

PSR article: https://bit.ly/3savG6Z  

@TheAtlantic article: https://bit.ly/328U7qU

@BBCSounds podcast: https://bbc.in/3a4YYO7

← Newer Posts Older Posts →
Blog RSS

New Political Communication Unit, Royal Holloway, University of London.