spinprofessor

[spinprofessor]

If it wasn’t laughable, it would be a great first line in a bad romance novel…“Can I begin by saying I’m sorry,” he said.

“I don’t often say it. I’m sorry for being a man right now, because family and sexual violence is perpetrated overwhelmingly by men against women and children.

“So the first message to the men out there is: wake up, stand up and man up and stop this bullshit!”

Can I begin by suggesting that at a personal level David Cunliffe is not really sorry he's a man right now. In fact I’m sure that he's quite pleased to be a husband and a father. It’s not something that he would give up, never, ever. I’m also sure that, like most men, he’s not sorry that he has a penis. In fact I’d wager that he quite enjoys having it, and I doubt he’d want to lose it as remedy for his remorse. Can I also suggest that there’s nothing for him to personally apologise for, at least in terms of domestic violence, because as far as we know he hasn’t done anything to be guilty of in that department.

So if his apology was not personal, was it political? On the surface yes, as a message targeted at female voters; a message which, he was at pains to explain to Duncan Garner later on Radio Live, had to be taken in context (specifically referring to the issue of domestic violence), and which he subsequently moderated to meaning not all men. And which he post-rationalised as having to be controversial in order to get the issue out there.

But no, it wasn’t political in that as a statement it appeared to be more ad-libbed than scripted; loose lipped rather than tactically crafted for best effect. Did David just sense the love in the room and on the spur of the moment decide it was safe to unleash his inner-feminist? Many women and men on social media seem to think so; arguing it was courageous calling out the "bullshit, deep-seated sexism" still prevalent in New Zealand.

But that is quite out of character for David. Feminism isn’t his strong point. Otherwise he would have known that it’s way too simplistic to attribute the cause of sexual/domestic violence to sexism. That David reducts the issue to the ignorance and inability of men to “man up”, suggests a superficial understanding of what is a deeply complex, and insidious reality. Moreover, if David was truly aware of what happens in abusive situations he would not have used the apology in the communication of his message. He would know that victims of repeated domestic violence are also victims to the apology. The apology is what repeat abusers do to hoover their victims back to them; a psychological handcuff to prevent them from breaking free, thereby perpetuating the cycle of abuse. Over time victims of abuse learn to distrust the apology because it means nothing.

What is in character, however, and is the most plausible scenario, is that he walked into that room and immediately recognized he was a fish out of water. His fight or flight brain jumped to the conclusion that he was talking to a group of hostile man-haters (stereotypical assumption when confronted by a bunch of feminists). To reassure that he had come in peace he instinctively dialed up a number of clichés from his study of American political behaviour, and in one fell swoop conflated Kennedy’s “Ich bin ein Berliner” remark (down-with-the-homies), with the political apology that American politicians frequently use when they have done something wrong and need to appear vulnerably human and remorseful. It wasn’t a genuine apology; it was a cliché’d response to his own personal discomfort. Which is why so many felt that it lacked authenticity and sincerity, and why it came across as insulting. It is yet another example of the yawning gap that exists between the real David and what uncontrollably falls out of his mouth.

If David had come in authentically saying, I’m feeling like a fish out of water, forgive me for not being an expert in this area, but we have been consulting with real experts and I hope you will agree that Labour’s new policy is going to go some way towards dealing with sexual and family violence, he would have been credible and convincing. And he would not have potentially offended a lot of the male voters he needs to stave off disaster in the polls. Can I end by saying that his comment is going to come back and haunt him in the campaign.

[spinprofessor]

Get a grip people!

This political party fundraising discussion is verging on the hysterical. Although interestingly, it's a discussion largely taking place amongst the commentariat rather than the real world.

The most significant thing about today was that, Labour's Chris Hipkins and National's Steven Joyce aside (clearly they were the party assigned spokespeople), not another member of Labour or National's front bench engaged in debate about donations to political parties. Nor for that matter did any of the senior leadership of the Greens, New Zealand First, ACT, the Maori Party, Mana, United Future, or the Conservative parties. 



New Zealand's electoral finance rules, while far from perfect, enable donors to feel safe, enabling them to support all political parties in private, up to a 'reasonable', limit. All parties need these donors. That's what we the people, through our representatives, have agreed is appropriate.  



The alternative is total taxpayer funding of political parties, and I don't perceive any public appetite for this alternative. Nor are parties prepared to seek this. All parties are afraid of the potential public backlash should they seek to transfer responsibility for all their activities to the taxpayer. 



So what's this issue really about? It's not about who is funding political parties. That's not the story. This particular one is about whether David Cunliffe bought his way to victory. And in whose pocket is he sitting?

But honestly, I don't think anyone really expects that David would sell his soul to any of the five donors who collectively contributed a mere $20k to his leadership campaign. Nor that John Key would sell his soul for $100k. This is not America. This is not the House of Cards.

The reality is that regardless of whether or not he had access to more money than Grant Robertson or Shane Jones, David Cunliffe ran the better leadership campaign. He won according to the rules that the Labour party established for the leadership campaign. It might have resulted in selection of the wrong candidate, but that's the system Labour members chose. That's the party's problem. Grant and Shane didn't lose cos David had richer backers. They just weren't as skilled at campaigning as Dave. 

  8 March 2014

[spinprofessor]

Such a good cartoon by Sharon Murdoch!

[spinprofessor]

Looking like a winner

Last year I published the results of a study into the visual bias of the main newspapers in their coverage of the two major leadership contenders in the 2011 New Zealand general election (“The eyes have it: visual bias in election campaign coverage”, in J. Johannson and S. Levine (Eds), Kicking the Tyres: The New Zealand General Election and Electoral Referendum of 2011, Wellington: Victoria University Press.) I found that when it came to photographic images in the New Zealand Herald, Herald on Sunday (HoS), Dominion Post and the Sunday Star Times, coverage was not equally detailed and exacting of the major party leaders. Substantial image coverage imbalance was found in all four newspapers, most of it in favour of incumbent National leader and Prime Minister John Key. I suggested the findings gave reason for the Labour party and its then leader Phil Goff to feel like they were unfairly treated in print-media coverage, especially in the Herald/HoS. I said this raised serious questions about the objectivity of the print media’s visual coverage of New Zealand election campaigns that was worthy of wider consideration and public discussion.

  As I have discussed in a previous blog entry, the subsequent level of critique was not particularly profound or accurate. While the Dominion Post remained largely silent on the matter (bar a cartoon), the New Zealand Herald criticised the research as a “batshitstudy” (Tim Murphy, Editor in Chief NZH, on Twitter); “wilfully misleading” (Shayne Currie, Editor NZH, on Twitter); not stacking up, fundamentally flawed, and not providing “meaningful answers” (John Armstrong, political columnist NZH, 29 November.)

  New Zealand’s first nation-wide primary-style leadership campaign, in which the Labour Party allowed party members to vote for their new party leader for the first time, provided another opportunity to examine the issue of visual bias, and to test whether the papers had become more alert to the need to provide balance in their visual image coverage of leadership candidates.

  This campaign was a particularly interesting object of study because, unlike a general election, there is no legislation governing how fair campaigns must be run in a party-run, party-wide leadership contest. Nor are there precedents for how the news media must operate or maintain balance in such a situation. Nor did anyone know what to expect in terms of media opportunities on the campaign trail. And there were three main contenders for leadership office, unlike the general election where the media’s primary focus is on the leaders of the two major parties. This was all new territory for the New Zealand news media.

  There were three hypotheses I wanted to test:

      i.         that for the most part there would be substantial equivalency of coverage because none of the three leadership contenders were the incumbent leader, all were campaigning together, attending the same campaign meetings and talking to the same people over a short period of time, meaning there would be few opportunities for candidates to be photographed individually in more advantageous “photo op” moments;

       ii.         that there could be some evidence of “geo/partisan” imbalance (where the media reflects the interests of its dominant geographical audience). I anticipated that David Cunliffe could get more coverage in the Auckland papers given that he lived in Auckland and was an Auckland region MP; that Shane Jones could also receive more coverage from the Auckland papers given that he is from and represents the Far North; and that Grant Robertson as a Wellington Central MP, and well known in the core public sector could receive more coverage in The Dominion Post;

     iii.         that Grant Robertson’s sexuality (he was the first openly gay MP aspiring to be the leader of a major New Zealand political party) would not feature as an issue of visual importance, despite being a subject of written and verbal discussion, because there are no precedents for how to visually represent this as a campaign feature.

  METHOD

Using a similar method of analysis to the 2011 study, this time adding a South Island newspaper, I examined the photographic images published in the print versions of The New Zealand Herald (The Herald) and The Herald on Sunday (HoS) from the APN NZ Media stable of publications, and The Dominion Post (DomPost), The Press and Sunday Star Times (SST) from the Fairfax Media stable. The study covered the period Tuesday 27 August 2013, the day after the leadership nominations closed, to Sunday 15 September 2013, the day that voting closed for Labour Party members. In total the study covered 20 days and 57 editions. The unit of analysis was the individual photographic image featuring the three leadership contenders individually or together. In total this amounted to 65 separate photographs and 99 individual candidate appearances within those photographs.

A combination of quantitative and qualitative analysis was used in the study. The leader images were measured and compared for number, size and proportion. The images were also analysed for positive, neutral and negative tone, determined by a set of visual criteria used in the 2011 study and drawn from previous research into non-verbal, interpersonal communication in leader images (Robinson, 2012a; Robinson 2012b). I also added another variable: campaign vs stock images, to test whether there were individual campaign events that attracted more coverage.

