Tag Archives: Darren Lilleker

Why Twitter could be the worst kind of public sphere

Posted on by

By Dr Darren G. Lilleker, Associate Professor, The Media School.

There have been many positive predictions regarding the social media microblogging tool Twitter. Clay Shirky has long been an exponent of the idea that such social forms of communication will reinvigorate public debate, expanding participation in an informed and influential public sphere. Similarly, Robert Cox argues such tools allow marginalized voices and perspectives to have a public outlet.

Yet a darker side to Twitter is emerging that suggests that use of the tool can be both ill-informed, with no intention of stimulating debate and in some high profile cases for deeply disturbing forms of discourse.

While some used Twitter hashtags around the party conferences to make political comments on the promises made by the respective party leaders, reading through the #labconf feed during Ed Miliband’s speech, many seemed to be only interested in contributing the line ‘Shut up beaker’.

A comment which likened Miliband to a character from the Muppets and which targeted his own Twitter account to make it visible not only to other Twitter users but the Miliband as well. Similarly one poster repeatedly directed the message ‘F*** Off Cheesehead’ at David Cameron during his conference speech. While the politicians may well shrug this off, and the tweets themselves represent little more than some online form of graffiti, it does counter more positive predictions about the platform’s use.

More concerning is that a number of Twitter users, most notably Peter Nunn, jailed this week for 18 weeks, think it is appropriate to go one step worse than calling political leaders cheeseheads or beaker, but threatening them with rape. For no greater crime than running a campaign to have Jane Austen on the back of a UK bank note, MP Stella Creasy and feminist campaigner Caroline Criado-Perez were subjected to some of the most vile threats imaginable. The BBC refused to quote them so Criado-Perez published them on her blog instead.

Criado-Perez levels criticism at Twitter, arguing the tool is optimized for trolling. But is it practical for Twitter to self-censor? The sheer number of tweets per minute means that any form of censorship would have to be automatic. So how does a computer differentiate between the threat of rape and, a comment on rape, or revelations about rape in conflicts? Sadly it probably couldn’t. If a dictionary were to be created of words that need to be assessed independently prior to posting, there would no longer be any immediacy.

Perhaps then the only solution for Twitter is to ensure all users are identifiable, and so liable to prosecution, rather than using anonymous names and single usage email addresses when setting up their account.

There remains a punitive alternative. Tough sentences for anyone found guilty of threatening behavior, so treating this form of abuse in the same way as face-to-face threats. But perhaps also there is an educational alternative.

What makes an otherwise respectable father like Peter Nunn feel it is appropriate to threaten to rape MPs if they disagree? What makes anyone feel they can say things on social media they would be too afraid or embarrassed to say face-to-face. Perhaps there needs to be a final button asking, ‘Are you sure you want to say this publicly?’. Or perhaps more needs to be done to show how this sort of behavior is equivalent to offline behaviour. Posting on Twitter is not the same shouting at a television and drunk tweets are not only read by fellow drunks in the same way as a comment in the pub or bar might be. What seems to be required is self-awareness when using these tools in order for them to have any chance of meeting their potential in society.

While there are still those who would use Twitter without thought for themselves or others, there seems to be far weightier arguments for ignoring Twitter and the like. Perhaps avoiding them is the solution and treating it as the sort of pub you just never want to go into, the one where you are never sure if you will come out unscathed and with your sanity intact.

Beyond the crisis of political engagement

Posted on by

By Dr Darren G. Lilleker, Associate Professor, The Media School.

There is a crisis of political engagement. Academics, journalists, political NGOs, even now celebrities tell us there is: with Russell Brand being given a stage to call for abstentionism from the democratic process to highlight the disconnections between government and the governed. The features of the crisis are low trust in politicians, parties and the governments they form; low levels of feeling informed; lower still levels of feeling connected to ‘politics’; and consequent low levels of interest and participation. These are not new, perhaps not wholly unhealthy, and also not particularly surprising.

To start on a positive note, we should not desire blind trust in politicians. Scepticism is healthy, even a degree of cynicism is healthy, blindly following and supporting politicians is dangerous. We also need a critical media, which can breed scepticism and cynicism by questioning the motives of politicians. The problem in many modern, post-industrial democracies is that the balance has tipped to almost complete mistrust, only around 20% of the EU population have any trust in politicians: to represent them, to act of the good of the nation, to follow ethical codes of behaviour. The question is why?

Politicians exist in the eye of a perfect storm. The media express few partisan affiliations and are readier to expose scandal than a positive story. The voters no longer hold strong affiliations to parties; hence they are no longer part of a local conversation with other members. Hence exposure to politics is mediated for the vast majority, who also rely on television news which few watch habitually and sporadic reading of newspapers. So of course there is low information and it is the scandals, the big news items, Plebgate, Expenses, to which most will get the most exposure.

