The Problem with Wise Men

They say the problem with wise men is that they are so clever that they see all sides of an issue and can’t make up their minds about anything. 

By that definition, the current Euro crisis must mean I am very wise!  Because I am both bothered and bewildered and given how much time I am spending reading comment and blogs, quite possibly bewitched too.

I can’t make up my mind whether David Cameron’s decision to effectively veto the treaty is a good or a bad thing.

On the one hand it has to be good, as I am a long-standing Euro-sceptic  (that is a sceptic of the long-term feasibility of the Euro, rather than a general sceptic of Europe).  I just don’t understand how you can have a single currency without a single fiscal policy, nor a single fiscal policy without a single tax policy and a single tax policy without single political structures.  In other words, it is fine for a united states of Europe, but not for a group of nation states.  And a group of nation states is still fundamentally what Europe is.

So our decision to keep out of the Euro mess has to be right.  I tend to agree with Boris Johnson that what is happening in Europe is a bit like treating the cancer and destroying the patient.  If the essence of the problem is a restrictive single currency that cannot accommodate the needs of a heterogeneous group of states, then yet more integration seems to be compounding the error.

Great, so I do approve.    Well done Prime Minister!

Ah, but.

How can it be good for us to be so absolutely marginalised in Europe?  It is all very well sticking up for the interests of the City (I think), but if we are outside a tightly integrated Euro-zone and have no influence over its decision making, then the future looks bleak indeed?  Surely that group will make it very difficult for international companies located in London to do business within their zone.  London will not be a place from which you can do financial business in Europe – do you stick with a market of 60 million or opt to locate within a market of 300 million?

And so my conclusion???

Bad night’s work, Mr Cameron.  You were right to keep us out of an ever more tightly integrated Europe, but surely, somehow we could have done this without alienating everyone?  Splendid isolation was fine when we had an ‘splendid’ empire, but now we are just isolated. 

Even a wise man can see that can't be good.

The Athene Debate - The Motion: Newspapers have crossed the moral and legal line

Friday 11^th November 2011

This is just a quick note to thank those who took part and attended our inaugural debate.  It was a thoroughly interesting, thought-provoking and robust evening with our four speakers putting across their views on a topic that has brought scandal to the newspaper industry since the summer.

The debate took place in the week which saw allegations of widespread surveillance conducted by the News of the World ranging from the Royal Family to, as our chair Stewart Francis pointed out, Richard Madeley.  It also saw the return of the younger Murdoch to the House of Commons to be lightly toasted by a committee of eager MPs.

The debate began with a vote on the motion and the overwhelming response from the audience was that newspapers had indeed overstepped the mark on both counts.

To propose the motion – Richard Astle, MD of Athene Communications argued that it was simply fact that newspapers had crossed the legal line, unless the law didn’t apply to them at all.  He went on to state that it didn’t matter if the exposure of Gordon Brown’s son’s illness was against the law, in a sense it didn’t matter how the information was obtained, as people’s grief had to remain private and that time and time again newspapers cross the moral line. 

Mark Edwards, the editor of the Peterborough Evening Telegraph simply wouldn’t defend the actions of the NOTW, but he made it clear that not every newspaper would do this or know how to do this (as he raised a Nokia from the early 2000s above his head!).    He went on to say that the phone-hacking scandal had been exposed by the media itself and in effect the industry had regulated itself.  His closing remarks centred on the point that every newspaper is governed by their own readers.

Peter Facey, Director of Unlocked Democracy, said that regulation was needed as the Press Complaints Commission didn’t work and this had been shown with their lacklustre response to the scandal.  He argued that the NOTW broke the law to make money – and their actions were dangerous as News International had become so powerful it became a law unto itself. Regulation became the key topic and Peter stated that someone needed to keep an eye on the journalists as journalists keep their eye on politicians.  He passionately defended the need for a free press – but that we needed one that was fair and that doesn’t turn people into victims.

Last to speak was Express journalist Sarah O’Grady who brushed aside previous arguments and said that more regulation would harm the industry and the UK’s free press.  She argued that phone-hacking had not harmed anyone and the response to the scandal was out of proportion.  She then asked why it was the industry’s job to hold the moral high ground?  Finishing with a positive note on the effectiveness of self-regulation and that the readers should be in control, and they use that control when they arrive at the newsagents every morning.

The floor was then opened up to guests for the next forty minutes as the debate spilled into the assembled audience who held the full gambit of opinion on the topic.  Points were raised about the regulation of the newspaper industry and how and if it should change.  Many felt that the NOTW’s closure was regulation enough and that stricter measures could undermine newspapers’ ability to scrutinise all aspects of society.  Others felt that the industry had simply gotten away with it, that penalties for law-breaking were not strict enough and that malpractice was endemic throughout the tabloid press.