  RESULTS

Number and Proportion

There is evidence that the press was conscious of the need for balance: 69 of the 99 appearances were on a page featuring all three candidates, whether all together in one photograph or in separate images. Having said that, there was still a marked difference in terms of number and proportion of appearances. David Cunliffe’s image was the most published overall (37.4%); Grant Robertson’s the least (29.29%). Jones received exactly a third of the coverage, which is what could be expected in a perfectly balanced contest.

  Regionally, Shane Jones’ image was the most published in the Auckland papers; David Cunliffe’s was the most published in the Wellington and Christchurch papers; Grant Robertson’s image dominated none of the papers, and was the least published in the Herald and the Press. The national Sunday papers were the most evenly balanced for number.

Note: highest in red, lowest in blue

Area

Cunliffe’s image dominated the area in a higher proportion to his number of images (44.37%:37.37%.) Conversely, Robertson’s image occupied the least amount of space in total, and even less proportionate space than his number of images (23.9%:30%.) By a small margin Jones had the largest area proportion in the Auckland papers; and by a greater margin Cunliffe had the largest area proportion in the Wellington and Christchurch papers. Cunliffe had the largest average image size at 13.3cm2, Jones had the next largest at 11.9cm2 and Robertson the smallest at 11cm2. 

Note: highest in red, lowest in blue

  Stock vs Campaign images

The short length of the campaign combined with the fact that the three contenders were campaigning together did indeed limit the number of staged “photo ops” the individual candidates could create. Just under half (31/65) of the candidate photos were stock photos taken at other occasions and held on file by the various newspapers. The candidates were photographed together at the same campaign venue in 16/65 photographs. Significantly, of the 18 photographs taken at other campaign locations 9 of them were of David Cunliffe’s campaign launch. 

Tone

Examining tone over the whole campaign, Cunliffe had the highest number and proportion of positive images across all papers, and Robertson the lowest. Robertson was the only candidate to have more negative than positive images — in the Herald. Cunliffe had over twice as many positive and neutral images than Robertson. Cunliffe also had the lowest number of negative images.

Why did Cunliffe dominate?

David Cunliffe (who went on to win the leadership contest) received the most favourable image treatment and coverage, and Grant Robertson the least, over the five newspapers. Let us examine the possible reasons for this, starting with the most contentious: Robertson’s sexuality. There was only one story that featured 3 separate images of the candidates with their partners. At the level of the published visual image, therefore, this was not a differentiating factor.

  What about geo-partisan bias? Did the fact that Cunliffe and Jones represent the geographical interests of the Herald’s primary coverage area assist them? There is no strong evidence for this. Certainly Jones was the most published in the Auckland papers, and Cunliffe had three more published images than Jones in the Press as a result of a profile piece on Cunliffe’s South Canterbury roots. But if geography was a differentiating factor Robertson would have dominated the Wellington papers, which he did not. Instead it was Cunliffe that was the most published in the Dominion Post.

  How about incumbency? A number of international studies have found evidence of an uneven balance of news media time and attention in favour of incumbent candidates relative to their standing in the opinion polls — sometimes referred to as an incumbency ‘bonus’ (Barber 2008; Hopmann, de Vreese and Albaek 2011; Jenkins 1999). In 2011 I found an incumbency bonus in favour of National leader and Prime Minister John Key (Robinson 2012a.)

  In this primary-style campaign no-one was incumbent leader, but David Cunliffe was the longest serving MP and he was also the frontrunner in terms of public opinion support. In a 3 News poll midway through the campaign Cunliffe was the favourite amongst Labour voters at 45.6%, Jones was second on 28.1%, and Robertson third on 26.4% (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9135678/Cunliffe-ahead-in-Labour-leadership-poll. This was a similar order to the overall number, area and tone of image coverage each ultimately received.

  Evidence of a possible bonus over and above opinion poll standing in favour of Cunliffe can be found in individual papers. The Dominion Post gave over 53.14% of its candidate image coverage to Cunliffe; the Press gave over 51.15% to him. This was largely at Jones’s expense in the Dominion Post and Robertson’s in the Press. This evidence is not strong enough, however, to suggest that Cunliffe received an across the board advantage.

  Of much greater impact on number, area and positive messaging was David Cunliffe’s decision to hold a media-invited “razzamatazz” campaign launch, captured in large, colourful images of Cunliffe displaying victorious body language and facial expressions. Despite media commentators describing Cunliffe as “vainglorious” (Espiner, 2013), and his launch as a “cringeworthy revival meeting lacking authenticity” (Small, 2013), the spectacle substantially increased the amount of visual attention he received over the other two candidates, who had earlier announced their candidature in low-key media interviews with no press photographers present.

  Not only did the large Cunliffe images dominate newspaper coverage of the campaign on the day after he announced his candidacy, but they were repeatedly used to illustrate stories about him throughout the campaign. The launch gave Cunliffe a serious advantage in terms of on-going visual coverage, which the others could not compete with because of the lack of subsequent photo opportunities afforded by the campaign’s organisational structure. While many of the written stories were not entirely complimentary about Cunliffe (e.g., Vance 2013, Roughan 2103), the take-away message in the visual images was positive.

     But the ready availability of a good press photograph containing messages about victory and popularity does not explain all of Cunliffe’s dominance. Some of the answer also lies in his proxemic placement in relation to his competitors at campaign meetings.

Whether by the speaking order determined by meeting organisers, good fortune, because he possessed good tactical awareness, or a combination of these factors, Cunliffe was seated in-between Jones and Robertson in a majority (10/16) of the campaign photographs of the three together. Compositionally, therefore, the photographs were centered on Cunliffe; he was the focal point of the visual narrative, with the other two responding to the action in the centre. In a number of these images Cunliffe looked straight down the barrel of the camera with a smile on his face (creating a one-on-one relationship with the viewer) while Jones’ and Robertson’s body language reacted negatively to Cunliffe (and ignoring the viewer.)

  The images of Jones and Robertson as physically disengaged from Cunliffe illustrated a sub-theme about Cunliffe’s lack of popularity with his caucus colleagues that ran throughout the media’s written campaign coverage. While this was a largely negative written message about Cunliffe, paradoxically the visual images ended up being most damaging to Jones and Robertson because they connoted their lack of ability to handle their chief threat. The overarching message was that Cunliffe was the dominant player in this game.

  Conclusion: Looking like a winner gets you press

  This study found some evidence of the press being conscious of the need to balance cover of the three candidates. However, it also found significant imbalance in visual image coverage in favour of David Cunliffe and away from Grant Robertson. Like Phil Goff in 2011, both Shane Jones and Grant Robertson have a right to feel deprived of the same visual image coverage that David Cunliffe received in the press during the Labour leadership campaign. Coverage was not equally detailed and exacting of the three leadership candidates, and this may have impacted on the ability of Labour party members to make a well-informed voting choice.

  This will no doubt disappoint some in the press, because they were often unflattering in their written coverage of Cunliffe, and may not welcome the suggestion that they may have unwittingly undermined the chances of the other candidates by their more positive visual image coverage of Cunliffe. But the issue here, and what makes the visual image so potent, is that the visual images accompanying a written story are what most readers will see and process first, before they interpret meaning from the written story. Images have the power to elicit reactions that are intuitive or emotional and influence conscious thinking before the logic derived from language is engaged. This is especially so when it comes to images of people — personal appearance, facial expressions, gestures and posture are included in the range of images neurologically pre-programmed for instant effect. The more often readers are exposed to these images, the more these messages imprint in their subconscious. The meaning contained in visual images simplifies the complexities of political learning, and may even influence the likelihood they will vote for that candidate.

  This all makes the choice of the image that accompanies a written story, and the message it contains, extremely important, and why visual bias needs to be an object of concern in an election campaign when many voters turn to the press for information to assist them when making their voting choice. The challenge that Labour party members faced in this primary was how to select a leader between three candidates who had not yet proved their leadership competence. In this situation, when all three brought aspects of significant political capital to the table, there was always a risk that the final judgment would be based not necessarily on careful reasoning, but on heuristic judgments of who would perform best as the leaders — made through the intuitive assessment of who looked most like a winner. 

  There are also tactical lessons to be learned from this experience by anyone engaged in a public leadership competition — about the importance of controlling for nonverbal body language at all times; and the importance of the well-timed spectacle, not only for what it communicates about a particular event but for the way that the images continue to be recycled throughout a campaign, and for the significant impact they have on voter choice.

  3 February 2014

  REFERENCES

  Barber, M. (2008). Getting the Picture: Airtime and Lineup Bias on Canadian Networks during the 2006 Federal Election. Canadian Journal of Communication, 33, 621-637.

Barrett, A. W., & Barrington, L. W. (2005, Fall). Is a picture worth a thousand words? Newspaper photographs and voter evaluations of political candidates. Press/Politics, 10(4), 98-113.

D'Alessio, D., & Allen, M. (2000). Media Bias in Presidential Elections: A Meta Analysis. Journal of Communication, Autumn 2000, 133 - 156.

Espiner, Colin. (2013). David Cunliffe is Labour's top dog, http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/blogs/bull-dust/9092256/David-Cunliffe-is-Labours-top-dog, retrieved 27 August 2103.

