​​​​ ​​​​

Category: Uncategorized

F l/r aming with Pride

TOO PROUD ?

Some years ago, I got a call from a National Council of Muslim organisations, who wanted to react on a poster that was created for the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia. This poster was depicting two girls with rainbow-colored head scarfs holding hands.  I was already bracing myself for a tough homophobic conversation but to my utter surprise, the Council’s request was not to protest about the idea of Muslim Lesbians. Actually, they were very supportive of the depiction of sexual diversity among Muslim women (you probably can sense it was a very progressive country, which I won’t name). Their opposition “merely” centered on the attitude of the women: “You see, they explained, the veil is a symbol of modesty. It is not their sexuality that triggers our members, it is the indecency of their attitude[1]”. In other words, they were just “too proud”.

We are in the heart of Pride season and global communications are flooded with the frame of Pride, which triggers just as much exhilaration as acrimony.

While sexual and gender minorities are carrying the Pride frame literally as a flag, opponents voice their (at best) uneasiness by a notion they perceive as (at best) irrelevant, antiquated, and exclusionary.

There are countless moves to try to discredit the “Pride” approach, to make it look like aggressive and indecent instead of what it is: a source of hope and self-respect.

At the other end of the opposition spectrum, we have all raised our eyebrows in disbelief at the idea of a Straight Pride, but daft as it is, the idea reflects that the frame of “Pride” is something that is worth investigating more.

First, a very quick reminder of what framing is: our usage of certain words (and/or images, symbols, etc.) triggers certain pre-existing meanings, representations, notions, values, feelings, etc. that we hold in our minds. They act like shortcuts: The image of a heart triggers the notions of care, pleasure, comfort, and surely other things depending on any particular culture.

Framing is the art of activating these shortcuts, while avoiding triggering the ones we don’t want.

Good Pride Turned Bad

(Hi, Rihanna!)

For sexual and gender minorities, the mere vision of a Pride flag triggers notions of self-worth, protection in numbers, liberation, recognition, fun, and much more. For many of our allies it triggers feelings of celebration, fun, friendship.

But what does “Pride” trigger in the rest of society? At least, what does it trigger in “Western” cultures? This is a big debate, worth of many better articles than this one but let me share a few initial thoughts.

As one of the seven deadly sins, pride has a mixed reputation. On the one hand it is viewed positively as a sign of healthy mental and psychological balance, but take it out of its socially controlled borders and it’ll become hubris, narcissism, arrogance, and vanity.

And this is where the “LGBTQI-Pride” gets tricky: By taking the authority to be naming what can be a source of Pride, and how Pride is allowed to manifest itself, sexual and gender minorities challenge what a given society’s majority  feels to be theirs. The distribution of pride and shame is one of the fundamental instruments to shape societies.

Because of its very nature to challenge the ownership of this instrument, Pride has a disruptive effect that goes well beyond our enemies.

Biases reinforce the frames

The notion of Pride is particularly uncomfortable for people when associated with two mental structures: the slippery slope bias and the zero-sum thinking. The slippery slope bias posits that there is an incremental tendency to everything. Therefore, once Pride has become the new normal it will “escalate” into arrogance and possibly (and that’s really the end of the world as we know it) LGBTQI supremacy.

Somewhat relatedly, the zero-sum game mentality implies that for someone to win something, someone else has to lose it. So if LGBTQI people can be proud, it means someone else has to be ashamed. As crazy as this seems to the rational mind, this might well be going on in the symbol-oriented emotional mind.

Because these biases are not limited to our enemies, we have to be aware of the “side-effects” of our use of the Pride frame, of course not to diminish its prevalence because its presence is vital for most, if not all, of us but to balance these side-effects out.

The “zero-sum game” bias for example can be weakened with a few “Proud Ally” signs, or with representations of the future that includes everyone, not just us. The slippery slope biases can be challenged with images of “normalcy”, like rainbow families.

In public representations of Pride, many different messages are visible, and this often provides a sort of “natural” framing balance. But in our own communications, we are much more selective on what we show, share and shine. It is therefore really important that we keep increasing our awareness of the act of framing, and our savviness in how to strategically frame our communications.

Because changing hearts and minds mostly happens under the surface.

Having said that, HAPPY PRIDE !!!!

As said, this issue deserves a stronger conversation. To share your insights, join the Creative Campaigners Facebook group.

[1] I am not going to dwell over whether this is an acceptable stance. Other conversations are needed for this.

