Down - but certainly not out

How can one communicate what poverty is like? That may sound like a trite question for those who experience it first hand. Perhaps we could emulate George Orwell and take to the kitchens, streets and mines in Paris and London and Wigan and experience grinding poverty first hand. I imagine it would be quite a shock to anyone born after the creation of the welfare state, health service and safety at work regulations.

I raise this point as we are now almost half way through the “European year for combating poverty and social exclusion” and I chanced upon some video diaries made during a conference on “Poverty between reality and perceptions” in October last year in Brussels.

In it a series of policy makers and journalists talk about ways of raising the awareness of poverty in Europe and also how it manifests itself in other “stories”. I was quite struck by the comments of BBC Northern Ireland correspondent William Crawley who pointed out that often what can lies behind racism, violence, school drop outs, unemployment and family break-up is poverty. He urged people to look a bit closer at the origins of many of our problems and suggested that perhaps we may find poverty as a cause.

There are believed to be around 85 million people living in poverty in the European Union – a staggering amount given the resources Europe has on offer. This figure has grown due to the economic crisis. Add to this the millions “at risk of poverty” (those who earn less than 60% of the average of other people in society) and the fear of unemployment and it makes for a bleak state of affairs. In an article in February we tackled a few of the ways of defining what poverty really is.

I think this should also prompt us to delve a bit closer into the background of issues and stories that we publish on the site. Perhaps sometimes we are not doing something – or more importantly the people affected by it – justice.

Last week a group of people experiencing poverty met at the European Parliament for the 9th time. Many Euro MPs from across the House have taken up the fight against poverty and exclusion and are looking for ways to create jobs and increase incomes. A recent report in the Employment and Social Affairs Committee on the prospect of a minimum wage generated a lot of debate on how best to help people – more social protection (in a time of huge public debt) or more work schemes and incentives. Or a mixture of both in fact. Unsurprisingly, the preference in Parliament reflects  left-right political orientation.

In addition to these MEPs earlier this year backed a report that seeks to help the disabled by making disability a legal one and a question of human rights. This step, though it may sound legalistic, is intended to make it easier for Europe’s 50 million disabled to access health care, the job market and other essential services.

Let’s hope that the crisis steadily becomes alleviated and the initiatives taken lead to a steady improvement in the position of so many of our fellow citizens over the coming months and years.

The European Parliament is a sociable place - can it also be media social?

“Less stories more creatively told” was one of the phrases ringing in my ears as I departed the recent “Social Media World Forum” in London. These words were uttered by Adam Parker of RealWire who was speaking about the relative merits of press releases and whether they work or not in the social media age.

He lamented the fact that according to his research only 2% of all press releases in the UK had any kind of social media aspect (twitter, Facebook etc) to them.

Our articles for the Parliament’s website are not press releases but they could definitely be improved using hyperlinks more inter linking with videos and audio-visual material. Interestingly, Adam felt that humble audio was the most under-rated and under used of all the communication mediums which was strange considering it has been the method of communication since our ancestors were sitting in caves.

Much of the social media forum was about the uses that Facebook can be put to. I won’t divulge much on that subject as one of our FB-boffins was there as well and is eager to share some findings with you later in this blog.

A generational shift in online politics?

In terms of politics and the public sphere Alex Aitken of Westminster City Council voiced fears that many people were treating social media as merely an end in itself. For him the only point in any public communication must be about encouraging people to be engaged in public debates and policy making.

Craig Elder, the Conservative party’s social media guru said he thought there was an aspect of generational change in the way the parties and politicians generally used social media and the internet. He contrasted Tony Blair and Gordon Brown with the younger pretenders David Cameron and George Osborne in that regard.

The entire panel, including moderator Matthew Fraser, agreed that things were moving incredibly fast (social media was scarcely heard of at the last UK election in 2005), and that future elections would make our current efforts look amateurish.

Newspapers – remember them?

For me personally perhaps the most depressing presentation was on the future of newspapers – if indeed they have one. Caught in a perfect storm of depression, scant advertising and demographic changes circulation is in freefall.

Dirk Singer (“Head Rabbit, Rabbit”) estimated that circulation in the UK had fallen by 3.1 million by 2008. To put that into perspective that equates to almost the population of Wales who have stopped reading newspapers.