Hopmann, D. N., Vreese, C. H. d., & Albaek, E. (2011). Incumbency Bonus in Election News Coverage Explained: The Logics of Political Power and the Media market. Journal of Communication, 61, 264-282.

Jenkins, R. W. (1999). How Much is Too Much? Media Attention and Popular Support for an Insurgent Party. Political Communication, 16(4), 429-445.

Kahneman, D (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Penguin ebook.

Robinson, C (2012a) “The eyes have it: visual bias in election campaign coverage” in J. Johannson and S. Levine (Eds), Kicking the Tyres: The New Zealand General Election and Electoral Referendum of 2011, Wellington: Victoria University Press

Robinson, C (2012b). “Interacting leaders” in J Lees-Marshment (ed), Routledge Handbook of Political Marketing. London: Routledge.

Roughan, J (2013). “Cunliffe has the wind in his sails” Weekend Herald, 7 Sept, p. A25 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11120832

Small, V (2013). Robertson best choice for Labour, http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/columnists/vernon-small/9100193/Robertson-best-choice-for-Labour, retrieved 29 August 2013

Vance, A (2013). “Loved and loathed: the polarizing politician”, Dominion Post, 14 September, p. A6, http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9164503/Loved-and-loathed-the-polarising-politician

[spinprofessor]

Let's get a royal stamp of approval

Holding a referendum at the election about whether to change the New Zealand flag is electorally smart for National. The public debate so far seems to be more in favour than not; deep down it’s an issue that makes us reflect from a sense of community about the ways we represent ourselves internationally as a nation and a culture. It could result in many more voters going to the polls, because it’s a historically significant moment that will impact on the lives of our children, grand children and great-great grandchildren. Even people who are not normally engaged in politics may feel it’s an issue worth expressing a democratic choice over. This could translate into broader feelings of satisfaction with the status quo, which means voters are less likely to want a change of government.

  However if, as is being speculated, the government will also ask voters to select from a range of designs that have already been shortlisted by Cabinet, then John Key may as well hand over the swipe cards for the 9th floor of the Beehive to David Cunliffe now. Because that would well and truly be bad policy-making as well as electoral suicide.

  Why suicide? Because having to choose between already shortlisted options will result in public lobbying and emotional debate that will distract voters from the more important electoral choices they have to make in the election. If public flag preference is tracked by opinion polls, those supporting less popular options may feel their vote won’t count and be completely deterred from going to the polling booth. If there is widespread public dissatisfaction with the process and with the options being presented the target of dissatisfaction will be the government and National will be the loser. This is not mere speculation. Enough is known about voter behavior to predict that this will happen.

  Why bad policy making? Because neither Cabinet nor the general public are capable of making the best decision for New Zealand on the design of the flag of the future.

  Sadly there are no artists or designers in Cabinet who are qualified to understand the purpose and power of the visual symbol as a metaphoric expression of New Zealand identity. Sure there are some who understand elements of it (Steven Joyce understands the importance of design-led innovation, Chris Finlayson is a strong advocate for culture and heritage, Judith Collins appreciates the politics of fashion design), but the design of the flag is too important to be left to former business people, farmers, lawyers and accountants.

  John Key has already stated his personal preference for the silver fern on a black background. Without doubt the silver fern is stylish, and government ministers wear it proudly as a brooch on their suit lapels. But its symbolic origins derive from butter marketing and it has become commodified as an export identifier. It’s also strongly associated with historic sporting success, and we are emotionally biased towards it. But are we that insecure as a nation that butter and sports marketing should form the basis for the manifestation of our future national identifier? 

  The design of the flag is not an economic decision. It is about what takes us forward as a nation into next 100 years. It needs to capture the essence of us as a people while being instantly recognisable; it wants to be worn at events, should raise a tear, sit boldly and comfortably alongside, but also set us apart visually in, a sea of other nations’ flags.

  So why can’t the people decide? It is the people’s flag afterall. Last week’s public discussions have shown that suddenly everyone’s an expert and everyone thinks they're a designer. Well I’d like to see them put a portfolio together and apply to design school. They might get a shock to find out how difficult it is to get through the front door!

  The general public doesn’t have a role in deciding what the new design could be because it will, by its very nature, avoid extreme preferences, regress to the mean, default to the already known, and end up with the mediocre. And mediocre is the last thing we need at a time when New Zealand needs to have a strong international presence in an ever-changing global environment.

  The design criteria, commissioning process, and shortlisting would best be decided by an independent expert panel comprised of our most successful designers, artists, film-makers, musicians, writers and performers. These people, more than anyone, understand the design process, the importance of the metaphor, the need to depart from the known, and how to generate new ideas to create the future. The need “to crave a different kind of buzz” saw Lorde succeed with Royals. That is what we need to capture in the new flag design.

  The final decision then has to be made by someone of New Zealand but not of New Zealand; someone who bridges old and new, the past and the future, the old flag and our future flag. Ironically there’s only one person who could do that and that is possibly our last royal: Prince William.

    Claire Robinson is a Professor of Communication Design and Pro Vice-Chancellor of Massey University’s College of Creative Arts

  Originally published in the New Zealand Herald, 4 February 2014 

[spinprofessor]

Who will win the 2014 election and why?

If recent history is anything to go by, the 2014 general election result is already sorted. As the chart (below) shows, since 1998 the major party leading the political opinion polls in July of the year preceding a general election has gone on to be the party with the highest proportion of the party vote come election day, and the party that has led the next government. Despite the current centre-left Labour/Greens bloc looking competitive, National appears to have the next election in the bag, again.

How is this possible, when there is a lot of water to go under the bridge between now and the next election; when the Labour Party hasn’t presented any of its 2014 policies; and when not a cent of money has been spent on campaign advertising by any political party? Surely voters will be waiting to see what tricks new Labour leader David Cunliffe can pull out of the party’s bag before coming to a decision?

  It’s counter-intuitive, but election campaigns in New Zealand don’t actually make much difference to the outcome of elections for major parties (although they do for minor parties). Data gathered from the New Zealand Election Study since 1999 shows that on average almost 54% of voters will make their decision about which party to vote for before the election campaign. While pre-existing party loyalty is a significant factor in the voting choice of these “early deciders”, international research shows that they also base their decision on performance measures they already know or estimate well out from the election campaign.

  Break the data down even further and we find that 62.7% of National voters make their voting decision before the election campaign; 40.4% of them make that decision before election year. It is these voters Labour needs to reach across to if it is to have any chance of regaining the box seat. But most of them have already made up their mind based on what they know now, and it will take a miracle to convert them.

  Labour’s miracle needs to include convincing National voters that David Cunliffe’s recent rekindling of Labour’s relationship with the union movement and its grass roots members is also in their interests. It may have worked to shore up Cunliffe’s leadership ambitions, but persuading more conservative centre-right voters to swing to the far left will not be such an easy ask.

  Without being able to rely on these voters for support, Cunliffe will have to share the spotlight with the Greens’ Russel Norman and Metiria Turei in order to present a viable leadership alternative to the National-led government. This isn’t an easy alliance. The closer they get to Labour, the Greens risk becoming seen as ‘Labour-lite’. However, if they are to grow their support base they need to keep taking voters off Labour and presenting themselves as significantly different. Conversely for Labour to grow they need to take votes off the Greens, which means that they can’t become too chummy either. It won’t be easy for either party to present itself as a shared and unified coalition when deep down they are competing for the same votes.

  Although David Cunliffe emerged from the Labour leadership ‘primary’ with all guns blazing, recent political history also suggests he will find it hard to make a sustained impact within the next 12 months. The MMP era is littered with major party leaders that have rolled or replaced their predecessors — Jenny Shipley, Bill English, Don Brash, Phil Goff and David Shearer — in the hope that they could do better within 2-3 years of the next election, only to fall by the way. John Key was the exception, taking just under two years to become Prime Minister; before him Helen Clark was leader of the Opposition for six years before becoming Prime Minister; and before her Jim Bolger was leader of the Opposition for 4.5 years before becoming Prime Minister. No-one has yet gone on to lead a government within twelve months of assuming opposition party leadership.

  Of course none of this means that forming the next government will be straightforward for National. As incumbent it could continue to govern immediately after the next election even if it lacked a parliamentary majority, but it would still need the support of another party or parties to survive a confidence vote in the House. Its current support parties in government — ACT, United Future and the Maori Party — have all suffered serious reputational damage and declining popularity over this term of government, and their continued ability to survive the next election, let alone collectively prop up a National-led coalition, is not guaranteed.

  Of the three minor coalition partners, the Maori Party is the most likely to survive through the 2014 election. David Cunliffe has too much on his plate over the next 12 months to be able to reassure voters in all the Maori seats that he is in a position to prioritise their interests. So there will still be room on the political spectrum for a party or parties dedicated to maori needs. With a new leader in Te Ururoa Flavell, we are likely to see a reinvigorated Maori Party, but it’s not looking likely that Maori and Mana parties will be able to reconcile over the next 12 months in order to win all the Maori seats.

