Introduction
The Romance of Dissent
Bliss was it that dawn to be alive, But to be young was very heaven! (WORDSWORTH, 1888)
Revolution, in all its manifestations, has long captured the public imagination, as well as those of artists, writers and musicians. Wordsworth wrote his famous lines not about first love, but about the French Revolution. Romanticism more generally was about revolution and anti-establishment ideals, just as much (if not more) than passionate love, Arcadian nature and the blissful sublime. The subject of sonnets, novels, songs and paintings, revolution has been glorified and admired in the arts, traditionally associated with brave young people and spectacular change.
These days, this Romantic notion of revolution is still at the core of most dissenting groups operating in the West, from the student protests against education cuts in 2010 to the Tea Party movement, and from the Provisional IRA to Al Qaeda. Anonymous has borrowed its imagery (and particularly its masks) from Alan Moore’s V for Vendetta, itself drawing upon tales of an attempted revolution past and Guy Fawkes’ part in it, while the Occupy movement has been supported by a vast array of creative projects, from rousing rhetoric to books of writings inspired by the movement. Occupy have also turned vacant buildings into pop-up libraries and created political spaces such as the Bank of Ideas in London, as well as making digital films, comic books and ‘subvertisements’. It is difficult, in fact, to imagine revolution without art, or at least this notion of a Romantic spirit that persists through the centuries.
Dissent is often necessarily public: the point of so much civil resistance is to communicate a message, whether that is through ‘propaganda of the deed’ – an idea attributed to Russian anarchists in the 19th century, and the foundation of modern ‘terrorism’ – or through protest songs and literature. Where the French Revolution had Wordsworth and Delacroix, we have CNN and photos in the tabloids. The French Revolution also sparked its fair share of anti-revolutionary propaganda, in England particularly, such as Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution, but over time the image of revolution from the Romantics has persisted more than such opposing views of the era. It is of course too early to know how the dissent of our time will appear in the history books; it could be that the subversive voices in art and literature become better known with time. At the moment, however, the very powerful mainstream media seem to lower these voices to a faint whisper, with sensationalism and the politics of anxiety. One thing is true though, whether it is effective these days or not: dissent has a long tradition of courting the public through media and art.
The media and artists benefit from this relationship. Wordsworth got a poem, Delacroix a masterpiece now housed in the Louvre – and CNN gets ratings. When a terrorist attack happens, everybody watches the news and scrolls through photographs online; people watch with fascination, outrage and sadness – but importantly, they watch. The attacks on the Twin Towers in New York during 9/11 were astonishing because, as was oft-repeated at the time and since, “it was like a film.” And this was no accident: the members of Al Qaeda who hijacked the plans made sure that there would be a time lapse between the two attacks, so that the press would be assembled for the second attack, for maximum exposure. People learned of the attacks through the same loop of footage on every channel, repeating over and over in playback. It was impossible for ordinary people to escape from, attached as Western civilians are to their televisions, no matter how far people were from the action.
“If it bleeds, it leads,” as the old adage goes; and even non-violent dissent can cause a spectacle that people fixate upon. These themes and feelings that captured the minds of the Romantic poets – rebellion, pride, excitement, ecstasy – continue to draw new audiences, and new protesters. But these days it is the news channels and the tabloids that are reaping the rewards. The Romantics and the revolutionaries won their battle in a symbolic sense at least; but overwhelmingly, in recent years, those various anti-establishment groups who protest or fight the status quo have not won theirs.
The education cuts and rise in tuition fees still happened. Northern Ireland is still in the United Kingdom, even if inequalities between Catholics and Protestants are less so and the British Army is no longer patrolling the streets. A Peace Process and a compromising seat in government is usually the best that a revolutionary group can hope for these days. Being damned as ‘terrorists’ and locked in Guantanamo are among the worst. The demands of dissenters are rarely granted, whatever their cause, although the desires of the tabloids are routinely accomplished. The traditional assumption has been that publicity is always beneficial to dissenters. But it is simply not true that, as Oscar Wilde once quipped: “The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.”
Why is this? Why do highly publicised protests and dissent have little political effect, or only a damaging one, in spite of their media attention? For a start, sensationalistic press tends to focus on violence and punishment rather than politics, making non-violent and legal dissent difficult to publicise. This, combined with an over-reliance of dissenting groups on tactics of public protest and disruption, makes groups vulnerable to infiltration, sabotage and the unpredictable behaviour of rogue dissenters. Violence is usually bad PR for a dissenting group, even if it can attract attention to the cause – it is not the right kind of attention, and tends to result in the dissenting group being termed ‘terrorist’ or ‘criminal’, rather than a legitimate political protest. Violence is very easily framed by the media as a moral failing, especially if that violence is against civilians or property. Even when a group is not violent, the media and authorities tend to conflate these two kinds of civil resistance (legal and illegal), which is potentially undermining for legal and peaceful groups, whose image will be tarnished.