This trend started in the US, has spread to the UK and will no doubt soon be found in Europe more generally. Putting this into perspective he said that in the US newspaper have lost 7 million readers in the last 25 years whereas online readership was up 34 million in the last 5 years.  He sees the print future as being made up of specialist newspapers and magazines catering for people who want long well researched articles.

Finally, we turned up for what came to be an ironically named workshop on “Reputation online – are we ready for the future of social media?” Unfortunately, the panel were not ready neither for the future or the present for that matter as they failed to show up! In their place the moderator and a man from Linked in did a great job in filling in and somehow salvaging something.

Nevertheless, a productive and dare I say it enjoyable experience!

Photo: Kenjonbro from Flickr

I wouldn’t fancy working in Toyota’s communications department at the moment.  The company has sailed into a perfect “faulty component” storm that has led to the recall of millions cars and trucks and a suspension in sales of many of its most popular models. The estimated bill is expected to top a cool 2 billion dollars.

The global reach of Toyota and the possibility that road users may have been at risk has now given it a political dimension. So too has the possibility that the recall may in the end cost thousands of jobs worldwide if the company is forced to cut costs to cover the recalls and lost sales.

However, the way that Toyota has handled the unfolding corporate car crash since it began last November has now become the story. I suspect in future years MBA students will study this episode to learn positive and negative aspects of corporate crisis management.

The way that Toyota has handled the unfolding corporate car crash has become the story

One of the first statements issued by the company was given by an executive wearing a white mask – not unknown in Japan but hardly likely to send the right message to the rest of the world. Since then coverage of the crisis has been largely driven by the media and Toyota’s customers.

The impression that the company simply does not care about what the public think of it has grown as fast as its reputation for reliability has waned.

I think a few lessons could be learned for those who work in the communications field – be it politics, selling cars or other consumer goods.  Appropriately, it also falls into a neat anagram…

T: Truth – own up to some mistakes and don’t try to hide things.

O: Ownership – take control of the situation.

Y: Your job could depend on it – sure fire motivation!

O: Oprah – You need an Oprah Winfrey moment where someone from the company or party admits “it was my fault, I apologise”.

T: Take responsibilty for sorting out the problems.

A: Agenda – makes sure it is you that tries to set media agenda.

Last Friday, Akio Toyota, the grandson of the company’s founder, literally bowed to public pressure and issued a public apology. His lack of visibility in the storm prompted last weekend’s Financial Times to quip that “the ship’s captain appears to have retreated below decks”.

In the US Toyota is now running a TV ad grievously apologising for its errors.  Whether this and Mr Toyota’s belated appearance will plug the PR hole beneath the water line remains to be seen.

Intrepid web reporters Olav and David before their encounter with the NATO Secretary-General

Monday afternoon was a rather unusual one for me and my colleague Olav Gade. Finally, after months of waiting we had a chance to interview Anders Fogh Rasmussen.

I have driven past NATO HQ in Brussels many times, but I had never actually been inside. The building began life as a temporary military structure in the late 1940′s and has been progressively extended since. Every country has a special wing so it feels a bit like a hospital. The building is low and spread out – architecturally striking it certainly is not but the famous NATO symbol at the front and the accompanying flags give it a certain presence and a sense of history.

The NATO press staff who accompanied us to Mr Rasmussen’s office and spoke to us as we waited for him were the very height of professionalism and courtesy. More than that, they were really relaxed and informal. I was thankful for that as I must confess to some nerves prior to the interview. I think it was more so for Olav, as he is Danish and the man we were about the meet had been his Prime Minister for 7 years. I had been half expecting saluting officers, nothing could have been further from the truth.

In all the answers I was struck by how carefully he weighed his words

Mr Rasmussen greeted us with a friendly smile and a strong handshake. His office was large but quite spartan, with a large map of Afghanistan on his desk. We sat on comfy sofas and began our questions while our photographer Pietro took some shots.

In all the answers I was struck by how carefully he weighed his words. They were very precise, no causal asides or loose remarks. He also gave them with great conviction. He made and kept eye contact – giving you the impression that you were the most important person at that moment – I’ve noticed that all successful international figures share the same quality. Let’s call it focus.

