News
Retrospective of the XII International PR-Festival. Panel discussion «Test for SM-sincerity: behaviour of politicians in social networks during the crisis»
Can a politician be sincere and frank? And if so, what are the boundaries of this openness? Whether it is possible to believe what politicians say? These and many other similar questions we ask ourselves regularly. But more often – before the next election, when politicians interested in the voices of the electorate, become particularly talkative and generous for promises.
At the XII International PR-festival this burning topic was discussed by participants of the panel discussion «Test for SM-sincerity: behaviour of politicians in social networks during the crisis.» Conversation was moderated by Vice President of the Ukrainian PR-League Elena Derevianko.
As a «prelude» to the main part of the discussion was the speech of a prominent politician and mayor of Lion City Andriy Sadovy. He was the first – which makes sense – within the panel who expressed his opinion about the peculiarities of the politicians’ psychology. Andriy Sadovy stressed that to be or not be sincere, every politician, a person as well, decides for himself. But the specific in this case is that the divergence of words and deeds, sooner or later can play with those who adhere to a double standards, very cruel joke. «Life of politician - that's life in the aquarium. Some can see you from morning till evening every day, and even your personal life becomes a relative term. So if you want to be successful, there are three postulates. First, you need to love people – peoplefeel it greatly. Need a lot of work. Need to believe in God. This banal truth, but they are relevant at all times.»
Developing the theme of the politicians’ presence in the social networks, Lviv mayor noted that the opportunity to communicate with many different people they provide is very important. Of course, in this case it is impossible to completely eliminate the aspect of manipulating the audience. Nevertheless, the social network for responsible politicians – is, above all, the chance to convey his real position on many issues to those who are interested. «I understand perfectly well that what I'd spoken is to remain for a lifetime. And that I’ll be asked about what I have said in a year or 20. And this is actually a big plus for responsible politicians and a huge tragedy for irresponsible ones.»
Opening the main part of the panel, Elena Derevianko as moderator put forward the main directions for further discussion. She asked participants to comment on the subject of where exactly to draw the line between activities of politicians, bureaucrats in the social networks, which he can allow in terms of sincerity or demonstrating his openness, in terms of response to the criticism. And at what point there comes a threat to his reputation security, what are the effective strategies of behavior in such situations.
The first who offered answers to these questions was a chief information officer of the «Right sector» Borislav Beresa. He noted that «the Right sector» «acts more alive than online.» And, nevertheless, is present in social networks, Facebook in particular, where trying to maintain the position of the «better bitter, but the truth than pleasant, but flattery.» Sometimes, according to Beresa, there are some mistakes, misunderstandings related to the lack of information obtained by the representatives of the organization, or disunity of positions. But in general – quote – «Right sector» almost does not lie.» «We should approach carefully to any media – said Borislav Beresa. – If something is voiced, it can’t be lie. Sometimes it is better to remain silent, but lying is unacceptable. Though, there is a phrase which belongs to one English politics, «If you believe to politician, it means that his hypocrisy is of the highest quality.» When a public figure says something online, everything is fixed. And, as Mr. Sadovoi said he can be reminded about this at any time. Therefore, every politician, stating his position has to say: Gentlemen, I’ve changed, my opinion has changed, and at the moment, I am sorry, I depart from the old principles. By the way, for Ukrainian politicians it is not typical thing. I have not seen any Ukrainian politician who would do so. As for the rest ones should remain a human. We must not forget that we are all the same. And when a politician says something in the air or in the network – andthey are even more relevant today than any other form of media – wemust remember that trust is earned long time and lost in one day. Therefore, you need to weigh every word. To reflect is probably permissible. But not public figures.»
The next panelist, PR-adviser of Oleg Tyagnibok Alexander Aronets focused on the fact that the information field – the official media, and social media – often, and especially lately, is not only a source of information, but misinformation as well. And no matter how sincere a politician is, if desired, it can be accused of all mortal sins. At the same time, «the social network really help to convey his idea to people, what you do, and it is for free.» Therefore, turning to social networks as a communication channel with a wider audience, it is important to consider the efficiency of these activities. According to Alexander Aronets to be sincere in politics is quite difficult, but ultimately it is compensated by the people’s trust. Another thing is that politics and sincerity in most cases – is mutually exclusive concepts. «If a person is not sincere, sooner or later people will see it. Maybe not immediately, maybe in a year or two, but it will be discovered. Worst in Ukrainian politics is that many politicians being insincere themselves begin to believe their own lies. And for people can be difficult to sort out which of them is sincere and who is not, who is lying and who is telling the truth. Therefore, I wish all to learn to understand who someone is actually» – summed up Alexander Aronets.
President of Internet Invest Group holding and creator of the resource ua.net Alexander Olshansky said that the starting point in the perception of politician should be the position of «no matter what he says, if he's lying.» Thanks to the social networks the idea unacceptability of lie in political games with the electorate rather quickly spread to a wide audience. But the question remains still: what orienteers people need giving their vote to a candidate? As world practice shows, ultimately it comes down to the moral and ethical qualities of a politician. And in this case, the role of social networks becomes if not the key, but very important. «To assess moral and ethical qualities of the man, while watching him on TV almost impossible – said Alexander Olshansky. – Because it is a pre-arranged situation. I.e. to feel what is a person, to answer a simple question that each must meet oneself –is in front of you a scoundrel in the shot or not – looking at the screen, we can’t. Wedonothaveenoughinformation. A completely different situation in the social network. Because there a person not only speaks himself. He is forced to respond to any external circumstances, to answer questions, without knowing in advance what he will be asked, with no hard timing. You can independently choose which questions to answer, and what – no. Why say that social networks – this is the life behind the glass? Not because you are constantly under surveillance. But because you react to unforeseen beforehand situations and many people have the opportunity to evaluate it. There is some scattered collective knowledge when you are being watched millions of eyes, and millions of people are able to communicate with each other and form an opinion about you, you are likely to coincide with their assessment of reality with great accuracy.» Alexander Olshansky also noted that an element of manipulation by public opinion through social networks can’t be excluded. And yet, in the short term social networks can be an effective and most popular tool for evaluating potential of politics. Because sooner or later people will not choose politicians by slogans and cliches, and start focus regarding this question on the moral and ethical standards.
Important mission to draw the final line of the discussion got a consultant on internet business and SMM, partner of digital agency PlusOne Maxim Sevanevskomu. Which immediately drew the audience's attention to the fact that the subject of several discussions, in his opinion, is «unfocused.» Because honesty and sincerity, which were discussed – controversial terms. According to Maxim Sevanevskogo, goals of people and politicians in social networks are fundamentally different. People want entertainment and politics – bread in the form of votes of new followers. So most people who subscribe to get specific information from politicians in the net, doing it solely because of sympathy or interest in them, not because they are concerned about the moral and ethical quality of these people. The second factor is the need for information «first hand», especially in times of worsening of socio-political situation in the country. At the same time, most politicians very little interesting to «pour soul» and confiding in front of potential voters – as in social networks, and in real life as well. «I think that a very important element of social networking is that politics doesn’t say many things, but say what the user wants to hear,» – stated Maxim Sevanevsky.
Аctive discussion among the panelists caused a theme of loyalty of known personalities to its users, the presence of bots in the account and a question to ban or not to ban anyone who stands «out of context» by his behavior. As a result, the general formula was derived: to use such methods is necessary in the case when the user behaves too aggressively, offensively and thus destroys the community. If the ban – a reaction to the opposite point of view, it is simply silly. In addition, a proposal was made to treat the presence of bots in the account as a criterion of its success.