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 mampuengage directly with the politician. Such messages are ‘less manufactured’than advertisements and, as such, may be thought to carry more legitimacyand credibility. Even if such a conversation is lighthearted and avoids politicsentirely, the audience may still feel that a ‘truer’ picture of the politicianemerges. The lack of control and apparent spontaneity of most free-mediascenarios heightens ‘believability’.This quality of free media is a double-edged sword, however. To the extentthat a politician’s appearance on a news or discussion programme isgenuinelyoutside his or her editorial control, the scope for mistakes (from the politician’sperspective) is clear. Broadcast interviews can be hostile as well as deferential.Misjudgments can be made about the impact of a political event once it haspassed into the hands of the media, as happened famously with the LabourParty’s Sheffield rally during the 1992 election campaign (see p. 130). Whenin 1983 Margaret Thatcher was questioned by a well-prepared viewer on livenational television about the sinking of the Belgranoshe revealed to millionsof viewers an unpleasantly arrogant side of her personality.The advantage of free media exposure for politicians is founded on theawareness of the audience that such appearances are ‘live’, or if not live inthe 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 mediaarena.A dramatic illustration of this danger occurred in the course of the 2001UK general election campaign. As Deputy Prime Minister John PrescottPOLITICAL PUBLIC RELATIONS119participated in a walkabout, accompanied by journalists and minders, hisparty had to pass by a group of protesters. One of these managed to strikePrescott with an egg, provoking him to respond with a physical assault onthe protester. Fortunately for Prescott, the incident was welcomed not as adisastrous lapse of public control but as a refreshing breath of spontaneityin an otherwise boring campaign, and his personal reputation was notseriously harmed by the incident.A more damaging incident involved Tony Blair, on his visit during the2001 campaign to an NHS hospital. Intended as an occasion on whichLabour’s concern for the health service could be highlighted, the event wasinstead hijacked by an irate member of the public, who angrily chastisedBlair on the poor service being received by her husband, at that time apatient in the hospital. Blair was forced to stand and listen to the outburst,and subsequent coverage of the day’s events highlighted this moment ofreality intruding into an otherwise heavily orchestrated campaign. Thepursuit of free media and the plan to generate positive images of a caringprime minister, had backfired into a noisy demonstration of the dissatisfaction which at least some members of the British public felt withLabour’s record on health. A year or so earlier, Tony Blair had delivered aspeech to a conference of the Women’s Institute, a normally polite, sedateorganisation of middle-class women not known for their radical politicalviews. On this occasion, however, members of the WI in the hall noisilybarracked Blair, forcing him to pause in the delivery of his speech. Mediacoverage the next day revelled in this display of public hostility to the PrimeMinister – one of the first such experiences, indeed, he had had to enduresince 1997 – and the incident serves as an exemplary case of the risksinherent when politicians go in search of free media opportunities. In theUK election campaign of 2010 prime minister Gordon Brown visited theEnglish town of Rochdale to ‘meet and greet’ with voters in a routine photoopportunity. One such voter, Gillian Duffy, criticised Brown to his face, oncamera, and was rewarded with a standard politician’s response – polite butrather empty of substance. Back in his ministerial car he declared to one ofhis advisors:That was a disaster. You should never have put me with thatwoman. Whose idea was that? It’s ridiculous.... she was just a sortof 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 hisoff-the-cuff remarks. These were then broadcast on Sky News, creating themajor PR ‘gaffe’ of the 2010 campaign, for any party. The next few dayswere spent by Brown in frantic apologies to Mrs Duffy and the nation, to noavail. Labour’s defeat a few days later was attributed by many to this ‘PRCOMMUNICATING POLITICS120disaster’ as much as any question of policy. Brown had underestimated thecapacity of free media to bite back.1Politicians, therefore, while desiring media exposure of the more ‘authentic’ kind permitted by free media opportunities, also strive to reimpose somekind of control over the output. To achieve this requires that politiciansemploy professionals skilled in the workings of the media.