I must say, it is quite a heady experience to sit in the office of the head of the world’s largest military alliance and ask him questions about global geo-politics. Geographically, at least, our questions ranged from Brussels to Moscow via Washington and Kabul. I was quite surprised that he was so certain that the Obama Administration would send more troops – I had expected more circumspection, although he did say it was too early to talk about numbers. The part on Russia was also quite interesting I thought. He talked about common security interests, especially Afghanistan “as the Russians know well”.
 
His main message on Afghanistan is that building up the Afghan army, police, and security forces is the best way forward. He also said that parts of the country would be able to govern themselves by next year.

As we finished he engaged Olav in some friendly banter in Danish – asking him how long we had worked at the Parliament, which was a nice touch. He seems like a good bloke.

When I got home I saw on the BBC the grim sight of a Union Jack draped coffin being carried off a plane, the latest victim of the conflict. The Afghans have suffered most of all of course – and I think we owe it to them to finish what we have started and not to hand over the country to fanatics and lunatics who will terrorise them. An imperfect government (and lets face it which one isn’t) is preferable to Taliban terror.

Many people are hoping that question time at 3 pm this afternoon will deliver a lively and memorable debate when Members bowl questions at Commission President José Manuel Barroso. To move things along and prevent waffle they are limited to 1 minute – for the question and response.

EC President Barroso will face MEPs for a Q & A this afternoon

Questions on any subject will come from the political group leaders for the first 30 minutes followed by questions on the economic and financial crisis from any MEP who catches the eye of the Speaker.

Whether it will develop into a UK House of Commons style question time with a full House and plenty of drama remains to be seen. Probably not, as every parliament has its own particular style and culture.

It will also be a first for the Web Communication Unit as we attempt to follow the debate on twitter – come and see how we get on.  Join us on Europarl_EN

Westerplatter, Gdansk, Poland: Where the 70th anniversary of the war was marked this week.

 Moscow and Warsaw have been trading verbal blows over the circumstances of the outbreak of WW II – the opening of which began 70 years ago this week.

To anyone who follows the European Parliament it seems that historical disputes are never far from the surface. The arrival of countries from central and Eastern Europe in 2004 and 2007, with their painful memories of Soviet rule, has simply added a new dimension to this.

 This is particularly true when it comes to relations with Russia. The ghosts of history are now very much floating around the hemicycle – which could be a good place to exorcise many of them.

 One source of controversy with Russia has been that the last Parliament called for 23 August (the date of the Nazi-Soviet pact) to be made a day of remembrance for the victims of Nazism and Stalinism.

 In April, an MEP resolution declared…that “Europe will not be united unless it is able to form a common view of its history, recognises Nazism, Stalinism and fascist and Communist regimes as a common legacy and brings about an honest and thorough debate…”.

As resistance to Nazi invasion is seen as one of the most glorious chapter in Russia and Soviet history, any attempt to equate them both as dual evils has led to furious reaction in Moscow. The question arises as to what extent Russia will loom over the next European Parliament and to what extent relations will develop.

History is, indeed, an argument without end – A.M. Schlesinger, Jr. 

Of course controversy about the Second World War is not limited to people whose countries took part. In October 2006 at a signing ceremony to mark the purchase of the Parliament from the city of Strasbourg (on the Franco German border and symbol of post war reconciliation in Western Europe) Parliament’s then President, Spaniard Josep Borrell hit out at the campaign organised by Swedish MEP to have the Parliament’s seat moved to Brussels.

“Europe will not be united unless it is able to form a common view of its history” – EP resolution

 In his remarks Mr Borrell alluded to the Stockholm’s neutrality during the war saying “this historic dimension cannot be perceived in the same way in ’some Nordic country’ which did not participate in WWII”.  For his troubles Mr Borrell was assailed by various parts of the Swedish press.

 Only time will tell how this newly elected European Parliament deals with historical disputes. The end of the term coincides with the 100 years since the start if the 1914-18 war which opened the 20th century’s long “civil war”.

This minstrel has seen some changes himself

Writing in Prospect magazine this month Steven Johnson and Paul Starr debate the question of whether the changes brought to the media by the internet herald “a golden age of serious journalism” or whether it will bring down standards.

As someone whose job is to write on the web, I naturally hope it will be the latter – especially in regard to political reporting and content. The European elections are just a few weeks away and we are beavering away at all manner of things for the website, YouTube, Facebook – you name it – trying to persuade people to vote. We even have some viral stuff – and I’m not talking about swine flu either.