  As always in New Zealand politics, the wildcard is New Zealand First, which will wait until the election results are known before committing its support to a major party. Assuming it gets over the 5% threshold, New Zealand First’s main options would then be to go into coalition with National, go into coalition with Labour and the Greens, or remain on the cross benches. With a party membership that has previously indicated a preference not to be in formal coalition with National, and faced with the alternative prospect of being the third (and least important) party in a Labour/Greens coalition, the most likely scenario is that New Zealand First will choose to stay on the cross-benches, supporting a minority National Government on confidence and supply, much as it did for the 2005-2008 Labour-led government. In this scenario it would be in the all-powerful position of having the casting vote on every piece of legislation before the House, with management of a Cabinet portfolio or two thrown in for good measure.

  But there is an even wilder card that may yet disrupt this scenario, in the form of the Conservative Party. In the 2011 election it got 2.65% of the party vote, which is more than any of National’s coalition partners. Off the back of population increases it is possible that a new electorate may be formed north of Auckland, currently a National leaning geo/political zone. It would not be without precedent for National to ‘gift’ the winning of that electorate to party leader Colin Craig to ensure that the Conservatives’ party vote — likely to be higher in 2014 than in 2011, and taking votes away from New Zealand First — may be counted in a new centre-right coalition bloc. National might then be able to govern without the need for the support of New Zealand First.

  Either way, National has options. It is going to be a very interesting election year!

    Professor Claire Robinson

Massey University

Originally published in: The New Zealand Herald Future NZ Supplement, 14 November 2013

[spinprofessor]

Is it any wonder that news media outlets have difficulty finding female “expert” commentators willing to stand up and speak out?

Readers of my last blog will know that in late November 2012 I was on the receiving end of some bizarre critique from male media and bloggers after the publication of my research that found evidence of image bias in the print media during the 2011 New Zealand election campaign. The most sexist critique was by NBR columnist Rod Vaughan who tried to discredit me by arguing I had my knickers in a knot and a crush on the Prime Minister (and therefore couldn’t possibly be balanced myself).

At around the same time in Australia former Wallaby David Campese publicly apologized for tweeting a sexist remark about Fairfax Media's rugby union correspondent, Georgina Robinson (no relation). He had been roundly condemned by current and former players for a tweet in which he questioned why the Sydney Morning Herald should “get a girl to write about rugby''.

It was too much to expect that anyone would have condemned Rod Vaughan for being equally disrespectful and sexist in his blog. By attacking a sacred cow in my research, in this case the impartiality and objectivity of the most influential newspapers in New Zealand, I wasn’t likely to get too much support from within the news media for speaking out.

A couple of weeks later media3 ran a story on the difficulty in Britain finding female “expert” television commentators, particularly when it came to discussing “women’s” issues.

Given that they had taken such a sympathetic interest in this subject matter I thought I would check out just how many female expert commentators media3 called upon in 2012. I counted the instances that media3 had used male and female panelists in its 19 shows. I defined panelists as those who sat at the desk with host Russell Brown in the media3 studio and were interviewed for, or provided comment based on, their expertise. In total 51 such panelists featured on the show in 2012. Only 14 of those panelists (27.45%) were female. I tweeted Russell and Jose Barbosa about this. Jose said the point of the story was more about situations where its obvious a female voice is needed, but acceded they could do better. Russell said I might be surprised at how hard it has been to get the women they wanted on camera.

Of course, female commentators shouldn’t just be called upon to discuss “women’s” issues. Women are just as competent as men to express expert opinion on any issue. However, even in the last election campaign, where the issues were of interest to male and female New Zealanders, women were under-represented on screen. Researcher Corin Higgs recently published a review of punditry in the 2011 New Zealand election campaign (in Levine/Roberts ed Kicking the Tyres, VUW Press). He found an under-representation of female pundits on screen, with a gender imbalance of two or three male pundits for every woman.

So why should it be so hard to get women to go on camera as expert commentators?

The usual reasons held up for women’s advancement in all areas no doubt apply: women often lack the networks to be ‘known’ in the right circles to get the opportunities; there are fewer women in positions of authority to call upon so the pool is smaller; women often don’t think of themselves as being expert (the imposter complex), while testosterone fueled men will have more bravado and be more entertaining; and women often won’t have the confidence, desire, or thick skin to stick their heads above the parapet in a combative environment.

With good reason.

With the exception of Maori Television, Corin Higgs found that female pundits tended to be interrupted more frequently, and enjoyed less speaking time than their male counterparts. He also noted that on internet blogs, social media and other outlets, criticism of female pundits tended to be more personalised than criticism of male pundits, and gave as an example where I was labeled a ‘boil on the political commentary landscape’ and accused of being a stooge for the National Party.

The 2011 election campaign was my fourth election campaign as a political commentator. During the campaign I made 16 television appearances. I was contracted by TVNZ to be an expert panelist on the three leaders’ debates and provide post debate analysis on the Tonight news show. I gave a campaign roundup each Friday on Breakfast. I featured on TV3 news, on Chinese TV, on 60 Minutes, and on Sunday. I also gave many radio and print interviews.

In the previous three elections I never received one piece of criticism. That changed in 2011, with the social media revolution of the previous three years making it much easier for people to fling abuse around anonymously from their mobile devices in the safety of their living rooms, and for me to see it.

During the election campaign I received and read what I considered unpleasant personal criticism in the social media. I was called a stupid bitch, a stupid turnip, a seagull, a trout, a gormless smirking pol com, part of TVNZ's worst political news team, a boil on the political commentary landscape, completely wrong, an air head, a child, hardly neutral, biased, vacuous, awful, utterly superficial, infatuated with the Prime Minister’s political style, the weakest link, not credible, untrustworthy, a public health warning, Shipley’s ass-wipe. I was accused of having no practical knowledge of or any real understanding of the world of politics, of being a good righty, of parroting National Party memes, of contributing nothing, of spouting biased pieces of shit from the ass that is my mouth, of getting my political science degree off the net, and from a cereal box, of providing superficial analysis, of being full of shit. As a female it was suggested I should be more empathetic to the left. I was impersonated on twitter by someone who took my photo and my profile description and tweeted as me through the campaign. They made inappropriate comments about my children.

I searched the internet at the time to see if fellow political scientist Jon Johannson was receiving similar personal attacks. Aside from the odd accusation of him being a lefty, there were none.

To make me feel not so isolated, friends sent me articles from the international press on trolling, and the phenomenal abuse that female bloggers and commentators receive elsewhere. At least I hadn't been threatened with rape, murder or being urinated on like some female commentators in Britain and the US. Even this week Mary Beard, a Professor of Classics at Cambridge University, has blogged about her recent experience with shocking trolling http://timesonline.typepad.com/dons_life/2013/01/internet-fury.html

Seasoned hands said I had to grow a thick skin; that I was now playing in sandpit with the big boys, the playground bullies, and that I shouldn’t gratify them by whining, or showing how their comments affected me. I decided not to comment publicly. I grew a thicker skin, and I didn’t let the abuse put me off political commentating.

I have no problem with people critiquing the content of what I say; if someone has better research or evidence to refute what I say I should be challenged. But the problem of the lack of female expert commentators will not be resolved while personal attacks, misogynist sexist comments and denigration continue, and while the blogosphere (including news media sites) condone and perpetuate it by publishing the abusive comments that their readers mindlessly fling about. As one English political commentator has written, women will never achieve equality in this area as long as they're being intimidated out of the picture.

[spinprofessor]

Only now getting around to my rebuttal

In which I address some of the criticism I received late last year in response to my image bias research.

On 26 November 2012 some research I conducted into incumbency bias in the New Zealand print media in the 2012 election campaign was published in the Levine/Johansson edited book Kicking the Tyres (VUW press). I knew that publication of the research findings was going to cause some discomfort because it essentially caught some print media outlets with their pants down. I didn't expect it to be hysterical: a word often derogatorily used for an over-the-top female response to an event, but in this case used to describe the response of male members of the media and blogosphere.

The research was variously described by them as:

A “batshitstudy” (Tim Murphy, Editor in Chief of New Zealand Herald, on Twitter)

 “wilfully misleading” (Shayne Currie, Editor of New Zealand Herald, on Twitter)

not stacking up, fundamentally flawed, and not providing “meaningful answers” (John Armstrong, New Zealand Herald, 29 November)

“a very lazy piece of work” (Whaleoil, 27 November)

“hardly cutting edge”, narrowly focused, “virtually worthless” research based on “simplistic notions of what constitutes unbiased coverage” (Sean Plunket, Dominion Post, 1 December)

Plunket also implied that I was a left-wing political commentator influenced by the political leanings of my employer Steve Maharey, the Vice-Chancellor of Massey University, who is a former Labour cabinet minister (Sean Plunket, Newstalk ZB, 27 November).

I was also accused of having my “knickers in a knot”, a “crush on the Prime Minister”, and needing to “have more to worry about” given that I am “believed to be earning more than $100,000 a year” (Rod Vaughan, NBR online, 27 November).

Many of the criticisms were about the study’s focus on the election campaign period only. The Herald guys pointed out that restricting it to that period meant that a lot of images of Phil Goff published just prior to the campaign period had not been included — the inference, a broader time period would have showed they were more Goff-friendly. This, the limitation of the study to the four newspapers and the restriction of the study to the two major party leaders’ images and not the minor party leader images, seemed to lead to the allegations that the methodology was flawed.

This is of course rich critique coming from journalists and bloggers who don’t themselves use anything remotely resembling a rigorous methodology when they make commentary in the media or in social media! And it wasn’t clear whether any had actually read the chapter before choosing to mouth off!

