Club members in the flesh might be accustomed to that voluptuous manner in which the notabilities (that is right: the ones who may speak without being asked) celebrate an indestructible ritual: Calling and ticking off the agenda. Mostly consisting of seven issues (in doing so, number seven entitled diverse will be the most dazzling but dubious one) it gives the necessary discipline to the urge to communicate. The satisfactory feeling to put something into work is too intriguing, after all.
In the course of globalization the image of agendas have changed, suggesting business meetings with round tables and four different kinds of juice and not so much rabbits breeders' associations. Agendas seem to be dynamical, requiring dashy teamwork instead of shirtsleeve wrangling for the right to speak; after all the English corresponding phrase is "what is do be done".
Media researchers have known the term for quite a while; they mean by agenda publically relevant issues dominating the headlines - in short anything which moves the newspaper reader or the news viewer. And the wider the space given to an issue, the higher it is placed on the agenda, the more relevant it is. And here comes the question: relevant - to whom? Or the other way round: Who determines what is relevant? The answer will be easy if we take the good old rabbit breeders' association; there is the managing committee which takes up - entirely democratically, of course - the devoted grassroots' suggestions and makes them a topic. Still, the public just is no club. Once again: Who makes the decision? Of course some readers might shake their heads and say, simply the media. They have a nose for what is in the air and all they do is to take it up.
This is not always that easy. Media research has produced a catalogue of criteria, the so-called news factors which influence the chances of success of a topic to be included in the agenda. The more news factors are part of a potential message, the better is the prospect of publishing. For example, roughly three injured train passengers in England are equal to three dead ones in Switzerland, 30 ones in Czechia, 80 ones in Bulgaria, 140 ones in India, 250 ones in Central or South Africa. This is the factor vicinity. If, in contrast, a baby miraculously survives three days in the ruins, then there will be the human interst component whcih might interest all mothers, at least all housewives. If a frustrated muddlehead slaps a stranger's face, this will make at best five lines in the local newspaper - on condition a fre-for-all has evolved. But if the stranger is by accident the PM, then the national media will seize upon it - even without a subsequent free-for-all. However, this is no natural law. Simply because we can never be sure the media actually have the nose.
So it is no surprise the public services providers look around for help to fulfill the responsible task confidently. Now enter politics. It steps into the breach and gives the media useful advice. To be more exact, the more important newspapers, magazines and stations. As soon as they will have let themselves be inspired, the remaining and less important media will follow with relief. Just in the age of increasing competion and stingy advert customers especially print media are worried about the possibility of having placed the wrong issue high upon the agenda. Fear of isolation leads to preferring declining together to maybe prevailing alone.
Political assistance and media information is scientifically called 'agenda setting'. Contact between editorial offices and parliamentary factions are maintained. For a success-oriented politician it is very important, though, not to simply plead self-interest when sharpening editors - far from it, the guardians of democracy will demand some reasons why a message might be of public interest. So it will not be a bad idea to take news factors to heart or to practice subdued self-promotion when emitting press releases. For that reason during election campaigns politicians cuddle anything which could not be got out of danger in time, look out diligently for actual football results to illustrate their declarations of political intent.
Adjusting to media agenda in advance is what PR really is all about. It is called issue management. If possible, one does not content oneself to wait for a public issue to enter, but rather creates it oneself. But this takes more than distributing bright coloured balloons with counted canapés to hungry newspaper photographers on Open Days. This is because the desire of PR centres upon the ideal of the communicative preventive strike. In the long run it will be quite straining and unsatisfactory to have to practice constant crisis management and to argue defensively.
The interchange of politics and journalism, in particular on the interface of PR, is usually observed in a one-sided way. Political scientists complain about the increasing influence of tabloids and TV, personalization at the expense of factual issues, the uninhibited media democracy, as practiced by the head of government. In turn journalism admonishes us of the media independence being jeopardied. Truth lies halfway in between. Politics and journalism work independently, but not detachedly. Both sides watch each other permanently and what is really surprising is they have not fallen into expectant rigidity yet - according to the motto: What would you write if we did so and so? - Well. Let's see. Why? Do you intend to do so? - No, no. We were just talking hypothetically. - We see. PR's job is to have that talk monologically with itself.
What distinguishes media agenda most clearly from club agenda is that the former fixes its issues any minute again, unable to deal with them in conclusion. Unlike clubs requiring a majority decision the media public must rely on the practice that yesterday's hot issue will be forgotten tomorrow. So whatever is meant to generate enlightening discussions, rational forming of public opinion, civil societies, is merely a medial end in itself. There is no other way, for otherwise the newspaper would be filled differently and we would not know certain celebrities.
