PROMPTING A NEW ROLE FOR MEDIA REPORTING AND ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC POLICY ADVOCACY

A priority should be pressing the media to play a more substantive role in providing citizens with information, analysis and insight both on how governments make decisions and how those decisions are, and can be, influenced. This means more focus on how citizens, and the civil society organizations they rely on to give voice to many of their beliefs and preferences, can play a more constructive role in forming those decisions.

Print and broadcast media should be prompted to take a more ambitious view of what makes for relevant and useful "investigative reporting". Rather than focusing so-single mindedly, as they often seem to do, on trolling for and exposing political or bureaucratic malfeasance, ineptitude and poor judgment- all phenomena that are clearly worth reporting on, as circumstances dictate- they should be encouraged to devote research and editorial resources to subject matter that has much greater potential value to voters and the civil society organizations they often rely on express their views, preferences and values.

Media reports should focus about the real dynamics that take place: the interplay between various parts of government and between governments; the interventions of interest groups (both civil society organizations and commercial interests) and the strategies and tactics they employ; the political and public-policy variables at play; the trade-offs considered, accepted and rejected. The lessons that can be learned from such a publicly available account can be valuable to all who are involved in advocacy even if they do not have a direct interest in the particular issue in question.

Instead, there is an intensive reportage on scandals, saga, accusations about improper or unregistered lobbying, and reports of unlawful “contingency fee” arrangements for lobbyists assisting clients. Add to this numerous allusions by journalists and other observers to the rising “power” of lobbyists in policy formulation and decision-making in Brussels and elsewhere.

In the minds of some, the very existence of lobbyists individuals paid to work at influencing decisions of government  is a scandal in itself. In those instances when the news media latches on to a story about lobbying, there is a tendency to examine the phenomenon through the lens of stereotypical depictions of back-room deals, high-priced consultants, and cash contributions to political parties or politicians. Thus “lobbying ” and improper behaviour become inextricably linked in media discourse and, ultimately, the public consciousness. It’s then further played up by reporters programmed to dwell on relatively easy-to-understand, apparent or imagined clashes of interests.

The mere suggestion by one side (that is, the “losing” side) that they’ve been “out-lobbied” by the competition is an easy complaint to make, difficult to substantiate and irresistible to reporters looking for a simple, binary story angle (“for” and “against” something, “good” and “bad,” “public ” versus “private” interests).

It might even be true. Maybe the winning side conducted a brilliant advocacy campaign, calibrated to the public mood, the Government.’s need and the practicalities of modern public administration. But, then again, the outcome may have had more to do with the failings of the losing side who may have had an impractical idea, poorly researched and inadequately conveyed.

Yet, an examination of what exactly is involved in lobbying is rarely taken up by the media. In the minds of virtually all reporters, “lobbying.” is, well .…. the word “lobbying” now speaks for itself. In this view, everyone already “knows” that lobbying is all about “who knows whom..” It’s all about “connected,” “powerful,” “Liberal ”, “Conservative.” (or whichever partisan tribe is in power at the moment) lobbyists using their influence on behalf of paying clients.

Seldom is there an examination of how that influence is comprised, how it’s exercised or – even more interesting and important – how its value is determined. Is it the salience and practicality of the proposition’s design? Is it the strength of argument presented, the cumulative effect of so many supporting interest groups, the perfect combination of bureaucratic and political sponsors? Or is it that the minister’s former chief of staff is leading the advocacy effort? And why and how is that so important?

In the minds of most reporters, and their editors, the more complicated dynamics of government and politics – let alone the subtleties of public-policy advocacy - are, journalistically speaking, too labour-intensive to explore and too complicated to assess and write about. .“No one is interested in process,” say editors, convinced that such reportage and analysis serves no purpose, has no market and adds little illumination to the question of how decisions are made.

So, media coverage about lobbying, such as it is, is usually focused on the business of lobbying rather than the dynamics of the advocacy that government-relations staff or consultants are undertaking. Missing is any attempt to examine and report on the actual services provided by lobbyists or government-relations consultants or, much more importantly, the work of the far more numerous, but less visible, in-house lobbyists that most major organizations now employ.

With much media coverage focused on the theatrics, personalities and machinations of the political class, reporters often find themselves turning first to those who are always happy to talk in their capacity as party “strategists” – more often than not, individuals who are employed as lobbyists or pollsters and who have carefully cultivated a personal reputation or profile of being well-plugged in to the dynamics of political positioning, if not real political and public-policy decision-making.

For people who are in the business of words and ideas, reporters and columnists are often remarkably careless, indeed promiscuous, in their characterization of lobbyists. They are almost always described as being “powerful”, “influential,” and “well-connected.” Seldom, if ever, is there any explanation or example offered that substantiates such depictions except, perhaps, for previous newspaper quotes about how “powerful” lobbyists are. The words “lobbying” and “influence peddling” are often used casually and interchangeably despite the fact that influence peddling is a criminal offence in many countries and is similarly proscribed in virtually all other democratic jurisdictions. No matter, in the minds of most journalists, it just sounds like a perfect description of their understanding of what’s involved in lobbying.

Media examination of lobbying activity seldom goes beyond mere recitation of who is working for whom and on what issues – information that is now easily obtainable, thanks to the various lobbyist registration systems that exist at EU level and in several member states. However, nowhere is there an examination of how companies, industry and professional associations, interest groups and even other governments, go about their attempts to influence decisions of government. The principal focus of much media coverage is on the partisan connections of lobbyists. Little else is suggested or explored.

This explains, in part, why so many consultant lobbyists are so intent on cultivating their own reputations as active partisans. The media, particularly its radio and TV political talk shows, have a constant need for “content” to fill their 24-hour line-ups; live bodies, glib and clever, preferably telegenic, clearly identified as representing one partisan stripe or another, are needed as “talent”. Thus is born to us the “celebrity lobbyist,” someone who the networks freely advertise as a Liberal or Conservative “strategist.”

In this tough world, there may be no free lunch but there remains abundant opportunity for nationally broadcast free advertising if you play your cards right in the lobbying/politics business and are able to serve up fresh, partisan banter and barb on cue.

Neither has there been much examination of lobbying or organized public-policy advocacy in the research and academic communities. This is probably due to a presumption that lobbying and government relations are little more than frothy “public relations,” a matter of “spin” not substance, the necessary but messy dimension of winning support for a position. While there are many academics who study interest-group behaviour, the analysis seldom, if ever, explores, the dynamics or the constituent elements of an advocacy campaign. This absence is, arguably, one of the great holes in our understanding of civics, public policy and politics.

So, one might ask, what is there about lobbying to study or to understand better than we currently understand it? The answer: plenty – not just to organizations but to all citizens.

European media outlets need to know they can do a much better job than they are currently doing in their coverage of government, public policy and politics. There is already evidence of considerable professional guilt in the journalism trade about its preoccupation with the superficial in politics and government. What the media needs is a concerted push by various elements of society – business, government and civil society – to take a different approach.

We welcome feedback from the media. AALEP is dedicated to helping journalists, reporters and editors understand the public policy advocacy process.

 

 

Add new comment