Earnestly we do the research. Assiduously we collect and analyse the data. Endlessly we attend meetings where we present our research and our data. We embrace multistakeholderism because we hope and believe rational people will see the force of our arguments and act accordingly. Particularly where children’s interests and welfare are concerned who wouldn’t want to do the right thing?
Year after year we do all this and it is important we carry on doing so because our research, our data and the arguments we develop from them have to be bullet proof. The only way we will find out if they are is by publishing, engaging, inviting attacks and criticism.
And sometimes it all comes together and works relatively easily, quickly and painlessly, particularly if the change or improvement we are pushing for is small and inexpensive to implement. With big or expensive stuff it’s almost always a very different story.
Thus campaigners are deluding themselves if they rely solely on the idea tech companies and powerful people will do the right thing simply because it is the right thing. If a particular course of action could have a significant impact on profits or other major corporate interests such a view is naive to the point of recklessness.
But… despaireth not
The Post Office scandal in the UK reminds us the seemingly impossible can become very possible overnight if the right levers are pulled. However, it can take a long time to locate or connect with the right lever.
In seeking that lever Twitter and other social media outlets certainly have a place but campaigners need to be dogged. They still have to find and connect with major, traditional, mainstream media outlets that employ at least one person who believes in you. Social media can help make such a connection but there are so many millions of things going on, relying on generating a buzz in the Twittersphere alone essentially means you are leaving things to chance, hoping the right person, the right lever, will notice.
This is not ideal. Not the way a modern democracy should would work but it is nevertheless a fact of 21st Century life which is unlikely to change in the near future.
Thus, for campaigners, thinking about the communications, marketing and influencing/political strategy is or ought to be absolutely central to everything we do.
Having a heavyweight politician or other public figure on your side can help interest major media outlets but it is not guaranteed.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant
Sunlight is the best disinfectant. When the reputations of powerful people are seriously threatened in the public domain they will make things happen. Rarely otherwise. The response to the Post Office mess is proof positive of that.
A footnote. Despite all the intense lobbying by Silicon Valley and its surrogates why did the UK’s Online Safety Act go through? It went through because of the work of many people and organizations over many years in which campaigners dug into and worked with key figures in all the major political parties and in major media outlets. In other words, while sweet reason and good research played its vital part, politics is what got that Bill through.
To underline my earlier point, we must not stop participating in joint forums, consensus building and all the usual methods associated with “multi-stakeholderism” but we should do so with no illusions and NEVER if it blunts our ability to make public criticisms and do our job as campaigners, and NEVER if by our participation we are handing halos to those who do not deserve them.
Desiderata 