If the current political spectrum has been pushed to the right, if the Overton Window (or the range of ideas the public will support) is biased towards the right, then anything remotely left-wing will be depicted as impossibly radical. Normal, reasonable things that used to be everyday and taken for granted (public ownership of railways and electricity for example) are painted as unthinkable, and unthinkable things (bank bailouts and bonuses, participation in foreign wars and so on) are painted as reasonable.
The reason that these issues are really problematic for dissenting groups, however, is that many of the groups themselves are naïve about their relationship with PR and the media, as well as overly dependent on tactics such as public protest. This book will explain why certain PR strategies work better than others, finding that sometimes avoiding publicity and using tactics other than protest is the best form of political action to take. Relying on the mainstream media to accurately represent a group’s actions and ideas is naïve.
How political groups and their causes appear to the public is of course a major factor in their success, particularly in an age where the media is so present in people’s lives, but it is not the only thing that should be considered here. What lies behind that appearance obviously matters just as much, and generally more so. Sometimes appearances are quite representative of who a person or group are and what they are trying to do. At other times, appearances can be deceptive – sometimes to the benefit of a political actor, and sometimes to their detriment. When it comes to anti-establishment groups, there is a tendency for mainstream media to represent their identity and views in a way that is unflattering, especially if those views oppose elements of the establishment, or views they share. And yet negative PR can affect those in the established political parties as well; it is a part of being in a democracy that the press may take issue, however fairly or unfairly, with those in power as well as those aspiring to it. It is, if anything, the press’ raison d’être that it should take issue with those in power, being as it were the ‘fourth estate’. In 1787, Edmund Burke said in Parliament that there were “Three estates in Parliament; but, in the Reporters’ Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important far than they all.” They are, then, there to hold power to account, but also (in doing so) exerting a power themselves (Schultz, J. 1998, 49).
This book is concerned with the ways that this powerful media represent anti-establishment groups, rather than politicians or causes in the mainstream. It is also focused on the ways that groups are depicted in the press in the West, particularly the UK and the US, within a democratic context. The range of groups looked at is wide, though, in their attitudes to the law and to violence, in their place on the political spectrum, and in their loyalty to the principles of democracy. This is not because I think of them as similar (evidently, Occupy and ISIS have very little in common), but because they all have quite different attitudes to PR, and have been treated differently by the press for those reasons and others. By ‘dissenting groups’, therefore, I simply mean that these groups are anti-establishment, and dissent from mainstream politics.
There are complications involved in taking this approach, and in referring to such different groups and causes in one discussion. Whatever a group’s PR strategy, some groups will have inherently more sympathetic or compelling causes and points than others, so the media, and those who decide who to report on and how, will inevitably treat a group they consider dangerous and immoral quite differently to one that seems fair and legitimate, particularly if the publication or TV channel in question shares those principles. That said, the media organisations in question also want ratings and stories, so even if a group is dangerous and threatening, or rather, especially if it is, then they may cover its attention-seeking stunts because it is in the public’s interest to know, and because it is, quite simply, a good story. It is not true that all publicity is good publicity of course; the media can report on a group in such a way that they win little or no support, and in fact alienate many people.
So dissenting groups, or anti-establishment groups broadly speaking, need to think about their relationship to PR in this context. If they are being reported on negatively in the press it may be because the press have different values, or are defined by another ideology. It may be that they genuinely consider those groups and individuals dangerous and divisive. These reasons for negative portrayal are worth paying attention to rather than dismissing. While a dissenting group need not define itself according to what the press says about it, it may be worth paying attention if what it does in the public eye alienates people; maybe it means that its ideas or actions are unpalatable to a lot of people, as much as it means that they have been reported on in an unflattering way. Maybe that group needs to think about how (and whether) it can appeal to a wider audience, and if it cannot, then what is its point? Is it enough simply to record discontent or to start a discussion?
