Facebook…The end is nigh?!

As with most things I honestly believe however clichéd it is 'mighty things from small acorns grow'; and where better to plant such small acorns than at the pub amongst friends- which as it happens was where the idea for my following blog sprouted.

I was asked by a friend if I could ever imagine a time when Facebook would be obsolete.
I have to admit, and I’m sure I’m not the only one that did so, that my immediate reaction was ‘no’ quickly followed by ‘yes’ though on reflection I think the last response may have been due to my own self denial on the reliance I have come to entrust in recent years to social media.
I personally see social media very much  a double edged sword- a place where the boundaries of work and pleasure become merged- something I’m not all together a huge ‘fan’ of- if you’ll excuse the pun.

Such sites are rapidly taking away everyday face to face interactions and making them completely impersonal- from something as simple as birthday wishes- cards and even text messages are becoming an endangered species as tweets and wall postings are fast becoming amongst most the favoured method of communication. And while I understand this fits in seamlessly with modern society- everyone has somewhere to be and preference amongst consumers has switched to the ‘take-out’ over ‘eat in’ method of information digestion. But in the world of communication surely this can not be a wholly good thing?

Twitter varies slightly here- for my self at least it is firmly positioned as an essential within my communications 'tool kit'- initiating and enabling communication with people I would of otherwise never encountered. The idea behind it is simple and it effortlessly allows work networks and information sharing to grow, I heard a quote the other day- in fact I think I may have read it as a tweet which said ‘Facebook is for friends you now call associates, whereas Twitter is for people you would like to call your friends’ its fairly clichéd I am aware but I think it brings out the essences of what both sites have to other- we reconnect with people via Facebook; people we haven’t contacted for years (which always begs the question ‘there is a reason why we haven’t retained contact’ something I think people hasten to forget in terms of the 'number of friends game’) where as Twitter allows us to follow at will, with out the fuss of a request, someone or something we share a current interest(s) in from career paths to celebrity following- Twitter offers it all!

But on just presenting the above information I think, and though I wouldn’t like to place a date on such event, I believe as with Myspace, a virtual death is nigh for Facebook- or certainly an massive emigration of users to other social networking sites- case in question Myspace- Myspace was all the rage just a few years ago, and while it wasn’t replaced with a new communication medium, it was replaced with, if you like a better version of itself in Facebook, Myspace originally centred on the promotion of unsigned/ local bands as a fast track way to achieve popular status and indeed it had numerous success stories from Lilly Allen to the Arctic Monkeys, but its creators did not anticipate the popularity the site would receive from your average Joe Bloggs, wishing to firstly be-friend their flavour of the e-week band but also contact friends- something Facebook capitalised on- though with the recent surge in ‘like’ pages it can be argued that Facebook as somewhat regressed into previous Myspace ways.

In my 3 years as a media undergraduate student I familiarised and was educated in Web 2.0 and its place within modern day society, however just a couple of months ago I read an journal article on Web 3.0 and how it would make 2.0 and its ideologies obsolete within the very foreseeable future. I have since seen a rather fitting Youtube video (in itself could warrant a whole other blog) which effortlessly says what this blog only wishes it could:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpYh4juY8-o

What I am alluding to here is the fast paced industry which has become the social network industry, which I believe can never be truly diagnosed as cause or effect from an equally faced paced society. Fcaebook was established in 2004 it is little over 6 years old- some feet in terms of social media consumption today, and as reflected above, in the change of web 1.0 to its later 2.0 and latest 3.0 editions, if it aims to keep its reputation amongst users, it can not afford to simply tread water. 

In summary I believe that the virtual grim reaper does indeed have its sights set on Facebook, but the real question: Who will care?

Its publics will have (if they haven’t already) jumped ship to the next free, always free, social media steam liner, and its creators have already made a packet- in fact the little story here of Facebook has already transcended media into the world of film and I’m sure there’s bound to be more than enough anecdotes to provide a sequel….and if not I hear reality TV can do wonders for flailing celebrity careers!

Censorship gone mad?!

Censorship gone mad?!

There are many reports floating round on an almost daily basis concerning political correctness and censorship. Both tend to explore social aspects focusing on today’s culture, often drawing comparison to times of yester year, yet it is rarely mentioned how these confinements can and will affect the media industry. So I thought I’d examine what I thought to be a prime example of these contradictions:

Shane Meadows This is England ’86 and the differences it encountered upon release compared to the film of the same name released in 2006.