In the course of globalization the image of agendas have changed, suggesting business meetings with round tables and four different kinds of juice and not so much rabbits breeders' associations. Agendas seem to be dynamical, requiring dashy teamwork instead of shirtsleeve wrangling for the right to speak; after all the English corresponding phrase is "what is do be done".
Media researchers have known the term for quite a while; they mean by agenda publically relevant issues dominating the headlines - in short anything which moves the newspaper reader or the news viewer. And the wider the space given to an issue, the higher it is placed on the agenda, the more relevant it is. And here comes the question: relevant - to whom? Or the other way round: Who determines what is relevant? The answer will be easy if we take the good old rabbit breeders' association; there is the managing committee which takes up - entirely democratically, of course - the devoted grassroots' suggestions and makes them a topic. Still, the public just is no club. Once again: Who makes the decision? Of course some readers might shake their heads and say, simply the media. They have a nose for what is in the air and all they do is to take it up.
This is not always that easy. Media research has produced a catalogue of criteria, the so-called news factors which influence the chances of success of a topic to be included in the agenda. The more news factors are part of a potential message, the better is the prospect of publishing. For example, roughly three injured train passengers in England are equal to three dead ones in Switzerland, 30 ones in Czechia, 80 ones in Bulgaria, 140 ones in India, 250 ones in Central or South Africa. This is the factor vicinity. If, in contrast, a baby miraculously survives three days in the ruins, then there will be the human interst component whcih might interest all mothers, at least all housewives. If a frustrated muddlehead slaps a stranger's face, this will make at best five lines in the local newspaper - on condition a fre-for-all has evolved. But if the stranger is by accident the PM, then the national media will seize upon it - even without a subsequent free-for-all. However, this is no natural law. Simply because we can never be sure the media actually have the nose.
So it is no surprise the public services providers look around for help to fulfill the responsible task confidently. Now enter politics. It steps into the breach and gives the media useful advice. To be more exact, the more important newspapers, magazines and stations. As soon as they will have let themselves be inspired, the remaining and less important media will follow with relief. Just in the age of increasing competion and stingy advert customers especially print media are worried about the possibility of having placed the wrong issue high upon the agenda. Fear of isolation leads to preferring declining together to maybe prevailing alone.
Political assistance and media information is scientifically called 'agenda setting'. Contact between editorial offices and parliamentary factions are maintained. For a success-oriented politician it is very important, though, not to simply plead self-interest when sharpening editors - far from it, the guardians of democracy will demand some reasons why a message might be of public interest. So it will not be a bad idea to take news factors to heart or to practice subdued self-promotion when emitting press releases. For that reason during election campaigns politicians cuddle anything which could not be got out of danger in time, look out diligently for actual football results to illustrate their declarations of political intent.
Adjusting to media agenda in advance is what PR really is all about. It is called issue management. If possible, one does not content oneself to wait for a public issue to enter, but rather creates it oneself. But this takes more than distributing bright coloured balloons with counted canapés to hungry newspaper photographers on Open Days. This is because the desire of PR centres upon the ideal of the communicative preventive strike. In the long run it will be quite straining and unsatisfactory to have to practice constant crisis management and to argue defensively.
The interchange of politics and journalism, in particular on the interface of PR, is usually observed in a one-sided way. Political scientists complain about the increasing influence of tabloids and TV, personalization at the expense of factual issues, the uninhibited media democracy, as practiced by the head of government. In turn journalism admonishes us of the media independence being jeopardied. Truth lies halfway in between. Politics and journalism work independently, but not detachedly. Both sides watch each other permanently and what is really surprising is they have not fallen into expectant rigidity yet - according to the motto: What would you write if we did so and so? - Well. Let's see. Why? Do you intend to do so? - No, no. We were just talking hypothetically. - We see. PR's job is to have that talk monologically with itself.
What distinguishes media agenda most clearly from club agenda is that the former fixes its issues any minute again, unable to deal with them in conclusion. Unlike clubs requiring a majority decision the media public must rely on the practice that yesterday's hot issue will be forgotten tomorrow. So whatever is meant to generate enlightening discussions, rational forming of public opinion, civil societies, is merely a medial end in itself. There is no other way, for otherwise the newspaper would be filled differently and we would not know certain celebrities.
No comments:
Post a Comment