These are not easy issues to consider, and can lead to political disillusionment, certainly. But reflection on these matters can also help improve not only how a group (or person) communicates with the public, but also its central principles. It is a difficult balance to make, but if a group does want to appeal to a lot of people, as most political groups do when operating in a democracy, then it does need to think about its relationship with the mainstream press, with the public who read and watch current events through that medium, and whether or not their ideas are truly compatible. If they are not, then how does an anti-establishment group proceed in a way that will actually be effective? It is easy enough to be destructive, but even the most spectacular political violence often has very little long-term effect, other than to serve as a useful narrative of evil for those already in power.
By ‘Dissenters’ I mean simply a qualified description rather than a group in any meaningful sense; the political groups mentioned are placed together (and discussed) according to their PR strategy and their sharing some level of anti-establishment principle. The overriding interest or point of the book is to understand the relationship between the media and anti-establishment groups, and how and why some groups succeed while others do not. PR is only one part of why a group does well or badly in achieving its goals, but it is a significant issue and one that is often overlooked or ignored, or conversely used as the only reason for a group’s failure. If a group does succeed, it is likely a combination of its principles and ideas being workable and compelling to a large number of people, and its public image communicating those ideas well. If a group does badly, it could be the failure of one or the other, or both. This book is concerned with the PR side of things and does not discuss the pros and cons of particular ideas, only how they are communicated and how even good ideas can be undermined by bad press. PR can make an otherwise strong movement seem ridiculous, violent, or comic; it can make thoughtful people seem absurd, and intelligent voices go unheard, just as it can give excessive attention to destruction and mayhem or empty rhetoric. A group working within a media-saturated democracy cannot ignore that fact, just as it cannot be delusional about fighting for political ideas few people are likely to support if it wants to be successful.
The aim of this book, then, is to find out which PR tactics are best used, and which are best avoided. By examining a range of groups through the prism of their PR strategies (or lack thereof), Shooting Hipsters will find out which approaches work the best, discussing the pros and cons of using violence or being associated with it, the utilisation of grassroots media (including local and counter-cultural media) by populist groups, and the shunning of publicity altogether by clandestine figures and organisations. Clearly there will be no single PR strategy that fits all groups, but the aim nevertheless is to consider a range of options and discuss the situations in which some decisions work better than others when it comes to dealing with the media and publicising one’s cause.
Relating to the public is central to all politics, in a democratic society especially, but ‘public relations’ can nevertheless seem obscure to many people and groups. If a dissenting group operating in an age where PR is so central is to succeed, however, it must face the reality of it, rather than falling victim to a complex network influenced by business interests, ideological bias of large news organisations, and old-fashioned sabotage by political enemies. Shooting Hipsters will assist in that reality check, without being biased towards or focused on any particular group; rather it is interested in how groups (keeping to the US and the UK) relate to the media, how the public are communicated to by political actors (whether in the establishment or against it), and how PR can so easily confuse issues and people.
In order to do so, I will first of all discuss the context of the modern focus on PR by looking at the historical relationship between dissenting groups and their political action, and the media. In Protest and the Media: A Brief History, this complicated, even symbiotic relationship will be examined, considering the nature of propaganda and its connection to violence, and how politics, violence, communication and the public interact.
The second chapter, Oxygen for Terrorists, will question specifically the traditional assumption that publicity is always beneficial to dissenters, setting up for the central discussion about why it sometimes is not, when it is, and what this means for other groups, then and now. Looking at the case of the British government and press attitudes to the IRA in the 1980s, and the way in which the hunger strikes and death of Bobby Sands changed the conversation, the chapter will consider how no publicity and bad publicity can be turned around.
In chapter three, The Business of Bad Publicity, I look at the ways in which big business and mainstream politics influence media and dissent, and crucially their relationships with one another. Whether making money, winning seats in government or gaining awareness of a political cause, this network of power and influence ultimately depends on an audience watching (and then voting and buying), which leads to a discussion on the nature of that political theatre, and how and why it works.
In the fourth chapter, The Political Spectacle, ideas about the theatre of political dissent and the media are looked at in more depth, so that the notion of public relations can be understood in that context. The nature and reasons behind the portrayal of politicians and protesters as heroes and villains will be explored, including ideas about voyeurism, violence, and the sublime.
Chapter five, The Stylish Kids in the Riot, looks at political movements that have relied on public protest and fallen victim to bad press, particularly coverage which depicts protesters as frivolous and idiotic, so discrediting the cause. Cases such as the 2010 anti-austerity protests in London will be examined, and in particular the way in which the protests were condemned by the mainstream media, and draconian punishments presented as justified. Dissent was not only trivialised in this case, but also reprimanded, and the movement was therefore damaged, being seen by many as illegitimate on account of this public image. While all publicity might be good publicity for those chasing fame, it is not true of groups who want to affect political change.