The final vote did not change the initial feeling but there was a swing in favour of those defending the motion.  As the chair mentioned, if the question had been based more on regulation of newspapers then the result would probably have been a lot tighter.

Lots of positive responses from all and then the debate seemed to start all over again in the bar!

Until next time… future topics are very much welcomed.

Steve Titman, Athene Communications
November 15 2011

Trick or treat?

Something is sitting a little uneasily with me.

It’s not the state of the economy, the Eurozone crisis, or indeed the hottest topic in the PR world - whether PR agencies should pay their interns! (We do by the way). No, the thing that’s worrying me is Halloween.

Yes, yes I know it’s not the biggest thing in the universe but you see I’ve succumbed. Having seen all about Halloween on Peppa Pig (or some such programme), my nearly-three year old wanted a pumpkin. This was fine and provided a fun activity for her to do with granddad at the weekend. Then it was a costume and then a lantern and then a mask and then a party – yes, a Halloween party! It’s not her birthday, I can’t merge the two things together. No, this required an independent party.

So, that is how I found myself knee deep in Haribo sweets and two year olds dressed as ghosts.

“I will never let a child of mine celebrate Halloween” I had said.

I also promised I wouldn’t use sweets as bribery to quash a tantrum in the supermarket, I wouldn’t use the TV as a babysitter, I’d never lose my temper and instead offer reasoned argument to tame my two year old. I’d always cook everything fresh and from scratch (and preferably organic); I’d certainly never take her to fast food restaurants and never, but never would I let her sleep when she should be awake just so I could sit down with a nice cup of tea for a quiet five minutes.

I’m fairly sure that the PR industry will somehow be to blame for the fact that we now celebrate everything from Halloween to sausages.

I am even certain that at some point in my career I have made up a celebration day or week to provide the material for a desperately needed media campaign or product launch. So, I have to take my share of the blame for the exhausting round of celebrations we now find ourselves a part of.

But I need to make a stand. I am declaring the 1^st November every year ‘Celebrate Nothing’ day – there’ll be no bringing daughters, grannies or bikes to work for the day. There’ll be no appreciating potatoes or sausages required. There’ll be no fancy dress and no crackers and I promise you will not be required to throw a party.

Now, where’s my broomstick?

Localism bill update...

The Localism Bill is now out of Report Stage in the House of Lords and is in the third reading.

Essentially the third reading is a line by line examination of the bill before it is returned to the House of Commons to consider the amendments made by the House of Lords.

The Bill is now 17 months on from its introduction in the Queens Speech.

You can track the bill's progress by visiting the UK parliament website.


The Localism bill, and the draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) have caused widespread debate and controversy over recent weeks. The NPPF includes an inherent ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ whilst at the same time the Localism bill offers communities more power to shape local development. The government’s aim is to stimulate development by simplifying the planning process. But ministers have drawn criticism for a lack of clarity on how the new system will work, leading many to believe it will cause ‘planning gridlock’.


We recently held an event for senior executives from the housing, renewables and commercial development sectors to explore how the issue of localism is going to affect the industry. Read all about it, including a summary of the discussion held here.

Change Agents

Change Agents is an environmental education charity finding placements in the the environmental field for recent graduates. It was with their help I got my current job in Athene Communications as a Community Engagement Executive.


Read more about how Change Agents helped me and my current work at Athene Communications here


Claire Gibbison
Community Engagement Executive

Clear communication is key

Nature published a story about several leading scientists being on trial for manslaughter because they failed to communicate clearly the risk associated with earthquakes.


What happened


In 2009, an earthquake devastated the Italian city of L’Aquila; killing 309 people, injuring more than 1,500 people, destroying some 20,000 buildings and leaving 65,000 people temporarily displaced.


The earthquake was 5.8 on the Richter scale and was preceded by over 100 low-magnitude tremors, known as seismic swarms for several months. Experts agree that seismic swarms rarely precced major earthquakes and in this case the probability that an earthquake would follow was only 2%. However, after a medium sized shock in a seismic swarm, the risk of a major quake rises in the short term although overall probability remains extremely low. Translating the risks of earthquakes for the general public is extremely challenging for officals, especially for low probability events where the risk of potential destruction and loss of life is very high.

Communication


The risk commission held a meeting in L’Aquila to supply the citizens in the region "with all the information available to the scientific community about the seismic activity of recent weeks". However, locals now view it as a public relations event to calm the populace and failed to educate them about vulnerability of local buildings and what to do in the event of a major quake.