A recent gift by my Polish colleague, Leszek, got me thinking about how different methods of political communication have changed over the last 200 years.

It was of a reprint of “The Times” after the Battle of Waterloo providing a fascinating insight into news back in 1815. The front page is filled with adverts for lodgings, meetings, Governesses and tutors. The inside pages have a full account of the battle itself by the Duke of Wellington and an “official bulletin” from Downing Street which celebrated the end of “a long and sanguinary conflict”.

This was political communication 1815 style. The date is 22 June, 4 days after the battle – a period of time that would be unthinkable now in the modern news cycle.

This was of course the newspaper age – something that is perhaps still with us – but which faces a serious challenge for its survival from the internet and global recession. It survived the telegram, the radio, cinema and the TV, which have all indelibly shaped politics. Above all TV has shaped modern politics. Famously in the 1960 TV presidential debate between Richard Nixon and John F Kennedy those who listened to it on radio thought Nixon had won, whilst the TV audience gave victory to Kennedy due to hid healthier pallor and Nixon’s perspiration.

A flickr of genius

Traditionally the best way to convince the voters is by making speeches to large numbers of voters. Many tended to be long-winded affairs with the oratorical giant like William Gladstone holding his listeners spellbound for hours as he denounced the policies of his old foe Disraeli.

Recently a lawyer from Illinois has been in the news for getting elected as US President in part due to his speaking skills. It was another lawyer from that State, Abraham Lincoln, who in November 1863 combined oratory and brevity in equal measure with a speech at the site of the Gettysburg battlefield.

Renowned orator Edward Everett delivered a two hour oration before Lincoln – but who remembers that now? After he had finished Lincoln stood up and spoke for perhaps 2 to 3 minutes summarizing the Union’s aims in the Civil War in 10 sentences, which have rightly gone down in history.

Whatever the format I think well chosen words and an effective delivery always have impact. Recently a certain British MEP delivered a pretty blistering assault on Prime Minister Gordon Brown after his speech to the European Parliament. With the help of the old media – namely the right-wing newspapers extolling its brilliance – it has now been viewed over 2.2 million times. Whether or not one shares his views, he has demonstrated is that the YouTube format does work when carrying effective speeches from Brussels and Strasbourg.

Face to Face book

One of the most tried and trusted way to persuade the voters is by meeting them – although as any candidate will tell you this can are a nerve wracking affair.

Being “on the stump” is a good way for aspiring candidates to meet their electorate. My sister, who lives in London, recently told me that a nice old lady from the Conservative party had knocked on her door the other day and asked whether she would be voting for them. Something about this quaint British tradition of canvassing door to door I find really appealing. It gives you a chance to see your candidates and get a measure of them.

Naturally, if they are the party you have no intention of voting for the trick is to keep them talking at length on the doorstep so they have less time to go to other people…

Here in Belgium they have this nice habit of coming round markets and asking if you intend to vote for them – this weekend I accumulated several leaflets from the Green party as I sat having a coffee. The slight irony of the greens giving out leaflets has always struck me but I’m sure it’s recycled paper!

Poster child

The Belgians also erect billboards around the town so that parties and candidates can paste up their pictures it can be quite amusing and parochial, but it’s faintly reassuring.  Election posters are a whole genre in themselves. It also seems the worse the regime – the better the posters. I defy anyone not to be impressed by the visual splendour Soviet posters depicting all manner of Communist “triumphs”.

Politics online

In the 2004 European Parliamentary elections the internet played a part but it is in the last 5 years that it has really come of age with YouTube, Facebook and Twitter entering the lexicon. Given the amount of people who use them I doubt they will fade easily.

Here in the Web Communication Unit of the Parliament’s Communication Department have not only developed a website in the EU’s 22 languages that gets over 100,00 visits a day but have embraced them along with Facebook, MySpace and flickr to try and get the message across.

The good thing about this is that it allows people to communicate with us and get their own message across.

The economic crisis is increasing pitting the people against the State in some countries

To be memorable elections generally need narratives. The recent US Presidential election had it in spades but the last three decades of European elections have, in my view, thrown up stories of their own

In European Parliamentary terms, 1979 was the first direct election, 1984 the high tide of federalist hope (or probably Orwellian nightmare for eurosceptics), 1989 was the fall of Communism election, ’99 the first time I voted and 2004 the EU enlargement one. The question is what will the 2009 European election be remembered as?

