The spiral of silence theorises that an individual will not discuss their opinion on a policy issue among friends and family, when they believe that this belief may leave them socially isolated. If their opinion is in line with the majority of the public sphere, a person is likely to speak out, however if they believe they are in the minority, they will stay silent.
The idea of social media is that anybody, anywhere, regardless of their colour, status and creed, can publish their opinions on an equal footing to everybody else. Social media creators had hoped that their platforms would allow free discussions to take place, and those with minority views might feel free to discuss and debate their opinions.
However, multiple studies have found that quite the opposite has happened, and people are less likely to share their opinions online than they are in real life.
In 2014, the Pew Research Center in the USA found undertook a survey on the spiral of silence and social media, purposely focusing on the divisive issue of Edward Snowden’s 2013 surveillance leaks.
The survey found several key findings:
People are less willing to discuss controversial topics on social media than in person. The study found that 86 per cent pf people were happy to have a discussion in person about Edward Snowden, but only 42 per cent of them would post about it on Twitter or Facebook.
Less than 0.5 per cent of those asked who would not discuss the story in person, would be comfortable posting about it on a social media platform.
Facebook users were more willing to post about Edward Snowden if they had a belief that their ‘friends’ would agree with them.
Chen (2018) found that not posting because of the fear of being hounded by friends and family was not the only way to refrain from expressing opinion on social media. The study suggests that if the public are afraid of being isolated, they are more likely to self-censor their views by removing posts once they realise the difference in opinion with friends. However, it also found that the amount of anonymity offered by a social network also had an impact on someone’s willingness to post about a controversial subject.
Chen discovered that “The stronger the political disagreement and publicness are, the greater the indirect effect on inhibiting disagreeing opinion expression and enhancing withdrawal behaviours becomes.”
In terms of public relations, this spiral of silence means it can become difficult to gage the true opinion of the public sphere.
We only need to look at the election of Donald Trump and the vote to leave the European Union to find examples of opinions which were presented as being the minority, but instead were revealed to be popular to find examples of this in modern times.
In order to live in a free and democratic society, it is important that the public feels free to discuss their opinions, as long as they are not offensive or violent towards another person. While the spiral of silence exists, public relations practitioners will find it difficult to gauge the true opinion of the public, particularly when it comes to issues of a controversial nature, and their job of maintaining a relationship between an organisation and the public becomes all that little bit harder.
References
Chen, H (2018). Spiral of silence on social media and the moderating role of disagreement and publicness in the network: Analyzing expressive and withdrawal behaviors. New media in society, 1:20.
In my blog post entitled ‘Digital PR and Politics’ I discussed the way in which the internet and social media has ultimately changed how General Elections are won. However, how messaging is produced and distributed is not the only factor of political campaigning which has been changed through the enhancement of digital media.
As digital media can produce and circulate material so quickly, it has the additional benefit of reducing the advantage of political parties with larger financial budgets. This largely assists smaller parties and independent candidates attempting to fight their way into Westminster, gaining them instant media exposure.
While I have discussed the Conservative Party’s use of social media in the 2015 General Election, it was Nigel Farage and UKIP that dominated Google searches, according to Dr Fillippo Trevisan and Dr Paul Reilly. Social analytics firm BirdSong also discovered that during the election period, the Party’s engagement rate was 87 per cent, compared to the Conservative Party’s Conservative nine per cent – although it is worth pointing out that this does not differentiate between positive and negative engagement.
Political campaigning has traditionally focused on working the news cycle. Prior to the substantial use of social media, the day’s political message would be briefed to the press in the morning with the hope that it would fill the news agenda throughout the day. Digital media allows for that cycle to be interrupted in response to live announcements and political activity.
Political parties can now, almost instantly, push out an opposing view to any given political situation in an attempt to steal the headlines. If you visit the Twitter account of any given UK political party, you will find streams of recent news articles being shared with that party’s line on the issue.
Alongside this, Members of Parliament, and even Government Ministers, can take to social media to make instant policy announcements in time for the evening news, even before they are formally announced by the Government. Michael Gove, for example, recently took to Twitter to announce that he had “formally confirmed the UK will not extend the transition period & the moment for extension has now passed.” In some cases, a press release will not be issued and the story will be built around the 280-characters issued from the respective Twitter account.
I just chaired a constructive EU Joint Committee meeting with @MarosSefcovic
I formally confirmed the UK will not extend the transition period & the moment for extension has now passed. On 1 January 2021 we will take back control and regain our political & economic independence pic.twitter.com/nZjNpez8LI
While it can only be a good thing that digital media allows the public to instantly access this information, studies in the US have found that some 46 per cent of adults feel “worn out” by the number of political posts they see on social media. In fact, the Pew Research Center found that across every demographic group, there is more exhaustion than excitement over seeing political content on social media.
Although public relations practitioners, organisations and political parties, both large and small, are finding it ever easier to promote their viewpoints across social media, they must be cautious. The public want to know what is going on in the world and deserve the opportunity to scrutinise the decisions which effect their lives. However, with the rise of anti-establishment sentiment, caution must be taken, in order to keep the reputation of all, to not tire the public.
“As more broadcast and print media outlets develop an online presence, activities like pitching stories to reporters, developing and distributing press releases, and measurement and evaluation of media coverage, have been updated, optimized, or reinvented.” (Hutchins & Tindall, 2016)
Over the past decade, digital media has changed and continues to change rapidly. The way information is produced, distributed, accessed and interacted with has shifted, but with this has come a great opportunity for public relations to blossom and embrace the modern way of living.
The rise of social media means everyone has an equal opportunity to promote and share media content, regardless of status and wealth, and campaigns and causes can be promoted at the touch of a button with engaging content. Social media and, more widely, the internet has led to campaign engagement being recorded in real time, and practitioners know instantly how effective content and ads are at reaching the public. This two-way engagement allows the direction of a campaign to be changed quickly and, if needs be, crisis management to be enacted efficiently. The world has become a 24-hour society, where anyone with an internet connection can access information at any time of day and successful public relations campaigns can use this to their advantage, publishing material at various times to reach different target groups.
However, while a modernised digital media brings many positive opportunities, it can also speed up the process when things are not going well. The 24-hour society can quickly become a curse when bad news travels through social media platforms, and one poorly thought out Tweet or Facebook post can suddenly create a PR crisis. The speed at which bad news flows through the internet makes it difficult to contain and recover from. As well as this, customers can publicly discuss bad experiences for the rest of the world to see.
It is difficult not to argue that digital media has changed public relations, “for public relations the unavoidable conclusion is that nothing will ever be the same again” (Phillips and Young, 2009). As described by Cutlip, Center and Broom (2006), “public relations is the management function that establishes and maintains mutually beneficial relationships between an organization and the publics on whom its success or failure depends.” While the tools used to maintain these relationships have changed, the core concepts of public relations has remained the same, albeit with new opportunities and challenges to take into account.
References
Cutlip, S., Center, A., & Broom, G. (2006). Effective Public Relations, 9th Edition. San Diego State University: USA.
Hutchins, A., & Tindall, N. (2016). Public Relations and Participatory Culture. Routledge: London.
Phillips, D., & Young, P. (2009). Online Public Relations: A Practical Guide to Developing an Online Strategy in the World of Social Media (PR In Practice). Kogan Page Ltd: London.