In chapter six, Popular Dissent, the book turns to populist movements such as the Tea Party movement, Occupy, Stop the War and others who relied on community support and mainstream media coverage of their protests and political arguments. Though very different politically, Occupy and the Tea Party movement have relied on similar PR techniques, to varying success.
In chapter seven, Narcissists with Bombs, I look at political violence that is especially exhibitionist (such as the murder of Lee Rigby and the Boston Bombs) to the point of being devoid of real political substance, and discuss this phenomenon’s effect on the perception of political dissent generally, and violent dissent especially.
Chapter eight, Shock and Awe: Performativity, Machismo and ISIS, discusses the PR strategy of ISIS, and how the group’s use of extreme violence relates to a ‘war of images’ and ‘war of masculinities’ with the US and UK, and is therefore a form of warfare in itself. I will discuss whether or not violence ever works (from a PR point of view) and conclude that more often than not, violence undermines a political cause in the long term.
Chapter nine, Clandestine Dissent, considers the alternative to seeking maximum publicity for a cause, and the inherent benefits of covert dissent – to the movement as well as its image. Clandestine groups such as Anonymous and WikiLeaks, for instance, have been far more successful than groups that rely on public violence or protest. The former groups have the advantage of seeming ‘legitimate’ in some sense to many people, rather than clearly criminal, as violent groups discussed in previous sections often come across.
In chapter ten, Turning the Camera, I look at scandals in which images and other data were leaked, such as Abu Ghraib as well as instances of investigative journalism that have exposed injustice and crime on the part of the state or big corporations, and the political effects therein. The idea of political critique rather than dissent per se is considered as an alternative to dissent that relies on PR in the ways discussed previously, including the ways in which art, literature and music can be means of dissent as well as a way of observing it.
In the last chapter, Beyond Martyrs and Terrorists, the findings of the previous chapters are discussed further, especially their main conclusions – namely that violence and other illegal behaviour often gets publicity, but usually doesn’t help the cause, and is usually unsustainable longterm; that non-violent civil resistance has been shown to be more effective than violent, but it can be hard to get publicity, so must be managed well; and that while the Internet can be useful for some groups, it is best seen as one tool of several. It is necessary to understand the risks involved in over-reliance on the Internet. Another important finding is that using PR to focus on the issues that a group is concerned with (such as through investigative journalism), rather than the group’s image, works particularly well. Art, music and literature, furthermore, are often overlooked as means of dissent but have proven uniquely valuable over the years as means of protest as well as forms of more detached (or philosophical) critique and contemplation about the issues dissenting groups are concerned with, as well as dissent itself.
Of course different dissenting groups will have particular PR strategies, according to their own principles and aims, but overall, these points will help most groups become more sustainable through an awareness of public relations, based on related cases. The murder of Lee Rigby was a clear example of what not to do, given its immediate condemnation in the press and alienating effect on the public; elements of the Tea Party movement’s strategy, along with successful populist groups such as Stop the War and Occupy, although not completely successful, show the specific measures that have worked to their benefit and can be applied elsewhere. Covert measures as used by Snowden, WikiLeaks and Anonymous have worked in the short term, but have provoked great repression from above because they employ illegal action, which has probably had a negative effect on other dissenting groups (although, conversely, their findings have inspired many to fight for civil liberties and be aware of state repression and surveillance).
Overall, dissenting groups tend to be depicted as reckless, extreme and impulsive or irrational, to varying degrees, according to their behaviour but also an existing stereotype of dissent as illegitimate and possessing ‘Romantic’ qualities (at best), and criminal, threatening qualities (at worst). Compounding this image is the attraction to drama and spectacle that exists within the media (and the public), which will usually be captivated by violence and heightened emotions over serious political action, and therefore favour the melodrama of reckless subversion rather than sincere and nonviolent civil resistance.
I conclude by elaborating on these findings and comparisons, and speculating on what can be done to redefine dissent and utilise the democratic right to protest in a culture where the trivialisation of dissent can sell magazines and undermine anti-establishment political thought. When handling the media, careful risk management is key, especially with regard to publicity. A clear and long-term PR strategy and plan to manage the media makes sense, including the use of tactics aside from demonstrations and an over-reliance on publicity; and the avoidance of violence, and disassociation with violent factions, as this is not good publicity in the long term. Political actors will usually find that it is in their best interests to influence the media where possible, to help define the narrative, or counter a dominant one. Propaganda goes both ways.
