Page 57 - An Introduction to Political Communication Second Edition

AN INTRODUCTION TO POLITICAL COMMUNICATION

warts and all. Some observers detected a backlash in the 1990s to
the parties’ focus on image (Bruce, 1992), and a return to ‘authentic’
campaigning tactics, although this predated the election of Tony Blair
as the Labour leader in 1994, and his party’s landslide victory in the
subsequent election of 1997. Both events have been perceived,
correctly, as triumphs of political marketing and image management
(the re-branding of Labour as ‘New’, and of Tony Blair as the young,
dynamic, family-loving good guy, in stark contrast to the left-wing
bogey men of Labour’s yesteryear).
Linked to the rise of ‘the image’, and exemplified by the story of
New Labour, is the rise of the image-maker. Chapter 7 discusses this
category of political actor in greater detail. Here, we note the view
of many observers that politics should best be conducted by
politicians, rather than by the growing ranks of professional pollsters,
advertisers, marketing consultants, and public relations experts now
routinely employed by organisations to design and organise their
political communication strategies. If policies are increasingly
determined by public opinion, then the design and presentation of
policy has been delegated to those whose interests are not necessarily
those of the public.

THE RISING COSTS OF CAMPAIGNING

More tangibly, the cost of campaigning, as measured in pounds and
pence, dollars and cents, is argued to have increased dramatically.
As Herbert Schiller notes, ‘the sums now spent on media advertising
in elections begin to match the expenditure of the largest corporate
advertisers for commercial products and services’ (1984, p.117).
Expenditure by British political parties on election communication
has increased dramatically since the Second World War. In America,
hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on elections for everything
from presidents to local dog-catchers.
The damaging aspect of this trend, for those who are critical of it,
is that it discriminates against individuals and organisations without
access to the financial resources required for the pursuit of modern
politics. Despite the legal restrictions which exist in many countries
on how much funds may be raised for campaigning purposes, some
parties have a great deal less money to spend than others. These will
tend to be representatives of the already relatively disenfranchised,
marginalised sectors of society, who are thus driven even further
from the mainstream of the political process.

40