Gaining access to free media is not

Gaining access to free media is not without costs, of course. It requires a
more or less professional apparatus of public relations advisers, which must
be paid for by the political organisation concerned. Constructing or manufacturing the events and contexts through which politicians can acquire free
media access may be expensive in money and time. Nevertheless, we will use
the term ‘free media’ here to distinguish those practices which fall under the
broad headings of ‘political marketing’ and ‘public relations’ from those of
the advertising world described in Chapter 6.
Politicians like free media because, unlike advertising, their role in it is not
that of authorship. When a politician is reported on the news, editorial
responsibility for the selection of ‘soundbites’ broadcast, and the interpretation placed upon them, is seen to belong with the journalist. When
Margaret Thatcher appeared on the BBC’s live Jimmy Young Radio Show(as
she frequently did during her time in office) the things she said were
inevitably perceived rather differently than if she had addressed television
viewers within the context of a party political broadcast. Tony Blair’s
frequent appearances on access programmes such as Question Timeand the
Nicky Campbell radio show were calculated to have the same quality of
authenticity and spontaneity, especially when, as in the tradition of British
access broadcasting (McNair et al., 2003), members of the public are able to
engage directly with the politician. Such messages are ‘less manufactured’
than advertisements and, as such, may be thought to carry more legitimacy
and credibility. Even if such a conversation is lighthearted and avoids politics
entirely, the audience may still feel that a ‘truer’ picture of the politician
emerges. The lack of control and apparent spontaneity of most free-media
scenarios heightens ‘believability’.
This quality of free media is a double-edged sword, however. To the extent
that a politician’s appearance on a news or discussion programme isgenuinely
outside his or her editorial control, the scope for mistakes (from the politician’s
perspective) is clear. Broadcast interviews can be hostile as well as deferential.
Misjudgments can be made about the impact of a political event once it has
passed into the hands of the media, as happened famously with the Labour
Party’s Sheffield rally during the 1992 election campaign (see p. 130). When
in 1983 Margaret Thatcher was questioned by a well-prepared viewer on live
national television about the sinking of the Belgranoshe revealed to millions
of viewers an unpleasantly arrogant side of her personality.
The advantage of free media exposure for politicians is founded on the
awareness of the audience that such appearances are ‘live’, or if not live in
the technical sense, something more than a manufactured political advertisement. And the audience knows this because politicians frequently slip up,
or encounter hostile opposition and criticism when they enter the free media
arena.
A dramatic illustration of this danger occurred in the course of the 2001
UK general election campaign. As Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott
POLITICAL PUBLIC RELATIONS
119
participated in a walkabout, accompanied by journalists and minders, his
party had to pass by a group of protesters. One of these managed to strike
Prescott with an egg, provoking him to respond with a physical assault on
the protester. Fortunately for Prescott, the incident was welcomed not as a
disastrous lapse of public control but as a refreshing breath of spontaneity
in an otherwise boring campaign, and his personal reputation was not
seriously harmed by the incident.
A more damaging incident involved Tony Blair, on his visit during the
2001 campaign to an NHS hospital. Intended as an occasion on which
Labour’s concern for the health service could be highlighted, the event was
instead hijacked by an irate member of the public, who angrily chastised
Blair on the poor service being received by her husband, at that time a
patient in the hospital. Blair was forced to stand and listen to the outburst,
and subsequent coverage of the day’s events highlighted this moment of
reality intruding into an otherwise heavily orchestrated campaign. The
pursuit of free media and the plan to generate positive images of a caring
prime minister, had backfired into a noisy demonstration of the dissatisfaction which at least some members of the British public felt with
Labour’s record on health. A year or so earlier, Tony Blair had delivered a
speech to a conference of the Women’s Institute, a normally polite, sedate
organisation of middle-class women not known for their radical political
views. On this occasion, however, members of the WI in the hall noisily
barracked Blair, forcing him to pause in the delivery of his speech. Media
coverage the next day revelled in this display of public hostility to the Prime
Minister – one of the first such experiences, indeed, he had had to endure
since 1997 – and the incident serves as an exemplary case of the risks
inherent when politicians go in search of free media opportunities. In the
UK election campaign of 2010 prime minister Gordon Brown visited the
English town of Rochdale to ‘meet and greet’ with voters in a routine photo
opportunity. One such voter, Gillian Duffy, criticised Brown to his face, on
camera, and was rewarded with a standard politician’s response – polite but
rather empty of substance. Back in his ministerial car he declared to one of
his advisors:
That was a disaster. You should never have put me with that
woman. Whose idea was that? It’s ridiculous.... she was just a sort
of bigoted woman who said she used to be Labour. It’s ridiculous.