Nonetheless, here is my rebuttal:

So why study the election campaign period only?

Anyone with a basic knowledge of methodology would know that quantitative research has to have a discrete start point and an end point that relates to the research question, is manageable (otherwise we would have to keep measuring forever), enables the research to be conducted under controlled conditions so as to provide unambiguous answers, prevents the researcher from changing or manipulating variables, and enables replication by a subsequent researcher.

In this case the start point was the beginning of the “official” election campaign period, Thursday 27 October, through to Friday 25 November, the day before the 2011 election and the last day that the media were allowed to publish election-related stories. This was a period of time selected for its unique characteristics in an election cycle. During this time voters will consciously turn to the news media for election information, to either confirm their predetermined voting decision (for those who have already made up their minds); or to help them make an informed choice (for those who haven’t formed their decision). An average of 45% of voters say they make their voting decision during the election campaign period (New Zealand Election Study, 1993-2008). That is a substantial number of voters, many of whom will be accessing election information in newspapers. There is plenty of domestic and international research to demonstrate the importance of this particular period on voter decision-making. This wasn’t me making an arbitrary or irrational call.

Of course there will be images (data) outside the period that weren’t included but that happens with every study! The important thing is this was a period of sufficient length to provide a good sample of images to study. It was also in line with other international studies of election coverage bias.

Does studying only four newspapers make the research ‘lazy’?

In terms of restricting aquantitative research study to a manageable sample, decisions have to be made about the size of a sample that is representative of a wider whole. In this case I chose to study four large newspapers representing the two main newspaper ownership stables, APN and Fairfax, from which other smaller newspapers draw their material. They were also the newspaper groupings  with the highest circulation in the fourth quarter of 2011. This made it a significant sample representing high levels of potential newspaper influence on voters.

Importantly, a larger sample of newspapers would only have proved three things: either that the South Island, smaller and or regional papers had less, equal or more image imbalance than the four largest papers. It wouldn’t have altered in any way the findings in relation to the Herald/Herald on Sunday and Dominion Post/Sunday Star Times.

Why only the major party leaders?

The principal question the study was seeking to answer was the extent to which there was bonus media coverage for the incumbent political leader over the main challenger for the incumbent’s position. This meant the study was focused on John Key and Phil Goff. None of the other minor party leaders were competing to become incumbent Prime Minister, so they were not included in the study.

I acknowledge in the chapter that New Zealand’s elections are run under a proportional electoral system, and many more leaders and parties contested the 2011 general election. I indicated that the issue of lack of media attention paid to minor party leaders in the print media is for another study.

Was studying this a waste of time?

Word bias has been studied before in academic studies of New Zealand’s newspapers, and the findings have supported the view that reporting is generally balanced and non-partisan. But today the news is rendered visually as well as verbally, and international research has found that measures of verbal bias do not apply to measures of visual image bias. Visual image bias in election campaigns has never been systematically studied in New Zealand before, making it definitely an area worth examining.

International research has found that incumbent leaders do receive more coverage because readers are interested in their activities. So I was fully expecting that there would be more favourable numbers and tone for Key, and was not surprised to find this borne out by the data. But the amount of favourable coverage for Key was a lot more than international research had predicted. This makes the New Zealand findings anomalous. Is this worth knowing? Of course it is? Are the reasons for this worth hypothesising? Of course they are. Is this an important issue? Absolutely, regardless of whether I earn over or under $100,000. My income is totally irrelevant to this!!

As for the more bizarre claims…

Sean Plunket’s suggestion that I am myself politically biased and influenced by the political leanings of my boss. Hard to know where to start with this one because it is so illogical, and the implications plain bizarre. Does that mean that everyone who comments on anything political in the media is just a mouthpiece for their boss? Seriously? What I found even more amusing was that after a year of being accused by the left of being a right-wing political commentator, all of a sudden I was being accused by the right of being a left-wing commentator! 

Then there was Rod Vaughan’s suggestion that comments I had made in an answer to a Dominion Post reporters questions (in July 2011), about why John Key might have been so popular with women, meant that I had a crush on the prime minister (meaning I could not be unbiased). Though this crush had apparently been replaced by a residual guilt at Phil Goff’s demise because in 1990 and 1993 I had a “dalliance with Labour”. I mean FFS. This is the 21st century. To have it suggested that my research findings are influenced by what my boss thinks, or in the context of crushes, dalliances and knickers is, quite simply, tragic.

Is it any wonder that news media outlets have such difficulty finding female “expert” commentators willing to stand up and speak out?

I have been busy with a new job for the past 12 months, which explains the long absence from blogging. However, there are a few issues that I will be commenting on over the next few weeks, the next one discussing the question posed above.

[spinprofessor]

Creative arts add real economic value

Recent media reports have exhibited an undercurrent of suspicion towards tertiary study in the creative arts.

Last weekend's Herald on Sunday, for example, cited Professor Jacqueline Rowarth of Waikato University's management school saying that New Zealanders weren't paid well for tertiary qualifications and thousands of students were enrolling in creative arts courses that won't help them get jobs. Rowarth argues that students take creative arts courses at the expense of science, and that scientific research is needed to keep the economy growing.

The implication is that by including creative arts in their tertiary studies, students are using valuable government resources to pursue "hobby" subjects instead of opting for more "serious" economically-worthwhile subjects like agriculture, science, engineering and maths.

Let's look into this idea of value. Take the most successful company in the world at the moment, Apple.

One of the longest serving and critical members of the team that designed the iPhone and iPad is a creative arts graduate from New Zealand. Consider another global giant, Nike. Two creative arts graduates from New Zealand were on the team who helped design the Nike swoosh that appeared everywhere at the London Olympics.

Think about how many people own a Philips appliance. Who leads their design team? A New Zealand creative arts graduate. Who designed the transformational Fisher & Paykel dishdrawer? A home-grown creative arts graduate. How about those revolutionary seats on Air New Zealand long haul? Who designed those? Again, creative arts graduates from New Zealand.

These people are moulding global culture and businesses. They were lucky to be born with talent in a relatively free, creative little country. Here in New Zealand they have had the right opportunities to hone their natural abilities.

Now they are renowned and amply rewarded financially for their skills and creativity. Their careers clearly show that creative arts education can generate substantial economic benefit for individuals themselves, for business, and for the wider economy.

Yet at home, we still encounter embarrassingly parochial attitudes and cringe-making ignorance about the economic value of creative arts. Some among us look on every dollar spent on the arts as a dollar lost to science.

Then there is the important socio-cultural value that tertiary-trained artists, performers, writers, filmmakers bring to articulating and forming our national identity.

The creative arts are the primary way we as a nation express our character, our soul. They give us - in economic terms - our market differentiation. They provide reasons for people to visit us, to do business with us and to watch our movies.

The Government is currently grappling with the issue of how to improve its business infrastructure to help the economy become more innovative. In this we are not alone. The Europeans are well ahead of us, recognising that creativity and design is a critical part of the innovation infrastructure and investing resources to encourage greater creativity.

A recent evaluation of a UK Design Council programme aimed at increasing the use of design by primarily small and medium sized enterprises in manufacturing indicated strong economic returns for firms investing in design. Draft figures show that every £1 ($2) spent delivered £20+ in turnover, £3.90 operating profit and £4.71 exports directly attributable to the programme, and that every £1 invested by Government in design returned £34 to the economy. The evaluation also indicated that investment in design directly created and safeguarded jobs.

Prime Minister John Key frequently says that New Zealand's economic future depends on moving up the value curve - ensuring there are more competitive firms making and selling more higher-value products and services.

New Zealand needs students studying science, technology, engineering and maths to achieve this. But without question it also needs creative arts students and graduates.

Playing the science/art divide is a tired strategy that doesn't serve our country well. There are myriad instances of collaborations between science and the creative arts that have generated substantial added value.

In the UK, for instance, a programme pairing design associates with scientists and engineers at advanced R&D facilities led Oxford University to attract £4 million in investment to develop new electricity metering technology.

In New Zealand, leading agricultural companies like Gallaghers use industrial design expertise to give them the edge. It is time to embrace the 21st century, respect the skills and expertise of our highly trained graduates of every hue, and work together to get the best value out of every dollar for New Zealand. Claire Robinson is an associate professor in creative arts at Massey University.

Originally published in the New Zealand Herald, Oct 4, 2012

[spinprofessor]

My political media picks for 2012

John Key’s honeymoon with the news media is effectively over. The print media will illustrate stories with unflattering photos of Key.

David Shearer’s honeymoon with the news media has begun. Shearer will be smiling in the majority of photos accompanying stories about him.

David Shearer will be the only spokesperson on issues of concern to Labour over the next year.

David Shearer will pull the plug on Red Alert, requiring that all channels of communication which multiply the opinions of independently minded Labour MPs be shut off.

David Shearer will also forbid all public bagging, baiting, trolling, sulking and responding to attack on Twitter. Labour MP’s Twitter comments will be reduced to announcements of attendance at public events.

Outspoken and hyperactive old-guard MP Trevor Mallard will find it hard to toe this line, and will be the first to test the new directive.

Corin Dann will replace Guyon as TVNZ Political Editor (I have absolutely no inside knowledge of this, but I think it would be a good move).