But this is not the full explanation. Politicians now exist largely within what many describe as a bubble, Westminster for example. They largely moved away from community politics, offering sporadic surgeries only, public meetings are now undertaken via television which focus on the minority of top party leaders. Local politics is included by public service broadcasters, but is not the staple diet of many household’s Sunday viewing. The divorce of the representative and the community has been gradual, pushed by party centralisation, the erosion of local activists, clubs, the practice of parachuting in candidates, the pressures of Westminster duties etc.

Some politicians have, however, built new connections. Many politicians (MPs and MEPs) have begun to colonise Facebook and Twitter. Some hold online surgeries. Some request video footage from smartphones to highlight issues. Some seek the views of their constituents. Some inform about their activities at Westminster and locally. Some seek help with local campaigns. The best, and this is an unashamedly normative statement, do all of those.

What is the impact? Party politics, or at least perceptions of leaders, dominate voter choices. But, even when the tide turns towards one party, research shows a local MP can earn 5-12% of the vote based on their service. They can also enhance the image of their party, earn trust, earn interest, and mobilise citizens who feel disenfranchised. And they themselves feed off their constituents, the more they do the more constituents connect with them and so the more they connect with the community they represent.

The crisis of engagement is often seen to begin and end with voting. It is a crisis when the majority do not vote, and a protest against the system to abstain. But largely all this leads to is further disenfranchisement: why would any organisation seeking votes need the thoughts of those who do not participate.

We need a more interactive politics. Where demands of citizens are heard, where representatives interact with a broad swathe of citizens and where there is greater citizen input into and understanding of political processes. Disengagement results from feelings of personal irrelevance, disconnection, insecurity and uncertainty. Politicians need to reduce these feelings and make politics relevant, connected to communities so reducing insecurity in society and uncertainty over political processes and their outcomes. But citizens need to also push for a more active representative, withdrawing is not the answer.

 

Dr Lilleker has conducted research into a number of aspects of engagement and disengagement, in particular around the communication and campaigning activities of parties and candidates in the UK. The impacts of political communication is a key interest, and he has explored this using theories of psychology in his latest work Political Communication and Cognition (Palgrave, 2014). 

BU academics pay tribute to Nelson Mandela

Posted on by

Bournemouth University academics have paid tribute in the media to former South African President and human rights activist Nelson Mandela, who passed away on December 5 aged 95.

Cliff Van Wyk, lecturer in creative strategy and analysis at BU, was featured on BBC South Today and BBC Radio Solent talking about his experiences of Mandela.

Cliff, who is South African, spoke of being at the 1995 Rugby World Cup in the country, when Nelson Mandela came onto the pitch wearing the kit of the South African union rugby team, known as the Springboks, which had previously been seen as a symbol of apartheid.

“When Mandela came out in the springbok jersey and embraced Pienaar, this was the defining moment for me,” Cliff said.

“What I saw in that man was an incredible amount of basic human goodness and dignity. He came in and the pure moral and political stature of the man is what really drove it”.

He added: “The most significant part was that when we left the stadium it took us ten hours to get home but the distance was only four or five miles, purely because of this outpouring of joy”.

Darren Lilleker, leader of MA International Political Communication at BU, appeared on radio station Wave 105, and reflected on the impact that Mandela’s life had on his own development.

He said: “He was all about reconciliation and building a civil society.

“I was sixteen, with the usual cares of a sixteen-year old boy, with some interest in history and politics but limited. Apartheid was a word that was known and I remember happily signing petitions against it.”

He added: “His release six years later was part of the new dawning of democracy, of freedom…he showed the world a very important lesson. It is not revenge but reconciliation that rebuilds a society; his path to power was not on the back of civil war but a desire for civil society.”

Darren Lilleker on TUC conference to BBC Radio Solent

Posted on by

Darren Lilleker, a senior lecturer in Politics and Media at BU, spoke to BBC Radio Solent to give his thoughts on Ed Miliband’s speech at the TUC conference.

Speaking to Steve Harris on Solent’s Drivetime show, Darren gave his thoughts on Miliband’s comments, on Labour’s changing relationship with trade unions and what the decision, and indeed Miliband’s speech, will have on the future of the Labour Party.

Darren said of the speech, “It was cautious, it appealed to the unions’ anti-Conservatism.”

The conversation then progressed to look at Labour’s membership, and whether they were leaving themselves financially short by making this step. Darren continued, “What Labour has to do is reach out to a broader swathe of people and not rely on the trade unions as a supplier of membership and think about how it is going to get people to join the Party and, obviously, to donate to the Party. That is the big issue for the Party, losing the money that it relies on for its campaigns. But how do you get people to join political Parties and to engage with them?”

But where should the Party turn, again Darren explained how difficult it can be for Parties to find funding, “The whole party funding issue is very complex. How do you make sure that Parties are not being funded through businesses with vested interest? That is a huge debate that needs to be had!”

Darren was then asked how much damage could be done by Labour in making this decision, “I’m not sure how big an issue it is for the average voter. I don’t think the average man in the street is concerned about the relationships with [Labour and] the trade unions. For most it is an automatic association they make in their heads – Labour has always had a trade union link.”