Unfortunately, the microphone he had been wearing on the meet-andgreet, operated by Sky News, was still on, and picked up every word of his
off-the-cuff remarks. These were then broadcast on Sky News, creating the
major PR ‘gaffe’ of the 2010 campaign, for any party. The next few days
were spent by Brown in frantic apologies to Mrs Duffy and the nation, to no
avail. Labour’s defeat a few days later was attributed by many to this ‘PR
COMMUNICATING POLITICS
120
disaster’ as much as any question of policy. Brown had underestimated the
capacity of free media to bite back.
1
Politicians, therefore, while desiring media exposure of the more ‘authentic’ kind permitted by free media opportunities, also strive to reimpose some
kind of control over the output. To achieve this requires that politicians
employ professionals skilled in the workings of the media.

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

Mendapatkan akses gratis media bukanlah tanpa biaya, tentu saja. Hal ini membutuhkanlebih atau kurang profesional peralatan penasihat Humas, yang harusdibayar oleh organisasi politik yang bersangkutan. Membangun atau manufaktur peristiwa dan konteks di mana politisi dapat memperoleh gratisakses media mungkin mahal di uang dan waktu. Namun demikian, kita akan menggunakanistilah 'gratis media' di sini untuk membedakan mereka praktek yang jatuh di bawahluas judul 'politik pemasaran' dan 'PR' dari orang-orangdunia periklanan yang dijelaskan dalam Bab 6.Politisi seperti media bebas karena, tidak seperti iklan, peran mereka didalamnya bukanlahitu kepengarangan. Ketika seorang politikus melaporkan berita, editorialtanggung jawab untuk pemilihan 'soundbites' siaran, dan interpretasi ditempatkan atas mereka, dilihat milik dengan wartawan. KapanMargaret Thatcher muncul di BBC hidup Jimmy muda Radio Show (sebagaiDia sering lakukan selama waktu di kantor) hal-hal yang ia mengatakanpasti dianggap agak berbeda daripada jika dia telah berbicara televisipemirsa dalam konteks sebuah partai politik siaran. Tony Blairsering penampilan di akses program seperti pertanyaan kalinyadanAcara radio Campbell Nicky dihitung untuk memiliki kualitas yang samakeaslian dan spontanitas, terutama ketika, dalam tradisi Inggrisakses (McNair et al., 2003), penyiaran anggota masyarakat mamputerlibat langsung dengan politikus. Pesan tersebut adalah 'kurang diproduksi'daripada iklan dan, seperti itu, mungkin berpikir untuk membawa lebih banyak legitimasidan kredibilitas. Bahkan jika sebuah percakapan ringan dan menghindari politiksepenuhnya, para penonton masih mungkin merasa bahwa gambar 'lebih benar' politikusmuncul. Kurangnya kontrol dan spontanitas jelas sebagian media bebasskenario mempertinggi 'believability'.Kualitas ini gratis media adalah pedang bermata dua, namun. Sejauhbahwa seorang politikus penampilan pada berita atau diskusi program isgenuinelydi luar kontrol editorial nya, cakupan kesalahan (dari politisiperspektif) jelas. Siaran wawancara dapat bermusuhan serta hormat.Salah pengertian dapat dibuat tentang dampak peristiwa politik sekali memilikilulus ke tangan media, seperti yang terjadi terkenal dengan tenaga kerjaPartai Sheffield reli selama pemilu tahun 1992 kampanye (Lihat halaman 130). Kapanpada tahun 1983 Margaret Thatcher dipersoalkan oleh sebuah penampil yang dipersiapkan dengan baik pada hiduptelevisi nasional tentang tenggelamnya Belgranoshe yang diwahyukan kepada jutaanpemirsa sisi menyenangkan sombong kepribadiannya.Keuntungan dari eksposur media gratis untuk politisi didasarkan padakesadaran tentang khalayak bahwa penampilan tersebut adalah 'hidup', atau jika tidak hidup dipengertian teknis, sesuatu yang lebih dari sebuah iklan politik yang diproduksi. Dan