I’d like to point out at this point Meadow’s is up there on my list of all time great auteur; and I really think he has proved essential in placing British Cinema on the map, in recent years. I am familiar with all his work and believe his style and storytelling when dealing with socio-realism is second to none. Yet I am a bit baffled as to why the reception of This is England (2006) and This is England ’86 were so very far apart, when essentially one gave rise to the other.

This is England (2006) is the fifth full length feature film from director Shane Meadows, dealing with issues of race during the summer of 1983. Though the subject matter is hard-hitting, the conventions of cinematography and soundtrack oozed the familiar scent of Meadows’ previous work. (Except for perhaps Once upon a Time in The Midlands, 2002, as much as I would hate to speak on behalf of anyone, I’m sure Meadows himself would only be more than happy to distance himself from this production).

When looking at the release and reception of This is England (2006), you don’t have to look very hard to discover a huge emphasis was placed on education.

The pre production of the film text, dealt very much with education- Meadows work during the filming of This is England was done so under the guise that the film would be receiving a 15 certificate, Meadows worked alongside Optimum Releasing to produce an education pack that would accompany the film in schools, ensuring the younger audiences took away the correct reading of the film, and not one promoting racism.

However even with this is mind, the film still received an 18 certificate, and even with such censorship levels in place; was still banned from some cinema complexes in Bristol.

The film was received to acclaimed critic reviews and proved amongst audiences to be Shane’s highest grossing production to date.

No doubt leading to ideas forming around the possibility of a televised series, This is England ’86 was released on 5^th September 2010 to Channel 4 (who had co-funded the film and the 4 episode series). However the reviews it received portrayed differing context; on the one hand people hailed the soundtrack and acting shown- Meadows’ tends to work with the same small number of individuals (with Thomas Turgoose- the latest to join the pack) each actor presenting audiences with a naturalistic snapshot of eighties Britain. The context of the series though was left wide open for debate- the themes tackled by the relatively short series included: rape, child abuse, violence, race and sex; at every given opportunity. Some argued that the comic proportions of the drama, set off the otherwise morbid subject matter, while other were left reeling over the muted rape scene in episode 3.

I as mentioned before am a huge fan of Meadows but upon broadcasting of this scene I’m afraid even I had to look away, however I felt this was more a reaction to the conscious use of silence and not the images shown

I suppose the point of this blog is to question when such scenes became so acceptable. Little over 4 years ago, Meadows’ This is England was met with tough censorship barriers, but here we have a televised series born of the same name, being shown one hour after the watershed, the subject matter in my own opinion was much more graphic than any encountered in any of his previous works. I don’t suppose there will ever be a clear cut answer to any of questions raised here, and I’m sure answers given will rely to the changing socio climates. Yet censorship does seem to have gone a little mad when you consider how much more a wide spread medium television is when compared to the film and cinema industry.  

Putting the PR into propaganda

Time and time again the question of public relations being propaganda is raised, in all matter of contexts from pub debates to academic teachings, yet will the two ever be separate? This blog could go on and on, but I am hoping this extremely brief overview, primarily looking at the foundings of both of these practises will help put the matter to rest, for a short time at least.

Throughout the history of public relations many critics and practitioners alike have acknowledged to some level that there are visible connections between public relations and propaganda, do this connections, founded centuries ago, still hold consequences within modern society?

Public relations as a practise has many definitions one offered by Cutlip regards public relations as: ‘The management function that establishes and maintains mutually beneficial relationships, between an organisation and publics.’ However this is not the only definition, others are also available.

The history of public relations is culturally specific; however three main countries offer prevalent histories to the development of public relations as it is known it today, these countries are: United States, U.K and Germany. I think for this part however I will exclusively asses the development within the UK.

It is impossible to examine the history of public relations without mentioning Edward Bernays, Bernays’ career in public relations lies in the arts; he was the nephew of Sigmund Freud and often used tools associated with social psychology and persuasion, to explore how the human mind could be controlled.

