In the series of posts about handbooks, this one will deal with the work The candidate. Media relations handbook (for politicians and journalists)/El candidato. Manual de relaciones con los medios (para políticos y periodistas), written by Julio César Herrero and Amalio Rodríguez Chuliá in 2008. It seems that political candidates have to deal with the media, and with journalists, to achieve their objectives. This book seeks to give practical and entertaining advice on various situations, and how best to deal with them, in the world of communication.
Julio César Herrero is a journalist, university professor, writer and specialist in political communication and marketing born in Mieres, Asturias, in 1973. He holds a PhD in Journalism from the Complutense University of Madrid and has developed an outstanding career in the academic, journalistic and political consultancy fields. He maintains a personal website.
Amalio Rodríguez Chuliá (Catarroja, Valencia, 1971) is a Spanish scriptwriter, creative artist, journalist, playwright and television format creator with a diverse career in media, advertising and political communication.
The following are commentaries of the excerpts from the book El candidato. Manual de relaciones con los medios (para políticos y periodistas), written by Julio César Herrero and Amalio Rodríguez Chuliá in the style of Minerva Strategy Blog.
“This book is, in essence, a political marketing handbook. Most of the literature that exists on the subject it deals with is American. Unfortunately, in Spain, hardly any texts have been published that deal, from the inside, with the subject of this one: the relations between politicians and the media from a practical point of view” (Julio César Herrero, Amalio Rodríguez Chuliá, El candidato. Manual de relaciones con los medios (para políticos y periodistas)).
One of the usual objectives of marketing is to sell products and, by extension, political marketing seeks to sell candidates or parties in electoral contests. The goal of the latter is to get people to vote and the medium, traditionally, has been the mainstream media, especially television. Currently, social networks are of great importance, with phenomena such as the “filter bubbles“, where the personalisation of preferences for users on the network, means that they only receive news or messages in line with their ideology, and never views from other perspectives.
“Shocking. Making statements that, not so much in substance but in form, catch the journalist’s attention is the best way for them to become a headline (in ‘cut’ and radio, in ‘soundbite’ for television). It is by no means about being alarming or extravagant in the statements, but it is about being original. The use of analogies, metaphors or other literary devices makes the language break out of the routine and catches the eye” (Julio César Herrero, Amalio Rodríguez Chuliá, El candidato. Manual de relaciones con los medios (para políticos y periodistas)).
In his work Homo Videns. La sociedad teledirigida/ Homo Videns: The Remote-Controlled Society, Sartori talked about how television changed democracy. It is worth reflecting on how social networks can change the practice of democratic societies, for example, by encouraging political activism or accountability, but also by giving fuel to demagogy and disinformation.
One of the issues that Sartori points out is that what is relevant nowadays is to appear in the media; this gives media power, as opposed to the former prestige of intellectuals. When political parties look for a candidate, they prefer a profile such as a sportsman or an actor, or similar, who already have media power. However, the media power of someone does not guarantee that they have the virtues of a good governor or public representative.
“When journalists use information from unnamed sources, they often use expressions such as “according to well-informed sources”, “sources close to” or “according to one of the advisers”, depending on the extent to which the journalist wishes to indicate the provenance of the information.
Up to this point, reference has been made to circumstances where the journalist knows the identity of the source, but chooses not to reveal it. It is a different matter when the journalist does not know the identity of the source. In this case, we are dealing with a leak. Information that is always of interest to the journalist, but which he or she is unaware that he or she is providing it. It is the journalist’s obligation to check the data before publishing or disseminating it”. (Julio César Herrero, Amalio Rodríguez Chuliá, El candidato. Manual de relaciones con los medios (para políticos y periodistas)).
This is still the case in general terms, but there is a new element to take into account in the post-truth and social media era: disintermediation. There are conventional media, which are usually committed to the principles of professional journalistic ethics, such as the search for truth, impartiality or honesty. Nowadays, in social networks and in some media, issuers of disinformation coexist, which has several variants, the best known of which are fake news. There is great controversy about this concept, and its viability as a political weapon/etiquette, however, there is a broad consensus on its deliberate intention to deceive or confuse. Once again, we reiterate the importance of following the duties, values and virtues of journalistic deontology, which make up the ideal profile that information professionals must have.
“Do not abuse technical jargon. Jargon, i.e. terms specific to a trade or profession, can be used in a speech as long as they are not abused. It depends on the audience you are addressing. If they are specialised listeners, there will be no problem in using terms that only the politician and the audience are familiar with: no one else should understand them, although this is not usual. But if the audience does not master a subject in which technical terms are frequently used, the politician will have to make an effort to translate these terms so that the listeners can understand what he or she is saying”. (Julio César Herrero, Amalio Rodríguez Chuliá, El candidato. Manual de relaciones con los medios (para políticos y periodistas)).
This handbook with the media refers to the fact that the candidate must simplify complex issues or terms in order to be understood by wide audiences. Ortega y Gasset is credited with saying that clarity is the courtesy of the philosopher. It is important to be clear in public discourse, but one must know how to communicate well, at the risk of falling into simplification, manichaeism or demagoguery. Political issues do not usually have black/white solutions, but it is necessary for politics to become a good pedagogy to explain the management of the range of greys that make up public affairs.
Fundamental principles of a good polemicist
“1.-A good polemicist never tries to convince his opponent of anything.
2.-A good polemicist chooses the sector of the audience he wants to address.
3.-The good polemicist is the first to define the terms of the debate.
4.- A good polemicist prefers to ask questions rather than answer them.
5.- A good polemicist repeats, repeats and, if there is time, repeats.
6.- A good polemicist knows how to use the same argument in several ways.
7.- A good polemicist, perhaps a very good debater, wins with his own weapons, but above all, fundamentally, with those of his opponent.
8.- The good polemicist handles fallacies to perfection and strives to prevent the other side from using them. If he succeeds, he exposes and ridicules them so that the audience can decide” (Julio César Herrero, Amalio Rodríguez Chuliá,El candidato. Manual de relaciones con los medios (para políticos y periodistas)).
I would like to conclude with reflections on the Fundamental Principles of the Good Polemicist, which is proposed in this handbook. As mentioned at the beginning, the aim of this work is political marketing from a practical perspective and, for such a goal, the effectiveness of this advice could be contextualised.
The ideal of deliberative democracy, where debates allow for persuading and being persuaded, participants are rational and reasonable, and agreements can be forged based on fairness or unanimity, would seem to have limited effect in practical politics, as actors are more interested in following the tactics of good polemicists.
In the end, there is nothing new under the sun. Many centuries ago, the sophists educated in rhetorical tactics and strategies, to increase the power of conviction of their pupils, citizens of the polis of Athens, to debate public affairs in the Agora. This was a form of education for democracy, which was based on good polemicists. Now, as then, it is easier to fall into polemics than to engage in good dialogues, when it is obvious that the quality of democracy is improved by the quality of public deliberation.
