Trump vs. everyone

Originally written for socialmedia.lk

A great example of how social media has changed politics is taking place in America with the battle over how Obama’s healthcare policies are to be changed under the new administration.

President-elect Donald Trump is setting the stage for a potential clash with his fellow Republicans when it comes to the repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act. Many of his pronouncements in interviews and on Twitter are at odds with long-held Republican orthodoxy on health care.

I’ve written before about how political parties have never being more vulnerable to being hijacked or bypassed by insurgent politicians. The potential conflict between Donald Trump and Republican  members of Congress over how Obama care is dealt with, is both an example and extension of this.

As I wrote in the post,

media disintermediation does not just apply to the relationship between politicians and the mainstream media. It also applies to the relationship between politicians and their parties.

When formulating changes to healthcare, Trump seems to be on a different path to his party. He is however, uniquely positioned to get his way, using the same tactics that he used to win the Republican nomination.

Key Concepts: Gatekeeping & Disintermediation

Using social media, Trump can directly speak to those who voted for him (and anyone sympathetic to his views), bypassing not only the mainstream media but also his own party. An interview with a traditional news outlet, such as the one where Trump stated he wants ‘insurance for everybody’ in the Obamacare replacement plan, only serves as an agenda setting tool1.

Subsequent to this, using social media, Trump is able to campaign for his specific plan against all opponents, including those within his own party. He can do this because he is not reliant on the party infrastructure or the media to connect with voters.

For more on this, read:

 

Jobs vs. Volkswagen

Originally written for socialmedia.lk

We wrote a post earlier about Sri Lankan Government communication during an intense news cycle last week. Having written on the use of framing in communication, I thought it worth pointing out recent and better executed government communication. Specifically, how economic developments were framed 2 in terms of jobs and economic opportunities.

This is particularly important as a number of media and social activists, in their eagerness for “gotcha journalism“, overstated the effect of finding out that Volkswagen was not involved in the Kuliyapitiya factory.

This is not to deny that posts like this generate socialmedia buzz:

and that the consensus on social media is that this is very embarrassing to the government.


Re-framing

Yet, how damaging was this in terms of the government’s communication objectives? Subsequent posts about both this factory opening and others mitigated some of the damage. The reason was that they were framed by the government as a fulfilment of their election commitment to bring jobs into Sri Lanka.

When assessing if this was a truly damaging incident for the government, the real questions that should be asked are:

  • To what audience is this news targeted?
  • What are their priorities?
  • How can negative commentary about this be discredited?

With the aid of correct framing, the answers are:

  • Youth seeking employment.
  • Jobs (and not specifically Volkswagen jobs!).
  • Negativity is not about government credibility, it is about being negative towards economic progress.
Summary
The government was able to reclaim the debate by framing the factory issue about employment rather than the specifics of the companies involved.