penonton tahu ini karena politisi sering tergelincir,atau perjumpaan bermusuhan oposisi dan kritik ketika mereka memasuki media gratisArena.Ilustrasi yang dramatis dari bahaya ini terjadi dalam tahun 2001UK kampanye pemilihan umum. Sebagai Wakil Perdana Menteri John PrescottPOLITIK HUBUNGAN MASYARAKAT119berpartisipasi dalam walkabout, disertai oleh wartawan dan minders, nyaPartai harus melewati sekelompok pengunjuk rasa. Salah satu berhasil untuk menyerangPrescott dengan telur, merangsang dirinya untuk menanggapi dengan serangan fisik padapengunjuk rasa. Untungnya untuk Prescott, insiden disambut bukan sebagaibencana selang kontrol umum tetapi sebagai menghirup menyegarkan spontanitasdalam kampanye sebaliknya membosankan, dan reputasinya pribadi tidakserius dirugikan oleh kejadian.Insiden lebih merusak terlibat Tony Blair, pada kunjungan selama2001 kampanye NHS rumah sakit. Dimaksudkan sebagai sebuah kesempatan di manaLiberal kekhawatiran layanan kesehatan bisa disorot, acara iniSebaliknya dibajak oleh seorang anggota marah publik, yang telah menghajar marahBlair pada layanan yang buruk yang diterima oleh suaminya, pada waktu itupasien di rumah sakit. Blair dipaksa untuk berdiri dan mendengarkan ledakan,dan berikutnya liputan peristiwa disorot saat inirealitas yang mengganggu ke sebaliknya berat melibatkan suatu kampanye. Themengejar media bebas dan rencana untuk menghasilkan gambar positif peduliPerdana Menteri, telah menjadi bumerang menjadi demonstrasi berisik ketidakpuasan yang setidaknya beberapa anggota merasa publik Inggris denganTenaga kerja di catatan pada kesehatan. Satu tahun atau lebih awal, Tony Blair telah disampaikanpidato untuk sebuah konferensi Women's Institute, biasanya sopan, tenangorganisasi perempuan kelas menengah yang tidak dikenal untuk mereka radikal politikpemandangan. Ini kesempatan, namun, anggota WI di aula ributBlair barracked, memaksa dia untuk jeda dalam sambutannya. Mediacakupan keesokan harinya menyukai tantangan fisik olahraga ini menampilkan umum permusuhan terhadap PerdanaMenteri-salah satu pengalaman seperti itu, memang, ia harus bertahansejak tahun 1997 – dan insiden berfungsi sebagai kasus yang patut dicontoh risikomelekat ketika politisi pergi mencari peluang media gratis. DalamUK kampanye pemilu 2010 Perdana Menteri Gordon Brown dikunjungiInggris kota Rochdale untuk 'temu dan jumpa' dengan pemilih di foto rutinkesempatan. Satu pemilih tersebut, Gillian Duffy, dikritik Brown ke wajahnya, padakamera, dan dihargai respon politikus standar-sopan tapiagak kosong substansi. Kembali di mobilnya Menteri ia menyatakan kepada salah satuPenasihat:Itu adalah bencana. Anda seharusnya tidak pernah telah menempatkan saya dengan ituwanita. Ide yang itu? Itu konyol... dia adalah hanya semacamwanita fanatik yang mengatakan ia digunakan untuk menjadi tenaga kerja. Sangat konyol.Sayangnya, mikrofon dia telah mengenakan bertemu-andgreet, dioperasikan oleh Sky News, masih di, dan mengambil setiap kata Nyaoff-the-Cuff komentar. Ini kemudian disiarkan di Sky News, menciptakanutama PR 'kejanggalan' kampanye 2010, untuk pihak. Beberapa hari berikutnyayang dihabiskan oleh Brown di panik permintaan maaf kepada Mrs Duffy dan bangsa, tidakmemanfaatkan. Kekalahan buruh di beberapa hari kemudian ini disebabkan oleh banyak hal ini ' PRKOMUNIKASI POLITIK120bencana ' sebanyak pertanyaan kebijakan. Brown telah meremehkankapasitas media bebas untuk gigitan kembali.1Politisi, oleh karena itu, sementara menginginkan eksposur media 'otentik' jenis lain diizinkan oleh peluang media bebas, juga berusaha untuk reimpose beberapajenis kontrol output. Untuk mencapai hal ini memerlukan bahwa politisimempekerjakan profesional terampil dalam kerja media.