 

Expert talk webinar recording: confronting Disinformation campaigns

On the occasion of the launch of Sogicampaigns new free online course on how to fight disinformation, we organised a webinar with experts from different world regions to share insights into challenges and responses in dealing with disinformation campaigns.

We are sharing the recording of this webinar here. It brought together:

Mariam Kvaratskhelia – co-director Tbilisi Pride

Mariami Kvaratskhelia (she/her) is a passionate advocate for LGBTQI rights and equality and is recognized as a prominent leader in the community. As a co-founder and director of Tbilisi Pride, Mariam has been tirelessly campaigning and advocating for the rights of LGBTQI individuals in Georgia since 2015. 

Umut Pajaro – Researcher and consultant on AI ethics, Colombia

Umut (they/them) is a Black Caribbean non-binary person from Cartagena, Colombia working as a researcher and consultant on topics related to AI ethics, and AI Governance focusing on finding solutions to the biases towards gender expressions, race, and other forms of diversity usually excluded or marginalized. They are part of the Internet Society as Chair of the Gender Standing Group. They were speaker and moderator on the Internet Governance Forum, Mozilla Festival, RightsCon, and other tech and digital rights conventions, mainly focusing on sessions related to AI. They also were Mozilla Festival Wrangler 2022 and Ambassador 2022 – 2023, and Queer in AI core organizer from 2020 to 2021. 

Robert Akoto Amofao – Advocacy Manager Pan Africa ILGA, Johannesburg, South Africa

Robert Akoto Amoafo (he/him) is human rights advocate, organisational development coach and certified trainer. He was the Country Director of Amnesty International Ghana from 2018 to 2021, Communications Advisor to the Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Protection in Ghana, and Technical Advisor on the HIV Continuum of Care Project at FHI 360. Robert was a member of the International Advisory Committee of the Power of PRIDE Project run by COC Netherlands, Pan-African International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Trans Intersex Association (ILGA) and ILGA Asia. 

Damjan Denkovski – Deputy Executive Director of the Centre for Feminist Foreign Policy, Berlin

Damjan (he/him) is the Deputy Executive Director of the Centre for Feminist Foreign Policy in Berlin, leading the Centre’s work on human rights and international cooperation. He has been with the Centre since 2020 and is mostly curious about how we can strengthen cross-movement alliances and solidarity to counter exclusionary actors and narratives. He comes from a background in civil society capacity strengthening, peace building, and research. 

Moderator:

Alistair Alexander – Reclaimed.Systems, Berlin

Alistair Alexander (he/him) leads projects that explore technology and its impact on the information and physical environment, From 2016 to 2020 Alistair led The Glass Room project (www.theglassroom.org) – with exhibitions worldwide, reaching over 150,000 people worldwide.

At https://reclaimed.systems, recent projects have included: Resonant Signals sonification workshops with ZLB Libraries, Facing Disinformation online training programme, Green4Europe Hackathon for tech sustainability projects in Georgia and Ukraine, digital sustainability for the Gallery Climate Coalition

 

 

Linking and Learning officer

Work opportunity

Develop and implement our learning programme

Background:

SOGI Campaigns is a global training and resource hub for LGBTQI+ campaigners. We have collected 150+ case studies and developed a dozen free online learning courses.

We are looking for a part time consultant to support LGBTQI+ campaigners worldwide to access these resources.

Main Tasks: 

  • Develop and implement a dissemination strategy, particularly on social media
  • Promote our online courses to LGBTQI+ activists worldwide
  • Offer assistance and guidance to activists who enroll in our online courses

Deliverables:

  • A dissemination strategy, with expected outputs and outcomes, timeline and budget
  • Weekly social media postings and engagement
  • Monthly reporting on inputs, outputs and outcomes

Timeline/fees:

We are seeking a regular collaboration over an initial period of  one year. Time load will be defined in discussions with successful candidate.
Fees will be discussed according to time load. Candidates will be expected to develop a costed proposal after time load has been jointly agreed on.

Profile:

· Passion for creative campaigning on LGBTQI+ issues
· Social media fluency
· Experience in developing online learning events such as webinars
· Fluent written and spoken English
· Ability to work independently and to report on work

This consultancy does not involve travels and all activities shall be performed from consultant’s home and with consultant’s equipment.