Public relations in the United Kingdom was much slower in it’s original development than public relations in the United States, yet much like the United States, U.K public relations focused on the importance of practice as a form of communication. Differences arrive in the driving forces behind public relations in these two countries, where U.S public relations focused heavily on commercial interests U.K public relations in the 1920s and 1930s was public sector and local government driven. In U.K public relations with regards to local governments, press divisions were used to promote their importance in society; this proved very successful, and, in 1922 NALGO (The National Association of Local Government Officials) encouraged all local governments in Britain to adopted press divisions.

The history of U.K public relations also shares links to both World Wars, where public relation practices were used to encourage unity amongst the population in times of uncertainty, most notably in the Second World War, with documentary film making. It is with particular empathises on war time public relations in the U.K that the line separating public relations and propaganda becomes blurred.

As with public relations, propaganda is a form of communication defined as, ‘the deliberate and systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions and direct behaviour towards a certain response’ (Jowlett and O’Donnell). Propaganda has roots in the seventeenth century Catholic Church, in which it was employed simply to mean ‘propagating the faith’, propaganda within its original use, was a tool of neutral connotations.

Negative connotations surrounding propaganda arose through its use in the Second World War to by Nazi’s to promote anti Semitism messages, this removed propaganda from its neutral origins into one with extremely negative connotations.

For public relations to be an effective channel of communication the industry relies heavily on reputation, but reputation is a trait that cannot be brought by practitioners, it has to be earned.

…..The differences arise when we look at how these objectives are achieved.

With regards to engineering public consent propaganda offers no negotiation or dialogue with its audience or publics. Public relations however operates with an element of free will available to its publics, or, 2 way asymmetrical communication

Public relations also differs from propaganda in the type of opinions it attempts to engineer. Public relations is primarily concerned with central opinions, of high regard to the addressee, Propaganda is concerned with peripheral or surface views, of much less importance to the addressee and so, are much easy to alter or change.

With this is mind it becomes apparent that differing techniques and skills are deployed by the two practices in achieving their objectives of engineering public opinion.

When examining public relations, before a public to even considers changing their opinions, there are certain items that must be addressed, first by publics, regarding the addresser and then in the message being delivered. Often this underpins a referral to ethics, a factor that dissociates public relations from propaganda, propaganda is not concerned with following ethical guidelines; instead it aims to disseminate its message to as large an audience as possible.

Public relations practitioners however do, or rather should, follow ethical practises of persuasion.

The importance of language.

In public relations emotive language is carefully chosen by practitioners to communicate more effectively with their publics, this language tool is further effective if public relations practitioners also employ audience segmentation, using rhetoric language most identifiable to certain publics, - yet although differing rhetoric is used it is important to note that the same message is delivered.

Ultimately it would be hard to ever dissociate public relations completely from propaganda; in fact many practitioners and critics alike acknowledge that to some degree public relations is n ‘ethical’ propaganda. The question is how deep these ethics run; as many of them are subjective

In recent years corporate social responsibility has tried to tackle some of these issues, yet this is just a small drop in an ocean of solutions

The key to all this I feel lies within the intelligence of our audience, society is heavily criticised as being a fast food culture, with everything being readily available and highly disposable- yet this very same society, can pick and choose messages as it pleases; negotiating, declining or accepting the reading offered. Our culture of readily available media sources, I feel is making us a more refined society, we don’t have to accept the first reading offered, we are more than capable (and will!) go to the next source, and the one after should we need too.

This newly found educated audience is more intelligent, and more so than ever practitioners are having to up there game.

Although propagandas founding within society lies amongst its war time use, critics of public relations have linked propaganda to corporate modern day public relations practices, in order for public relations to not become propaganda, regulatory bodies ensure, practitioners today are monitored (in its loosest possible term). This is just another measure that has been adopted in recent years.

Public relations will never be fully dissociated from propaganda, due to shared historical connections between the two. Ultimately maybe the best action to take here would relate to ‘good’ PR practise, we should acknowledge and be forth-right in our links with propaganda.

We will never totally be free of our propaganda ties, and maybe this is not a bad thing, as long as we can recognise and act on our differences, building on the downfalls of propaganda as our predecessor, maybe we will achieve the wholly trusted status we desire?

….Who am I kidding…..as much as the above would be would benefit public relations within an ideal world, I somehow think, for now at least, public relations and its practitioners will continue to bear the cross of propaganda.