In an attempt to "burst the presidential bubble" and relate to citizens of both the US and the world, the Obama administration has turned to social media to spread its message farther and wider, according to Margaret Talev and Warren P. Strobel of McClatchy Newspapers, in the Kansas City Star.
The eJournal USA Facebook page, run by the State Department, boasts 42,000 fans worldwide, allowing non-US citizens unable to vote to serve as a "world-spanning sounding board when the president wants to take the global pulse, exert leverage overseas or simply burnish America’s image," claim Talev and Strobel.
Though Obama’s online approach to public diplomacy seems groundbreaking, Tavel and Strobel point out that the administration is actually playing catch-up with countries such as Israel, who launched the first government blog in 2006 and held the first Twitter news conference in December.
Within the administration, Judith McHale has emerged as a strong supporter of social media’s role in public diplomacy for reaching "deep into societies." "We had to find new ways of communicating with foreign publics, given the role that they have now in the political and social lives of their countries," she stated in a recent interview.
Another proponent of what is being called 'Public Diplomacy 2.0' is the spokesman for Israel’s New York consulate, David Saranga, who organized a "citizens’ press conference" in order to field questions about Israel’s actions on Twitter after the country’s military strikes on the Gaza Strip last December.
"New media and social media help me to go directly to the public opinion," Saranga said.
However, some practitioners and politicians are cynical about the negative impact social media may have on U.S. public diplomacy efforts. Blogger Madhurjya writes that it may be a strategic tool for some nations but not for others, claiming that some smaller countries with the capability and the know-how will find it easier to influence Europeans and Americans with mass outreach.
Madhurjya argues that the strategic advantage lies with these smaller countries rather than with the developed West when it comes to Public Diplomacy 2.0. He cites the example of Iran during its recent elections, when he claims that it was easier for protesters to reach and influence an American audience via social media than it was for the US to reach Iranians.
Whether or not social media will have an influential impact on US public diplomacy, it is clear that the use of Twitter, YouTube and other online tools can be used to benefit the Obama administration, writes to Holly Bailey of Newsweek.
Bailey points out that by using social networking and posting videos on the internet, the Obama administration bypasses the traditional media and controls the images and the stories in order to propagate the messages they want to send.
She writes, "When Obama needs to use the bully pulpit-- as he did on health care-- he still turns to interviews with the TV networks and major print correspondents to get the word out, just as his predecessors did. But when things get rocky-- and they always do, at some point-- White House officials often look for other methods of lobbying the public."
While social media can help the Obama administration improve their image, its effect on the image of the US throughout the rest of the world remains undetermined.
Focusing on the Arab World
The White House plans to begin a public relations campaign in Arab countries and Israel soon, reports Mother Jones. The campaign, which will include interviews with President Obama on Arab and Israeli television, seeks "to better explain Mr. Obama’s plans for a comprehensive peace agreement involving Israel, the Palestinians and the Arab world," amounting to "a reframing of a policy that people inside and outside the administration say has become overly defined by the American pressure on Israel to halt settlement construction on the West Bank."
Marc Lynch at ForeignPolicy.com suggests that Obama’s strategic communications campaign is designed to offer reassurance while "explaining the American view of the urgency of the moment for a push towards peace." Lynch added that a host of campaign outreach tools could be deployed in addition to television interviews, including new media: blogs, Twitter, and other online venues.
With the rise of new media, Shawn Powers suggests on the USC Center on Public Diplomacy Blog that we have entered the ‘era’ of the hyperlink where the ‘science of knowledge’ is in the midst of a revolution. Powers cites a blog post by David Weinberger where he says that while the popularity of new or alternative media has risen, "prestige media" has lost legitimacy. With this trend, Weinberger believes that the future of the news industry lies in transparency.
Weinberg argues, "What we used to believe because we thought the author was objective we now believe because we can see through the author’s writings to the sources and values that brought her to that position." Weinberger concludes, "In fact, transparency subsumes objectivity."
"Anyone who claims objectivity should be willing to back that assertion up by letting us look at sources, disagreements, and the personal assumptions and values supposedly bracketed out of the report. Objectivity without transparency increasingly will look like arrogance."
Powers suggests that reporting news without the infliction of bias "is no longer tenable in the eyes of a generation of media consumers with access to any number of competing news narratives, the subtle differences between which expose some level of bias throughout."
Powers believes that the ascendancy of new media levels the playing field and provides governments a new "means of conveying information that does not require a leap of faith by the audience to be trusted." This development has allowed public diplomacy practitioners to establish "ubiquitous" means of engaging foreign audiences.
Khalid Hasan, on Brand-Marketing.net, argues that "nation branding" has now become an integral part of public diplomacy. Hasan suggests that nation branding, or the positioning of a particular country in the minds of consumers, potential tourists and investors, "accelerates the country's economic growth; and the citizens feel dignified."
Hasan cites recent "crispy, smart, and intelligent" slogans developed by nations to fit business needs. These slogans include ""Dubai: The Jewel in the Desert," and "Sri Lanka: The Pearl of the Indian Ocean". Hasan presents case studies of nation branding in Kenya, India, Columbia and Bangladesh, which has faced positive and negative branding since its 1971 war of liberation.
Hasan concludes that nation branding is more than brand advertising or promotion. Rather, "nation branding focuses on the nation as a whole -- its heritage and culture, products and exports, investment, climate, tourism, and people. The campaign must address people both at home and abroad."
When faced with the prospect of "nation branding" America, John Matel comes out in opposition on World-Wide-Matel. He argues that America should not "prim and trim" itself to "win ephemeral popularity." Matel adds that the roles of marketers and government are very different. A marketer only has to appeal to whom they are selling a product, while government must appeal to everyone in the marketing universe. Matel suggests that the U.S. "product," or policies, "is determined by forces way beyond our small ability to add or detract."
RSS
Twitter
Facebook