The news media will spend the first six months of the year testing the backbone of new New Zealand First and National backbench MPs. More than a couple will be publicly humiliated.

The Greens will be largely left alone, and will struggle to hit headlines.

The MMP Review will recommend substantial change to MMP, including a reduction in the threshold to 4%; removal of the entitlement for a successful electorate candidate to bring in other MPs with their party’s below-the-threshold party vote; and removal of the ability to be able to stand as a candidate both for an electorate seat and on a party list.

No political parties in parliament will support the recommended MMP reforms and will call for maintenance of the status quo.

This won’t get much media attention, as after July attention to domestic politics will take a back seat to the more distracting London Olympics and US Presidential elections.

Bryce Edwards will finally come to his senses and give up the thankless and time-consuming task of compiling his New Zealand Politics Daily newsletter.

The Nation will continue to marginalise the opinion of half of its potential viewing audience by excluding the voice of women from its regular punditry.

[spinprofessor]

Undies Undies Togs: Undressing the Epsom Talk Scandal

Many will be familiar with the Tip Top Trumpet “Undies” advertisement when a man in a bathing suit walks away from a beach into a town, while the question is asked “how far away from the beach do togs become undies?” The answer: “if you can’t see the water you’re in underpants”. Something that is acceptably public becomes private once it has crossed a perceptual dividing line.

It’s a scenario analogous to the Epsom talk scandal that dominated the 2011 election campaign last week. While the camera crews and journalists were inside the café covering the tea meeting between John Key and John Banks they were at effectively at the beach, but once they left to go outside the café window they were in town. The dividing line was also perceptual; a piece of glass that meant the media was still able to see what was going on, but they were not permitted to hear what was being said.

Like the appropriateness of wearing underpants in public, in politics there is a dividing line between what is private and what is public. Another analogy is the theatre concepts of backstage and front-stage: there is politics that goes on behind closed doors [backstage] and there is politics that is presented before a live or mediated audience [front-stage].

Backstage is the area that the public does not enter (either because it is personal, sensitive, unnecessary, unhelpful, boring, impractical or time consuming to do so). Opinions expressed in these spaces are not for public consumption. Backstage areas include the 9th floor of the Beehive, the PM’s home, many corridors in parliament buildings, the Cabinet and other rooms in the Beehive, inside crown cars, bars, restaurants, meeting and hotel rooms. Some of these places are public, in the sense of being perceived in open view, but they are nonetheless backstage in terms of being out-of-bounds to the public (including the news media).

Front-stage includes the lobby of parliament, wherever there is a stand-up press conference, the Beehive Theatrette, the television and radio studios when the cameras are running and the mics are on, the chamber, the campaign trail. Front-stage is the space of the ‘photo op’, the on-one-one interview and the media “stand-up” news conference. The rules and timing of these moments are mutually agreed between political leader and media pack, and access to this area is granted “at the pleasure” of the Prime Minister. In return the PM relinquishes his right to edit the tapes, frame the news item or control how his image and message is subsequently used.

During election campaigns the media has increased access backstage. This works to benefit both media and politician: political leaders need to be in the public spotlight as much as practicable in order to communicate their message to as many voters as possible, and so they allow the news media to accompany them on the campaign trail day and night. The news media follow them to gather announcements about the campaign which they can frame as news.

Access to backstage is tightly controlled by media managers, private secretaries, diaries, security detail, processes and systems. However, during an election campaign, when politicians are away from their normal office support systems and are found in myriad public spaces, this access is at greater risk of being violated, as it was in Epsom.

John Key’s cup of tea meeting with John Banks was front-stage in the sense that the media was invited along, the setting enabled them to participate, take photos, ask questions. The media was then asked to leave, and once they had left the immediate vicinity (although still outside the window) John Key and John Banks had what they thought was a backstage conversation in accord with the norms and conventions that have been established between leader and media; the type of conversation that would normally be held in any one of the out-of-bounds places listed above.

Many have argued that because the cup of tea took place in a public place and the media had been invited along to a staged photo opportunity, the details of the conversation between Key and Banks should be available to the public; turning it, in effect, into a front-stage conversation. However, simply being in a public space does not automatically confer those properties on the conversation. The important question is whether the PM gave them a back-stage pass (or permission to wear their undies on the beach) and he did not.

The situation that has dominated the news is a breakdown between front-stage and back-stage actions. It’s no surprise that John Key has dug his heels in and is refusing to engage. The line between backstage and front-stage, the beach and town, has been shifted. And not at his pleasure.

By not being accommodating in subsequent stand-up interviews Key has sought to shift his own line between back and front-stage. The media stand-up is part of the ritual of an election campaign; a reward for arduously and patiently following political leaders around on the trail. For politicians the interview is one of the primary mechanisms by which they can get their messages used in the construction of news. But it’s also the barrier between beach and town, back and front-stage. To refuse to answer their questions is telling the pack that they stepped too far and he’s going to withdraw some of their privileges for a while.

And not surprisingly the media pack are a bit pissed in return. They are expressing this through the selection of unflattering photographic images to illustrate the story: selection of image being one of the powers they have over the PM’s Office. They have also been trying to get Key’s behaviour subsequent to the tea cup taping to form another scandal in itself: in particular the PM’s alleged ability to mobilise the police to investigate the case. Through the vehicle of news stories about ordinary people who haven’t been able to call upon the resources of the police as swiftly as the PM the media is hiding their outrage under the guise of empirical evidence.

As we know from the opinion polls, a majority of New Zealanders accept that there is a distinction between private and public, and that this is media obsession with the story is a sideshow. This is not about public morality but is rather, like most scandals that become media stories, a manifestation of a struggle over a deeper set of power relations between political leader and the news media.

The media will only be truly happy when John Key wears his undies in public. But this is not a man that is ever likely to do so.

[spinprofessor]

On body language.

Valid questions were asked on Sunday morning’s Mediawatch about the role of television in political impression formation, and the focus of the punditry (me included) on the presentational style of the National and Labour party leaders in the first televised leaders debate on TV One. The issue: whether the focus on presentation masks attention to the ‘real’ issues, as illustrated by Jeremy Rose’s question to the Listener’s Toby Manhire about the quality of blog coverage of the campaign:

“And let’s look at that analysis because there’s a lot of almost sporting analogies and a lot less experts with kind of insight and analysis of what’s going on. Is that your view? Do you think the mainstream tends to be using pundits who talk about body language and that kind of stuff over experts who have in-depth knowledge of say the economy, or whatever the issue might be that’s being talked about?”

It is true that politics has become increasingly personalized since the introduction of television and other mass media changes including greater newspaper competition, tabloidisation and the popularity of newer digitized forms of social networking. These have enabled the news media to give greater coverage and scrutiny to the appearance, behaviour, private lives and narratives of political leaders and leadership candidates.

Many observers worry that this phenomenon, labeled as the ‘personalisation of politics’, has become more important than ever before, to the point of taking precedence over principle, policy and the rational deliberation of objective information, in determining the outcome of democratic elections.

What makes the issue of presentation and appearance so challenging for many is that the mediated images people receive of leaders are not ‘political’ but are instead social. Take a glance at any newspaper or television coverage of leaders in a campaign. You will see lots of images of leaders socially interacting with others: be it with a child, a partner, voters, other politicians, celebrities, officials, journalists, interviewers, photographers, competitors, an audience, party members, colleagues, or protestors.

Rather than panic about this being evidence of the dumbing down of politics, it pays to look deeper into what sort of information audiences receive when they are watching these social images, which is information about political leadership.

Judgments about political leadership can and do make a difference to electoral outcomes. New Zealand election studies have found the impact of leadership on election outcomes is between 1-5%. While it is minimal compared to policy and party predisposition, in a close election (which many of our MMP elections have been) this can be the difference between winning and losing. And evidence from overseas research suggests that the impact of leadership on election outcomes is getting more important.

Of course the question then is, how can audiences form accurate leadership perceptions out of images that relate to appearance, kissing babies, walking around shopping malls and pointing fingers in debates. Isn’t leadership meant to be about trustworthiness, credibility, competence and integrity?

The reality is that political leadership today is as much about relating to voters as it is about making decisions, developing policy, articulating vision, managing teams of people and holding political parties together. And it is through tele-mediated images of leaders relating to others that people form leadership perceptions.

As social beings humans are able to intuit leadership traits out of nonverbal behaviours in social interaction settings. Even at a tele-mediated distance audiences process these images instinctively using the perceptual tools they are equipped with as social beings. They relate their understandings of the rules and conventions of social interaction with the character traits they expect effective leaders to possess, and then use this as the basis for developing a judgment about a political leader.

Humans are instinctively primed to look for caring body language. We look for this in images communicating a leader’s ability to relate to ‘real’ people. We judge this through observation of their comfort in relating to others at close social distance (hand shakes, pats on the shoulder, smiles, body stance, listening). We use this to assess whether a leader is friend or foe. These assessments translate into judgments of caring, likability, trustworthiness and effective leadership, compassion and benevolence in a leader.

In political debates audiences are instinctively looking to see whether their preferred candidate can be trusted to competently protect against threat to themselves and others. They look for nonverbal signs of how leaders respond to threat from a competitor and how challengers threaten the leader. Audiences read nonverbal signs (such as vocal fluency and tone, hand gestures, eye contact, stance, nervous tics, tight or relaxed mouth, frowns, choice of clothing, interruptions and use of humour) for who is best able to handle a complex and stressful social situation. Presentation of a confident self in relation to competition has been found to directly influence assessments of credibility, strength, competence, character, composure and sociability.

