Archive for: Practices

As I wrote about yesterday, sometimes it’s necessary to find a new way to communicate.

That’s exactly what some proponents of “net-neutrality” did at a public hearing on Tuesday night in New Mexico, co-hosted by the (Un)Free Press.

According to a report in The Hill newspaper, activists made their voices heard through verse: “And if you saw my Comcast bill you’d see, it’s as reasonable as a robbery.”  You can read more of the poetry here.

Of course, while these activists might be finding creative ways to communicate, it’s worth noting that the organization hosting the event yesterday is headed by the self-identified neo-Marxist Robert McChesney.  Despite what the protesters might believe about the debate over net-neutrality, Free Press has been working closely with the Obama administration to call for greater regulations and taxes on the Internet, which will ultimately lead to greater control of the media by the government.

Slam poetry might be a communications slam dunk, but not if it’s a losing message.

Ever feel like telling the folks on cable news shows to stop talking? Perhaps it’s because despite heated debates, guests rarely change their opinion on the issue.

New research considers how debates over controversial science move opinion and found that more talking does not create consensus.  In fact, the researchers found that the more talking, the harder it is to reach an agreement.

The primary author of the study, North Carolina State assistant professor of communication Andrew Binder, explains that there’s “almost this deterministic notion that if you build it, they will come; if you give them the information, their eyes will be open and they’ll see it for all its glory, which doesn’t seem to be the case.”

Of course, political scientists have been saying this for years.  John Zaller, the father of public opinion research, explains in his pivotal work The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinions that elite communication is the lifeblood of mass public opinion.  And public opinion moves in response to the consistency and intensity of elite messages.  So when elites are divided – whether it’s related to health care or climate change – the public follows suit based on varying levels of political awareness and values.

So now that we know that more talking doesn’t actually change opinion, what should we do?  Binder suggests reframing the issue. If repeating the same debate over and over again doesn’t achieve the desired outcome, policy experts and opinion makers need to figure out how to make old issues new again.

(The following was originally published in the Wall Street Journal Europe, here, subscription required)

“David, what have I done to David?” Ed Miliband asked his campaign manager after he had learned that he had just beaten his brother to win the Labour Party leadership election on Saturday. Profuse expressions of fraternal love from both brothers followed.

Then in his main speech on Tuesday, the new Labour leader gave his real answer by denouncing the Iraq war. It was an easy position for the younger Miliband to take as he only entered parliament in 2005, so hadn’t been put in the awkward position of having to vote for it before he was against it. The elder brother’s face froze. Not only had David voted for it, whatever private qualms he might have had about the original decision, as foreign secretary for three and a half years, it was his job to defend it. Having beaten David to the leadership of their party, younger brother Ed was now driving him out of front-line politics altogether. Read

As the catharsis of electoral rejection gives way to the long march of opposition, Republicans might reflect on the experience of Britain’s Conservative party, which in 1997 suffered its worst poll defeat since 1832. Two further defeats followed. By the next election, due by June 2010, the Conservatives will have been out of office longer than they have been at any time since the middle of the 19th century.

To read the full article, click here.

At the conclusion Thursday of the last party conference season before next year’s general election, David Cameron, leader of Britain’s Conservative party, had every right to be encouraged. The media are treating Mr. Cameron as the prime minister-elect and Labour’s conference confirmed that the party is stuck with Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Labour’s biggest electoral liability.

To read the full article, click here.

Rarely has the Atlantic seemed as wide as when America’s health-care debate provoked a near unanimous response from British politicians boasting of the superiority of their country’s National Health Service. Prime Minister Gordon Brown used Twitter to tell the world that the NHS can mean the difference between life and death. His wife added, “we love the NHS.” Opposition leader David Cameron tweeted back that his plans to outspend Labour showed the Conservatives were more committed to the NHS than Labour.

To read the full article, click here.

Keynesians howled last week when Britain’s chancellor of the exchequer, George Osborne, announced his intention to shrink the budget deficit by more than the previous Labour government. The fiscal squeeze would plunge Britain into a 1930s-style depression. Where would demand come from with the rest of the world limping out of recession? Mr. Osborne’s Labour predecessor joined the chorus, suggesting that for all his plans to cut public spending if Labour had won the election, Alistair Darling would always have found excuses for delay.

To read the full article, click here.

Tomorrow’s British election is on course to be only the third time in 31 years that the country has changed its government. Margaret Thatcher swept the Conservatives into power in 1979 and Tony Blair ushered in a period of Labour Party control in 1997. Yet an election that to many appeared a certain victory for David Cameron and the Conservatives turned out to be an unexpected roller coaster of a ride.

Read the full article here.

Two years after the fall of Lehman Brothers, Oliver Stone has a new film about the world of high finance. Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps opens in theaters next week.  It’s a sequel to his 1987 hit Wall Street – intended as portrait of the greed and ruthlessness of 1980s excess.

Unlike the original film, however, which hit theaters during a bear market, the sequel comes at a time of economic vulnerability and near-double digit unemployment.  Columnist Andrew Sorkin of the New York Times describes the film as a “populist” view of Wall Street.  And it’s clear Stone sees himself as an advocate for Main Street. In his conversation with Sorkin he says, “Wall Street’s gone crazy. It’s banking on steroids.” Read