My feeling is that it could be the “recession election”. As economies collapse and unemployment heads upwards a wave of uncertainty is spreading across the continent. It is putting a strain on societies – witness the demonstrations from Paris to Riga with the Hungarian and Latvian governments having to go cap in hand to the IMF.

In an article this week (”Euroscepticism is yesterday’s creed“) the FT’s Gideon Rachman argued that some of the EU main achievements – the free movement of goods, people, services and capital – are under threat from the new sinews of economic nationalism stirring in Europe and amongst its governments.

As he put it: “Protectionism and nationalism are close cousins. The principles of consultation, co-operation and open borders within the EU have helped to repress the old, nationalist demons.”

What’s wrong with the European Union and how to fix it

Given the fear, uncertainty and humiliation it is possible that people will be pushed into the ballot box to vote out the people they hold responsible – namely MEPs belonging to the parties of sitting governments. They may also be tempted to vote for extremist parties and it would be interesting to see how such MEPs would affect the European body politic. The European mantra could be “United in adversity and acrimony” rather than the EU’s perhaps more prim official logo “United in diversity”.

In an illuminating talk at the European Parliament some months ago on his latest book, “What’s wrong with the European Union and how to fix it”, Professor Simon Hix of London’s LSE said he believed that European elections tend to turn into “mid-term referenda on sitting governments.”

There’s nothing necessarily wrong or unnatural about that – except that they centre on national issues with governments invariably telling voters and the press that the results doesn’t matter. In parallel to this the political opposition – for obvious reasons – stress its national character and importance – to the detriment of European issues.

Perhaps in a sense this doesn’t matter, “all politics is local” and from a professional point of view if people vote in large numbers then that will be welcome. Our role in the Communication directorate is to get the message out that the elections are occurring in June and that people have the choice to make their voice heard. If they don’t then, well, they shouldn’t complain…or did we go too far in saying that on our website recently? A Spanish national newspaper and quite a few of their readers apparently thought so, but that story is for another blog post…

When the first elections to Europe’s parliament were held in 1979 I was a energetic four year old. We had just moved to Ireland where we would spend many happy years. 

Back then it was the “European Economic Community” or the “Common market” as most people of my father’s generation still call it.

Thirty years later I find myself involved in this year’s European election – primarily as a voter – and also as the English editor for part of the parliament’s website. My job is to try and communicate information to the public about a parliament of 27 countries, 23 languages and 785 members. To do this I have to try to make sense of it myself.

I work in a team that reflects the diversity of the parliament and of this election. From Thessaloniki in the Aegean to Tallinn in the Baltic, from Lisbon on the Atlantic coast to Göteborg on the Kattegat. My immediate workmates hail from every corner of Europe.

Doing some research about what to write I was struck by the differences and similarities we face between the first elections in ’79 and now.

Then and now

In 1979, the economy – at least in Britain where I hail from – was in crisis, a state of discontent that would bring Margaret Thatcher – europhile turned europhobe – to power. In September of that year the Chrysler motor corporation asked the US government for $1 billion to avoid bankruptcy.

In Afghanistan a superpower and her allies were engaged in a life and death struggle with a formidable foe. Then as now Iran was in the news as the Ayatollahs toppled the Shah.

Zimbabwe, then called Rhodesia, was in chaos after a civil war. A peace agreement would herald the arrival on Robert Mugabe in January 1980.

Equally, the Middle East was on the agenda with the Camp David accords offering some hope. Egyptian President Anwar Sadat would later give a speech to the European Parliament. A few weeks later he would be assassinated.

And then the changes, if you had said to some in ’79 that within a decade the Berlin Wall would be rubble and Europe’s political division at an end they would have thought you crazy, idealistic or both.

If you had said to some in ’79 that within a decade the Berlin Wall would be rubble and Europe’s political division at an end they would have thought you crazy, idealistic or both.

 If you had said to a Pole attending Pope John Paul’s historic visit to his homeland that within 15 years they would be able to work and visit anywhere in Europe, I doubt they would have believed you.

 If you had imagined that a community of 6 countries in 1979 would be 27 in 2009 it would hardly have seemed believable. Europe is changing – but are we – particularly in my native Britain – changing our mindsets to keep up?