Misinformation was spread in the press conference before the meeting by the vice-director of the Department of Civil Protection, where he said that the seismic situation in L'Aquila was "certainly normal" and posed "no danger", adding that "the scientific community continues to assure me that, to the contrary, it's a favourable situation because of the continuous discharge of energy". But there is no scientific evidence that repeated tremors reduce the probability of a major earthquake and earthquake scientists have since distanced themselves from his comments.


The people of L’Aquila took these words as a sign to stop worrying and many failed to take any precautions.


The trial


In a trial set to begin this week, an Italian judge will decide whether the symbolic death of L'Aquila and the deaths of citizens constituted a crime due to the negligence of six leading Italian scientists and one government official, who have been charged with manslaughter in connection with the case.


It should be remembered that earthquakes are impossible to predict with any accuracy. This charge has been met with protest from the scientific community which sent an open letter signed by 5,000 members to the president of Italy, Giorgio Napolitano. Internationally the American Geophysical Union and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have issued statements in support of the Italian scientists. 


However, this trial is not questioning whether they could have predicted the earthquake but whether the scientists evaluated and communicated the potential risk of an earthquake clearly to the local population. The charges allege that "incomplete, imprecise, and contradictory information" was given to the public that had been unsettled by months of seismic swarms. Fabio Picuti, the public prosecutor, said that the commission was more interested in pacifying the local population than in giving clear advice about earthquake preparedness.


Outcome


The outcome of the trail will not be known for months, likely years as this is a watershed case. The scientists, if convicted, could face up to 15 years in jail.
L’Aquila is already being viewed as a case study for future risk assessment and public communication, and will force seismologists and scientists from all fields worldwide to rethink the way they describe low probability, high risk events. This is especially significant as climate change is set to amplify extreme weather events such as tornados, hurricanes, floods and droughts.


The trial is already serving as a precautionary tale to scientists and they are less willing to share their expertise and opinion with the public.


Communicating the idea behind risk and statistics is always difficult and chances but clear transparent public communication is of paramount importance when talking about risk.




Claire Gibbison
Community Engagement Executive, Athene Communications

New localism e-bulletin from LG Group

The Local Government Group (LG group) produces a number of e-bulletins on a range of topics including economy and transport,  culture tourism and sport, and environment housing and planning. The bulletins aim to offer 'relevant, timely information about government and UK politics'.

LG Group have recently reviewed their suite of e-bulletins and will soon be introducing one specifically focused on localism.

You can sign up to LG Group's e-bulletins by visiting www.local.gov.uk/ebulletins.

Radio Canada calling...

Every now and then I get a call from The Breeze 107.9 FM - a premier local radio station in Peterborough... Ontario.


By chance, I have become the station's 'UK correspondent' providing the people of Canada with witty commentary on a range of topics - how to have a British Christmas, Easter celebrations in the UK, why Brits love biscuits, the Queen's Awards for enterprise, the Royal Wedding, Kate's maple leaf hat, and most recently the riots.


This all started a couple of years ago when Peterborough in Canada sent some representatives over to visit our very own Peterborough here in the East of England, to find out about 'going green'. News of our efforts to become the UK's Environment Capital had reached them, and they wanted to share (and pick up new) ideas.


The Breeze 107.9 were on the hunt for someone from P'boro UK to talk to them on air and somehow the task fell to me. Since then I've been doing regular updates for my Canadian fans, who I'm told 'love my accent'. Well, what's not to love?


Our Deputy MD here at Athene, Caroline, has even had a chat live on air leading to the revelation that like these people she is practically related to Kate Middleton.


Journalists are always on the look out for interesting people to provide expert comment on a range of topics. If you know what you're doing, you can position yourself as the 'go to' representative for your sector. If you'd like us to help you out, don't hesitate to get in touch!


Nyree Ambarchian, Community Engagement Manager, Athene Communications. 

http://www.1079thebreeze.com/

 

How the UK riots showed two sides of social media

Now that the storm surrounding one of the most horrific events that London has seen for many decades has started to die down I feel that it is important to rationally reflect over the role that social media played within it.


As I am sure that the majority did, I watched the shocking events unfold live on the news channels. There were many mentions of media being involved or playing a part in the UK riots. Some followed the generic discourse of ‘youth’ violence – and I use the term cautiously as the arrest demographics are suggesting this might not be the correct term to use – by blaming video games, such as Grand Theft Auto, as one of the causes. However, the evidence for this type of argument is flawed to say the very least.