Dissenting groups can use the media to their advantage, through telling the public of their grievances, repression and injustices, which will strengthen the cause and its popularity. If the mainstream media seems to have no interest in representing dissenting groups accurately or sympathetically, meanwhile, local media may do, as well as counter-cultural publications and art more generally. A movement that is embraced by its own community, whether local, cultural or political, is likely to be more sustainable than one that is not. Either a very careful and adaptive campaign that makes better use of new media, the counter-culture and local media, or the use of other tactics of non-violent dissent, are the best options for a dissenting group to take.
By knowing legal rights, having legal representation on hand, and keeping good relations with the authorities where possible, a dissenting group has a far better chance of affecting political change and being sustainable. It is important to remember that dissent, when legal, is a democratic right, not a crime. An asserted effort must be made to sustain that democratic right, in the face of reforms that may effectively criminalise it. This is perhaps the most important point: if a group’s aims are democratic in essence, then the awareness of undemocratic reforms and punishment is key. Any democratically orientated dissenting group should campaign against undemocratic reforms even if it is not their main political focus, for their own sustainability and legal right to function. The main threat to dissent is undemocratic criminalisation of that dissent. Dissent can, however, adapt to even undemocratic and unfair repression, and repression can alienate the people that the (democratic) governments depend on for power. The question for these governments is whether they want their own people to become ‘the enemy’, or whether it’s a better idea to compromise with their demands, when democratically presented. This is why going the non-violent, legal route is best for dissenting groups in the long term; it is the best shot at true change, with the eventual support of the population, the community and ultimately the government that is meant to represent them. Once these civil liberties are secured (and this is a constant task), changing the way we tell stories and publically protest is how we can move beyond the simplistic political circus that dissenting groups inevitably get caught in.
While the Romantic spirit will persist with new ideas and rebellions, its apparent incompatibility with the mainstream news media means that it must find new outlets and tactics. Until the heads of tabloids have the visions of Wordsworth, Shelley and Byron, revolutionary dissenters will have to find new ways to glorify their causes, and communicate their ideas to the people.
Although Romanticism is all very well, it needs to be backed up by realpolitik. Idealism needs to be followed by action – by pragmatic ideas that will change society for the better. That is what really keeps people on side – not a passing desire or charming idea or even a charismatic speaker. Permanence is key: a movement needs to persist beyond its flurry of idealism and fifteen minutes of fame (if it gets that far). While PR is always important for anyone in politics, not least those who want to change the status quo, it is but one tactic in winning attention and approval from the public. A good public image must be accompanied by substance and well thought-out plans to make those ideals a reality. Likewise, good ideas and plans for a better world will fall flat if they are not communicated well to the public. PR and politics are about winning people over, but they are also about keeping their support. The central requirement of PR here is that it shows a group in a good light, and that it communicates genuinely good ideas and strategies that will not only compel people initially but also win their support for months and years thereafter. That means that the realpolitik has to be as persuasive as the rhetoric.
With that in mind, a brief history of dalliances between various dissenting groups and the public follows. In some cases, that first spark (sometimes literally) has led to movements that grew and lasted. Quite a lot of the time, though, a political group’s time in the public eye was over as quickly as it began. People’s attention may be easy to gain for a short time; but the public are hard to woo and keep for longer, fickle as they are.
Rolling 24-hour news with short bursts of drama has created short attention spans; current events seem to change so rapidly and reverberate so noisily that there is less sense of evolution or stability or reason. Although the Internet has been empowering to people in the sense that they can comment on articles and feel involved, there is on parallel a feeling of being overwhelmed and made impotent by the sheer mass of information and events, and a lack of certainty as to what has really happened, and what is really most important. Politicians in power (such as Osborne, clasping austerity measures, for instance) then know how to pick an opportune moment of mass panic and perceived instability to offer a policy or message that promises security (often literal as well as emotional). In this moment, his ideas appeal to a ravaged public because they contrast sharply with the so-called chaos of the world; he appears firm, resolute and even heroic in his simple meanness. So dissent, however peaceful (but better if it is violent, for these purposes), can always be turned around to benefit the establishment, and those with otherwise unpopular policies to pass through. Dissenting groups, when dismissed by the establishment and media, may do well therefore to emphasise their public support for reasonable policies or demands, rather than fall into the trap, set again and again, of becoming one more story of chaos and disorder with which to present a seemingly attractive set of opposing ideas, no matter the reality behind their spin. The political establishment has been dealing with dissent and the media for some time now, and they have learnt their lessons. Many dissenting groups, it would seem, have not.