All too often commentators and political analysts look at single leader image events and treat them as a symptom of a wider pathology affecting political culture. Yet such image events are rarely sustained, and peoples’ deeper impression of political leadership is not formed over a single incident, or even a few. To be properly appreciated the expression and impression of leadership needs to be considered as something that builds over time and is experienced in a wide variety of situations, not simply in election campaigns.

Expressions and impressions of a relationship enacted between leader and others are going to become more, not less, important as time and technology march on. With further technological changes in large format, high-definition, 3D and eventually holographic in-home media display systems, relationships that are currently perceived at a tele-mediated distance will soon be perceived through immersion in an experience that realistically and intimately mimics an embodied relationship between political leaders and individual citizens.

This will not enthuse observers who think there is too much emphasis on personality politics already in the media. But the potential for new technologies to further lessen the physical distance between leader and others is far reaching.

[spinprofessor]

Twitter at its worst. Hearsay and rudeness.

During last night’s TV One debate, Richard Pamatatau, whose decribes himself as “Programme Leader Graduate Diploma Pacific Journalism. Auckland University of Technology” tweeted “Claire Robinson was a private secretary to Jenny Shipley – hmmmm”. This was retweeted many times, and a lot of abuse was subsequently directed at me.

  It was felt that the fact that I worked as a Cabinet Minister’s Private Secretary 20 years ago should (a) be a disqualifier for being a political commentator — Trevor Mallard tweeted “if this is true than expect TVNZ resignation”; (b), that it meant that I couldn’t provide objective commentary  — Glenn Williams “Wammo” called me a  “ boil on the political commentary landscape “and (c) that I must be a National plant. Deborah Mahuta-Coyle tweeted “just take your national party rosette out of your pocket and slap it on your forehead.” Even TV3 reported hearsay as “fact” on their website this morning that I had once been a press secretary for Jenny Shipley.

  For the record, however:

  Fact 1: In 1991 I worked as the Women’s Affairs Private Secretary in Jenny Shipley’s Office. I was a departmental official on secondment from the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. I was appointed by Dr Judith Aitken, the then Secretary of Women’s Affairs.

  Fact 2: This is not news. It is on my Massey biography.

  Fact 3. I was not a political appointee or a “Nat staffer”, and have never been on the payroll of the National party.

  Fact 4: I was never press secretary. That role was first occupied by Nancy Consaul and then Bronwyn Saunders. As private secretary my job was to answer Ministerials, arrange appointments and push paper between the Ministry and the Minister.

  I’m not sure which part of that makes me a National plant, and to my recollection I was never taken into one of the tiny toilets in the Beehive and brainwashed. As evidence —

  Fact 5: I voted Labour in the 1990 general election, just prior to taking up my role. I voted Labour in the 1993 general election, after I had left the role.

    Context

In terms of my subsequent career, the experience working in the Beehive was invaluable. It was fascinating watching a very unpopular National government manoeuvre its way through the very unpopular minefield of benefit cuts; it was eye-opening and frightening travelling with the Minister and being pelted with eggs and having the car attacked by protestors; it was revealing watching how a relatively young female Cabinet Minister related to her male colleagues, in such a way that they would later support her bid to become National leader and Prime Minister.

  These moments are those that any student of politics would jump at the chance to experience. I’m sure Bryce Edwards, who once worked for the Alliance party, would agree that experiencing the cut and thrust of politics on the inside leads to a much more realistic perspective later on.

  The main thing I took away, however, was inspiration for my PhD. In the process of trying to “sell” the unpopular benefit cuts to the public, advertising agencies were brought in to advise the government on how to do it best. The government want to use the word “fair’ in its publicity; the agency people advised against it because it was such a politically loaded term. I was not involved in this process, but I was intrigued at this idea that policy messages needed to be “sold”. It is this that later led me to study the campaign messaging of the political parties contesting the 1999 and 2002 NZ general elections. I wanted to be able to understand the process of constructing and processing political messages, and I have got a very good understanding of how it works.

  Tweeters from the left may not like some of the things I say, but I speak not from any political bias, but from 12 years of studying and understanding what works and what doesn’t in political communication. I have been equally critical of National in the past when it has missed crucial communication opportunities.

  I shall blog my comments on last night’s debate, and the way the campaign is tracking, later this afternoon.

[spinprofessor]

Robbing Peter to pay Paul: Why National doesn’t need to do a deal on Epsom

In the Herald on Monday 24 October John Banks is quoted as saying he was "not asking for any favours from the Prime Minister or the National Party" [http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10761267] . "I'm going out to win the hearts and minds of the people of Epsom….Three years ago, National was 55 per cent in the polls and on election night were 45 per cent of the vote and if that's replicated again then it's critical that Act are well represented in the next Parliament and that is what we've got to convince the people of Epsom of.”

  Well of course he has to say that. ACT needs to create the impression that Epsom can be won by Banks, in order to reassure ACT voters that their party vote won’t be wasted.

  But while it’s true that National’s polling support did reach 55% in May/June 2008 Colmar Brunton/One News polling, in the more accurate public opinion poll, the TV3 poll, National never polled as high as 55% at any time in the 2005-2008 period. 3 months out from the election, which as I have blogged earlier [http://spinprofessor.tumblr.com/post/9228246515/if-i-were-a-labour-mp-now-i-would-be-panicking] is a crucial benchmark, National was polling at 48%. At that point ACT was polling at 1%.

  Yes National went down to 44.93% at the election, and ACT climbed to 3.6%. But this was only after John Key and Rodney Hide met for a public cup of coffee to demonstrate that they were on the same page and could work together harmoniously. National voters in Epsom received the strong message to give Rodney Hide their electorate vote.

  3 months out from the 2008 election National and ACT together were polling at 49%. 3 months later their combined party vote was 48.58%. Nothing significant changed to their overall total. In fact, what appears to have happened is that National sacrificed its own party vote to get ACT’s vote in 2008. And therein lies the rub. At the moment the National/ACT party vote amounts to the same amount of pie regardless of how it is shared out. If National does a deal to shore up John Banks’ vote in Epsom in order to get ACT elected in 2011, National is not likely to be getting additional party votes, it’s more likely to be robbing its own party vote.

  National doesn’t need to do this deal. And nor should it. Rather than manipulate voter behaviour to prop up a coalition partner it doesn’t need, National needs to read the signals that voters are giving it. At a national level ACT’s 2.2% support  is well below the threshold, and the voters in Epsom seem to prefer National’s candidate Paul Goldsmith as their electorate MP. The electorate knows that ACT has passed its use-by date. 

[spinprofessor]

Of course it was electioneering, but so what?

The Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) has dismissed the Labour Party’s complaint that the ''Prime Minister's hour'' broadcast on RadioLive on 30 September 2011 was an “election programme” in terms of the Broadcasting Act 1989, and breached Code of Broadcasting Practice in relation to election programmes.

To be an election programme in terms of section 69 of the Broadcasting Act the show had to encourage or persuade, or appear to encourage or persuade voters to vote, or not to vote, for a political party or the election of any person at an election.

The BSA has interpreted this section as capturing programmes which “overtly and directly” act to encourage or persuade. They consider that programmes which may in an “incidental, resultant, secondary or consequential way amount to encouragement, persuasion, advocacy or opposition for or to a particular political outcome are not captured by section 69”.

In the case of the Prime Minister’s Hour, the BSA came to the conclusion that it did not come within their interpretation of an election programme because it did not “actively encourage, persuade, advocate or oppose a political outcome”. Nor did “the mere presence” of the PM make it an election programme.

I can understand why John Key agreed to the format and Phil Goff made the complaint, however. They both know that John Key doesn’t have to talk politics to accrue political capital. It’s John Key’s personality, his ability to transcend politics and relate to people at a non-political level, that is currently attracting votes away from Labour. The non-overtly-political format of the PM’s Hour played directly to John Key’s personal and electoral strengths. And this has irked Phil Goff.

It’s a classic example of something I have been arguing for years. In this era of permanent campaigning all manner of activities, behaviours, events and messages are electioneering. They may not explicitly ask for the vote, but all are undertaken in order to be viewed favourably by voters with the ultimate goal of gaining as many party votes as possible at the next general election.

The current election broadcasting and advertising laws do not reflect the realities of modern campaigning. I’m sure the Electoral Commission will also find that that, in response to Labour’s complaint that the programme was an election advertisement, the show does not confirm with the Electoral Act’s definition of election advertisement either, because it will be covered by the exemption for editorial content of a periodical, radio or television programme.

Electoral law will always be playing catch-up here, because it is unable to predict every form of campaigning that will occur in the future. With proliferating channels of communications, rapidly changing technologies and multiple messages competing for attention, electioneering will increasingly be carried by the intangible and the implicit: things like smells, movements, loca­tions, physical actions, projections, shapes, spaces, smiles, colours… Anything may be an election offering, at any time, and none of these are covered by existing legislation.