It was the reporting of Twitter and Blackberry Messenger’s involvement in the riots which was new, and most debatable – The Sun leading with ‘police chiefs last night vowed to hunt down the thugs who used social media to organise and encourage the sickening scenes of violence’. Even David Cameron has stated that the convicted rioters should be banned from using social media; however I feel that this might be empty rhetoric.


I am certainly not denying that the rioters used social media, a quick search for hash-tags on Twitter confirms that many were actively using it to organise events, but I am definitely not saying that social media is a bad communication tool or that it can be blamed for the riots.


Proof of this can be found in the days following the unrest. The impressive use of Twitter to organise campaigns for the benefit of society in London and Birmingham is a perfect example. The hash-tags #riotcleanup and #operationcupoftea became a viral sensation on the Tuesday, with many celebrity users of Twitter backing the motion. The physical results of the hash-tag were reported internationally with hundreds, maybe even thousands coming out onto the streets in a collective display of community goodwill.


Sam Pepper’s #operationcupoftea became equally popular, inviting people to display solidarity during the dark times by uploading a photo of themselves or their family drinking cups of tea in their homes. Some even took this further by taking cups of tea out to the police on the streets.


As Dan Thompson, creator of the #riotcleanup stated, “I get really annoyed with people slagging off Twitter. It’s phenomenally useful for people getting their community together and getting working. This just shows there are far more good people than bad.”

So what does all of this mean?


Peter Bright rightly points out in his blog post, ‘Social networks are just a tool. Like any tool, some will use them for ill ends, but many others will put them to positive uses'.


But all of these examples demonstrate perfectly how social networks can be used to mobilise groups in meaningful community engagement. Depending upon the strategic aims of the group, it can be used for better or for worse, but it extends beyond the digital nature of the computer screen and can influence people’s physical actions. Companies, groups and PRs should have been watching #riotcleanup and #operationcupoftea intently, as they perfectly demonstrate the power of an effective strategic use of these mediums.


Ryan Hyman
Account Executive

The future of our media. Where do you stand?

There is a lot of thinking to be done this morning.


We are at the heart of a media storm and the storm focuses on three key things


Firstly, the future of News International and its senior management


Secondly, the implications for the political and police establishment as we start to understand its complicity in what is starting to look like an systemic culture of corruption


Thirdly, the far more important and longer-term debate about the kind of media we, as a society, will tolerate and the balance within it between public interest and commercial interest.


As far as the first is concerned it seems hard to believe that the closure of the NOTW is the end of the story. More senior heads will have to roll surely. And I will be interested to see the Union response too!


For the second, we must wonder just how the PM and Downing Street generally will shake off the scandal of association with Andy Coulson. They will only weather the storm, if they are seen to take action on the third point. And to me that isn't just about a judge led enquiry into the phone hacking scandal.


This is, as I say, the fundamental issue. Should freedom of the press over-ride all other moral codes and values? As an example, do we want a press that is free to investigate and disclose celebrity mis-deeds as a matter of fact and of public interest? Or a press that is free to print pages of salacious detail as a matter of prurient interest to sell more papers?


It's a key question that defines the society we live in.


Where do you stand?

The News is the News - and it matters to us how we respond

I was on the top deck of the number 201 bus to Stamford when I read on Twitter of the announced closure of the News of the World. I may be going over the top but it seemed like one of those key 'news' moments that you will always remember - an event of such profound significance that we will only understand it through the perspective of history.


Up until today News International seems to have been playing the classic media novice's game of 'close your eyes and hope it goes away'. To go from such a naive policy to such a comprehensive and newsworthy response is typical of the Murdoch approach.


And yet it remains to be seen just what this most dramatic of gestures achieves. News International is still the story, making, not breaking, news. And there will be many who wonder why the axe has fallen on many innocent employees while no one at the top has yet taken responsibility?


Fundamentally too, we have to hope that this isn't the end of the story. If this one gesture closes the account then we have missed the point.


And it is a point that has been at the heart of debate for quite some time. Because the emotionally charged hacking story is the counter-part of the equally vociferously voiced media onslaught on the whole injunction regime. What we need to understand is the balance we want in our society between freedom and responsibility within our media.


The media chaffed - in some cases quite rightly - under the constraints of the injunction regime. But did they really do so because they were championing the freedom of the press? Or because their ability to commercially exploit salacious stories was curtailed. The 'hacking' scandal, suggests that commercial gain is the prevailing value of our national media - and not just the News of the World.


Liberty, said John Milton long ago, is the freedom to do what you ought to do. Licence is the freedom to do what you want without thought for the consequences. Where does the balance lie in our modern media?