The Battle For Campaign Agenda In Britain — страница 7
also some wobbles in the second week over the unions, and Blair made an embarrassing ‘parish council’ slip over Scottish devolution. In the sixth week a rogue poll by ICM for the Guardian, suggesting the Labour lead was closing, also induced concern in the Labour camp. But these were minor upsets. In contrast the Conservatives became deeply mired in divisions, arguing with each other not addressing the public, as the splits over Europe burst open again. On 14th April the Mail published a list of 183 Conservative candidates who had come out against EMU in their constituency leaflets, in contradiction to the official ‘wait and see’ line. In response John Major tore up the PEB planned for 17th April, and instead broadcast an impromptu appeal on Europe. But the internal row only intensified the following day with publication of a Conservative advertisement showing Blair as a puppet on Kohl’s lap, which brought public criticism from Edward Heath and Ken Clarke, (as well as offence from Germany) thereby only highlighting Conservative splits. Other diversions included speculation about the Tory leadership election to replace Major, and comments like Edwina Currie’s prediction of Conservative defeat in the twilight days of the campaign. In short, the Conservative message of Britain’s economic health was drowned out as much by internal conflicts, fuelled but not caused by the media, as by anything the opposition did or said. The Mail may have tossed the lighted match, but the row between Eurosceptics and Europhiles was a conflagration waiting to happen, based on years as a party tearing itself apart. The shift towards the permanent campaign in Britain has still not gone as far as in the United States, in part because of the pattern of longer electoral cycles21. Nevertheless the way that the techniques for campaigning are becoming merged with the techniques of governing was symbolised by the way that Tony Blair, once elected Prime Minister, announced monthly ‘meet the public’ sessions, to attract popular support and publicity outside of his appearances in the Commons, following the example of President Clinton’s ‘town-hall’ meetings. Moreover, many of those who played a key role in controlling Labour campaign communications were transferred to Number 10, with the aim of adopting the same techniques in government. New Ministers, for example, were told that all press briefings had to be cleared centrally with Peter Mandelson, Minister without Portfolio in the Blair administration. Whether this process succeeds or not remains an open question but what it indicates is that, given a more complex communications environment, modern parties have been forced to adapt, with greater or lesser success, to the new communications environment if they are to survive unscathed. The 1997 election therefore suggests that the evolution to a post-modern campaign currently remains in transition in Britain, and certain components are more clearly developed than others. In particular, the full impact of the digital television revolution and the internet remains uncertain, and if Britain experiences an explosion of channels the next election is probably going to be fought in a very different broadcasting environment. Nevertheless these trends seem to be producing a distinctively new context for the process of political campaigning in Britain, as elsewhere, characterised by dealignment of the press, an increasingly diverse and fragmented electronic media, and, in response, more strategic attempts by parties to maintain control and remain on-message. The term ‘post-modern’ seems appropriate to describe a communication process which has become increasingly diverse, fragmented, and complex. Similar developments have been identified in many industrialised democracies, although the impact of technologically-driven change is mediated by each nation’s culture, political system, and media structure22. The consequences of this transition remain a matter of dispute. Some critics, reflecting on similar patterns in the United States, fear these developments will serve to disconnect leaders and citizens, to over-simplify and trivialise political discourse, and to produce a more cynical and disengaged public which tunes out from politics altogether. Others, however, remain more sanguine, while some speculate that the fragmentation of media outlets may provide a positive opportunity for more varied, and less mainstream, cultural voices to be heard23. Who Won the Battle of the Campaign Agenda? Within this environment, what was the contents of coverage of the 1997 campaign? And, in particular, did Labour win the battle of the campaign agenda, as well as
Похожие работы
- Доклады
- Рефераты
- Рефераты
- Рефераты
- Контрольные