And nor should they be! We actually need laws that enhance rather than restrict politicians and political parties from engaging with citizens. Political communication is good not bad. All the current laws do is encourage sideshows as officials fruitlessly deliberate whether something is an election broadcast or ad. Between 1 January and 10 October 2011 (when I requested this info) the Electoral Commission had received 619 requests for advisory opinions about whether a piece of political communication is an election advertisement or not. A number of these requests related to multiple items of publicity. And each one took between 3-5 working days to process. What a ridiculous waste of time and taxpayers’ money this is.

Rather than cry foul, what Phil Goff needs to do is be creative and find something to do on the campaign trail that Key hasn’t thought of first. That is what successful challenger brands do when they are going after the market leader in the commercial market. The same imperative exists in the political leadership market.

[spinprofessor]

If I were a Labour MP now, I would be panicking!

Yesterday’s TV3 and TV One poll results are as good as it will get for Labour unless they do something radical, like replacing Phil Goff. In the Herald today former Labour president Mike Williams is quoted as saying “there’s no need for the party to panic just yet. The gap between National and Labour ahead of the November 26 election was highlighted again last night in two polls….Mike Williams, former president of the Labour Party, is relatively calm about the situation. He says no one’s focusing on the election right now, and the polls reflect that. “During an election campaign, the media runs a kind of equal opportunity, and gives the leader of the opposition a great deal more coverage and I think that’s what drives better polling,” he says. Mr Williams says it’d be counterproductive to roll Phil Goff as leader now. “Anyone who came in to occupy that position, and I can’t think who would, would be looked upon as a kind of night watchman in cricket. It’s a poisoned chalice,” he says.” http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10746688 What Mike neglects to say, however, is that for the last two elections, the TV3 poll estimate three months out from the election has been pretty accurate for Labour. In the June 2005 TV3 poll Labour was sitting at 40%, and ended up three months later on 41.5% on election day in September 2005. In the July 2008 TV3 poll Labour was 35% and ended up at just under 34% three months later in the October 2008 election. For National the TV3 poll has not been quite so accurate. In the last two elections the three month poll has been 3% out both ways. 3 months out from the 2005 election National was polling at 36%. It ended up on 39.1%. 3 months out from the 2008 election National was polling at 48%, it ended up on just under 45%. Still, on yesterday’s figure of 54%, even with minus 3% National is still on track to get over 50% of the party vote. Labour has always regarded the TV3 poll as the one that most accurately reflects its own internal polling. So there is absolutely no reason not to expect that this poll result for Labour, give or take a percentage point, is where they will end out on election day, other things being equal. Not necessarily a disaster Now 28-30% of the party vote won’t be a complete disaster for Labour. It would still be the major opposition party and would provide a credible opposition, especially together with the Greens, who are benefitting from Labour’s poor electoral fortunes. But, as has been discussed in the media over the weekend, some good Labour list MPs will be heading back to their day jobs on this sort of polling, and if the support for National is as sound as it is currently looking, some Labour electorate MPs may be a bit worried too. Losing experienced MPs will make it harder for Labour to regroup after the election. After its 2002 defeat National found it hard to come back to a competitive position to fight the next election from a low base of public support and with low caucus numbers. Labour could potentially be looking at 2017 before it is next on the government benches. So would Labour benefit from a change of Leader now? Well at this point of the electoral cycle, and in the current conservative electoral environment, only something surprising and shocking like dumping Phil Goff will cause voters to reassess their voting intentions and assumptions before the 2011 election. But whether they reassess those intentions and continue to vote elsewhere, or return to Labour is anyone’s guess. It would depend on who replaces Goff, and how well they are supported and promoted by Labour over the next three months. Yes it is possible electoral suicide for whoever does it, because it is too late to stop National from winning the majority of the party vote and having first option to form a government. On the other hand, if Labour picks and gets in behind someone with potential, that person can still grow into the job, as Helen Clark did back in the mid 1990s. Anyway, sacrifice to save Labour is not such a bad way to be remembered. The public doesn’t hold grudges against the MPs who put their hands up to save their party from ignominious electoral defeat. Mike Moore has had a perfectly respectable career beyond saving the Labour party from oblivion in 1990. Even Bill English, who almost led his party to complete annihilation, survived to be reborn as Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister. There is life after poliical sacrifice, but is anyone in the current Labour party selfless enough to stand up for their party now?

[spinprofessor]

Tweeting MPs should read this.

I have received a response from the Electoral Commission regarding questions I asked them in April/May about Twitter avatars. Twitter avatars are the small pictures in the top left corner of a tweeter’s profile. I asked for an opinion about the use of the Stop Asset Sales signs that were being used by a number of Labour MPs as Twitter avatars. I pointed out that the avatars are so small they could not be inspected for a promoter statement; there was no hyperlink connecting the avatar to the Labour website homepage; and the MPs were tweeting on behalf of their party - they distinctly identified themselves in their profiles as MPs. I asked what the test of ‘clear display’ was when the test of ‘inspection’ can not be applied because of small size.

 I should point out this was not a question picking on Labour tweeters. I was using this to test the electoral advertising rules which, as I have blogged before, are not particularly helpful to political parties wanting to communicate with voters.

The Electoral Commission’s full reply is below. In summary, the Electoral Commission has ruled that twitter avatars will be exempt from the meaning of an ‘election advertisement’ provided they are published as the personal political views of the MP. The EC considers that identifying themselves as an MP on Twitter does not mean MPs will automatically be expressing the views of the party when they tweet.  HOWEVER, if a tweet talks in terms of the party’s policy position on a particular matter it is more likely to be an election advertisement.

  Dear Claire

 Further to your email of 25 May 2011 the Electoral Commission has given further consideration to the use of social media such as Facebook and Twitter and the election advertising rules.  Apologies for the time it has taken to come back to you on this issue.

As you may be aware the Commission issued the following guidance earlier this year, see: http://www.elections.org.nz/study/news/electoral-commission-and-social-media.html

With regard to your question concerning the use of ‘avatars’ that appear on an individual’s Twitter page, the Electoral Commission’s view is that these will be exempt from the meaning of an ‘election advertisement’ provided they are published as the personal political views of the individual who does not make or receive a payment in respect of the publication of those views (section 3A(2)(e) of the Electoral Act 1993).

Because of this exemption individuals displaying Twitter ‘avatars’ or tweeting messages that relate to candidates or parties are unlikely to be caught by the election advertising rules.  This is because Twitter is a form of online social networking generally used by individuals, expressing their personal views, which is free to use.  Facebook, of course is another form of social media where individuals will often be able to rely upon this exemption.  Similarly, where individuals blog on another’s website their posts will not be election advertisements. 

The Commission has given consideration as to whether the rules anticipate a distinction between MP’s or candidate’s Twitter accounts and those of any other individuals.  However, the Electoral Act does not distinguish between MPs, candidates or any other individuals and in our view the exemption can be relied upon equally by MPs, candidates or others provided that they are an individual and they are expressing their own personal political views

Although inclusion of a promoter statement does not change the nature of material if it is not an election advertisement), it is noted that a number of current MPs have included authorisation statements on their Twitter homepages. 

Whether or not the section 3A(2)(e) exemption will apply will depend on the facts of what has been published which has to be determined on a case by case basis.   In the Electoral Commission’s view, where an election advertisement appears on a candidate, party or third party site the website or webpage can be treated as the election advertisement.  For example, this would be the case for most political party Twitter or Facebook pages or websites.  Where the website or webpage is an election advertisement the Electoral Commission would not expect each picture, sign or article on the site to include a promoter statement, provided the promoter statement is contained on the home page or the page that contains the election advertising.  This approach would extend to avatars. 

The section 3A(2)(e) exemption raises some interesting questions about when is a candidate or an MP expressing a personal political view as opposed to the views of the party.  Again this will depend on the facts of each case.  In the Electoral Commission’s view the fact that an MP identifies him or herself as an MP on Twitter does not mean they will automatically be expressing the views of the party when they tweet.  By contrast, if a tweet talks in terms of the party’s policy position on a particular matter it is more likely to be an election advertisement.  

Finally, where content is posted on Twitter, or a Facebook page, that includes a promoter statement on the site and is ‘retweeted’ or ‘liked’ by another person it is the Commission’s view that the individual content appearing elsewhere on Twitter or Facebook will not require a promoter statement if it appears on those other pages as the expression of personal political views by an individual who does not make or receive a payment in respect of the publication of those views.  By contrast where a person or entity pays for an advertisement to appear unsolicited on Twitter or Facebook the advertisement will require a promoter statement and you cannot rely on a link back to another page which contains a promoter statement.

Yours sincerely

Kristina Temel | Manager Electoral Policy | Electoral Commission

I do not completely understand this rationale. Surely an MP using a party campaign image as their avatar IS reflecting the party’s position on an issue, especially if it is part of a party campaign, regardless of whether the content of the tweet is something trivial? In this day and age of the permanent campaign, everything an MP says publicly on a social media site is political. Its no longer possible to distinguish the personal from the political. If it was completely unrelated to their role as an MP then they wouldn't be identifying themselves in their profiles as MPs. 

Ah well, to be safe, and so they don’t have to have one avatar for when they express a party position and another for when they express a personal opinion, MPs wishing to use a party campaign image as their Twitter avatar would be well advised to ensure that the image can be sourced back to a website page that contains an advertisement with a legible promoter statement on it. Labour MP tweeters are already doing this by linking their current avatars to the Own Our Future ads on the www.ownourfuture.co.nz site.