Phillis Report. Assignment one

To maintain a truly democratic government effective communication is paramount between the lawmakers and the law abiders, i.e. governmental departments and the citizens.

‘Successful democratic government maintains responsive relationships with constituents based on mutual understanding and two-way communication.’ (Cutlip)

To show themselves as a government with the ability to embrace the true meaning of democracy, when New Labour came into power in 1997, special advisors, which included press secretary Alastair Campbell, were employed to head campaigns that would heighten governmental communication. However, this media induced form of political communication led people to associate the idea of ‘Spin’ with the new government. A stigma so strong that ten years on and Alastair Campbell is still known by many as the doctor of ‘spin’

A leaked email lead to further scandal, with suggestions that one of governments own appointed advisors, Jo Moore, had called 9/11, ‘a good day to bury bad news.’ Concerns were growing over public mistrust, added to this was a decline in elections, particularly between the young and ethnic minority groups. Therefore, it was these growing concerns, as well as the failure to dispel discontentment over governmental secrecy, that led to the publication of an independent report.

Sir Robert Phillis published his report in 2004. Amongst the findings were suggestions of real mistrust for the government and the media this included the way the government was portrayed with in the press, a worrying fact seen as New Labour at the time had adopted a strong reliance on the media to get their messages across.

Communication within governmental departments wasn’t seen as ‘core functions of the mainstream civil service.’ The report also claimed there was evidence to suggest a lack of resources including training in these key areas.

Although The Freedom of Information act had come into place in 2005, there was no evidence to support any effort had been made to remove the traditional culture of secrecy surrounding government.

On the surface, the government’s appointment of specially trained advisors looked like real efforts were being made to help form a more democratic government that would keep people informed and be open to feedback from constituents. However, their strong reliance on the media did not help their cause due to the public’s general mistrust of the media as a communicational body.

As a democratic party, the government needs to be seen to be doing things that would be positive for the people. To gain credibility they need to use the media as a powerful tool that can highlight their achievements and policies to the wider audience. Yet I believe it is fair to say that Tony Blair and the New Labour government will be better remembered for the war on Iraq rather that its positive input on the education system, or the introduction of the minimum wage.

For me, the report highlights the communicational problems the government have and the lack of structure and importance it is putting on certain areas and departments. It makes me question how much truth is getting through to the voting public, and whose truth are we hearing? Mass communication is fine, if it is mass truth that we are hearing.

The recommendations of the Phillis Report, such as more direct communication with the public, the redesigning of government websites, a strong central communications structure, are all encouraging if followed. It means that government are making real efforts to encourage public opinion forming. But the question to ask is, does this do anything more than what the ‘special advisors’ first did, other than make the information that they choose to share appear largely more user friendly, and at the same time become more widely available?