Page 104 - The Professionalisation of Political Communication Chaning Media, Changing Europe Volume 3

Political Communication.qxd 12/7/06 7:30 pm Page 101
Political Communication.qxd 5/1/07 15:05 Page 103

FROM ACCOMMODATION TO PROFESSIONALISATION? | 101

the ministries,‘thinking in communication terms’ is still far away.There, communication
advisors are called in when policy has to be implemented and not at the time of
strategic choices or in long term policy development.Where directors want a more pro-
active information policy,the shop floor is still left in the dark.

From post-informing to pre-spinning
The growing importance of information and communication and the necessity felt to
convince the public of the need for specific policies has prompted a changing role
perception among the profession. Already in the early 1980s there was a fierce debate
between the so-called stricts and stretched. The former saw their role as limited to
informing, explaining and elucidating policy accepted by parliament. Influencing and
persuading was considered dubious and should be restricted to those cases where a
broad political and social consensus existed, as in the case of an anti-discrimination
campaign, for example. The stretched held that once policy was accepted, all modern
means of advertising and public relations should be allowed to explain that policy and
to gain support for it.

Since that debate, influencing behaviour with persuasive communication has been
accepted by both government and parliament. And though the jargon would not be
used, government communication has moved from pure information-providing and
more towards public relations, with minor restrictions, such as that the policy should be
accepted, the issue not politically contested and that the communication should
contain enough factual information to allow for independent judgement by the public. From Accommodation to Professionalisation? The Changing Culture and Environment of Dutch Political Communication
In reality, however, hard criteria are difficult to define or to uphold and persuasive
government campaigns keep on stirring up debate: the campaigns are said to be too
paternalistic, too moralistic and there are too many of them. The discussion took an
even harder tone when, in the 1990s, it turned out that several ministries had been
subsidising television programmes in order to realise or to explain their policy aims
(e.g. to uphold certain traffic rules) or to influence public attitudes (e.g. improving the
image of voluntary work for the army). After a public debate this covert form of
informing the public and avoiding media scrutiny has been restricted.

A second, more recent, discussion took place about the question whether information
should be limited to policy accepted by parliament or whether the government could
also inform about (and thus possibly gain support for) policies that were still on the
parliamentary drawing board. Traditionally, responsibility for discussing yet-to-be
accepted policy rests with political parties, but of late they have lost prominence and
have a hard time playing a dominant role in public debate. Moreover, as part of an
increasing media logic, the media are more inclined to frame issues at an early phase
and in ways not always in accordance with the government’s focus. Press officers have
shown their anger when oppositional interest groups and sympathising media started
an offensive, jeopardising a certain government proposal. When a specific minister
proposed a public counter-offensive, as in the case of a national congestion tax, it was 103