Thank you for sending your application, including a CV and a cover letter indicating ideas on how to meet the objectives, to contact@sogicampaigns.org

Confronting Disinformation Spreaders on Twitter Only Makes It Worse, MIT Scientists Say

This article appeared on vice.com

Of all the reply guy species, the most pernicious is the correction guy. You’ve seen him before, perhaps you’ve even been him. When someone (often a celebrity or politician) tweets bad science or a provable political lie, the correction guy is there to respond with the correct information. According to a new study conducted by researchers at MIT, being corrected online just makes the original posters more toxic and obnoxious

Basically, the new thinking is that correcting fake news, disinformation, and horrible tweets at all is bad and makes everything worse. This is a “perverse downstream consequence for debunking,” and is the exact title of MIT research published in the ‘2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.’ The core takeaway is that “being corrected by another user for posting false political news increases subsequent sharing of low quality, partisan, and toxic content.”

The MIT researchers’ work is actually a continuation of their study into the effects of social media. This recent experiment started because the team had previously discovered something interesting about how people behave online. “In a recent paper published in Nature, we found that a simple accuracy nudge—asking people to judge the accuracy of a random headline—improved the quality of the news they shared afterward (by shifting their attention towards the concept of accuracy),” David Rand, an MIT researcher and co-author of the paper told Motherboard in an email.

“In the current study, we wanted to see whether a similar effect would happen if people who shared false news were directly corrected,” he said. “Direct correction could be an even more powerful accuracy prime—or, it could backfire by making people feel defensive or focusing their attention on social factors (eg embarrassment) rather than accuracy.”

According to the study, in which researchers went undercover as reply guys, the corrections backfired. The team started by picking lies they’d correct. It chose 11 political lies that had been fact checked and thoroughly debunked by Snopes. It included a mix of liberal and conservative claims being passed around online as if they were hard truths. These included simple lies about the level of donations the Clinton Foundation received from Ukraine, a story about Donald Trump evicting a disabled veteran with a therapy dog from a Trump property, and a fake picture of Ron Jeremy hanging out with Melania Trump.

Armed with the lies they’d seen spreading around online and the articles that would help set the record straight, the team looked for people on Twitter spreading the misinformation. “We selected 2,000 of these users to include in our study, attempting to recreate as much ideological balance as possible,” the study said.

Then the researchers created “human-looking bot accounts that appeared to be white men. We kept the race and gender constant across bots to reduce noise, and we used white men since a majority of our subjects were also white men.” The researchers waited three months to give the accounts time to mature and all had more than 1,000 followers by the time they started correcting people on Twitter.

The bots did this by sending out a public reply to a user’s tweet that contained a link to the false story. The reply would always contain a polite phrase like “I’m uncertain about this article—it might not be true. I found a link on Snopes that says this headline is false,” followed by a link to the Snopes article. In all, the bots sent 1,454 corrective messages.

After the reply guy bot butted in, the researchers watched the accounts to see what they’d tweet and retweet. “What we found was that getting corrected slightly decreased the quality of the news people retweeted afterward (and had no effect on primary tweets),” Rand said. “These results are a bit discouraging—it would have been great if direct corrections caused people to clean up their act and share higher quality news! But they emphasize the social element of social media. Getting publicly corrected for sharing falsehoods is a very social experience, and it’s maybe not so surprising that this experience could focus attention on social factors.”

Getting corrected by a reply guy didn’t change the way people tweeted, but it did make them retweet more false news, lean into their own partisan slant, and use more toxic language on Twitter. Rand and the rest of the team could only speculate as to why this occurred—the best guess is the social pressure that comes from being publicly corrected—but they are not done studying the topic.

“We want to figure out what exactly are the key differences between this paper and our prior work on accuracy nudge—that is, to figure out what kinds of interventions increase versus decrease the quality of news people share,” he said. “There is no question that social media has changed the way people interact. But understanding how exactly it’s changed things is really difficult. At the very least, it’s made it possible to have dialogue (be it constructive, or not so much) with people all over the world who otherwise you would never meet or interact with.”

Engaging with supporters outside of campaigns

These precious insights were shared by the UK agency More Onion. More onion works with progressive non-profits to deliver high-impact digital campaigns and fundraising.


One of the biggest challenges of non-profits is how to keep their email audience engaged when there’s no campaigning action to take. Relationships with supporters shouldn’t stop just because you don’t want something from them right now, engaging communications are vital for year-round relationship development and growth. We have been especially impressed at AgeUK’s work in this area and wanted to share one example with you below.

What we love about their emails:

  • The tone and content are clearly developed with a strong understanding of their audience.
  • They clearly value the expertise and experience of their supporters and ask for their input as equals, not just using supporters to amplify the organisation’s own voice.
  • Their communications are brilliantly joined up with other parts of their work, including fundraising. In our experience, this pays off in terms of engagement and income.
  • They take the time to craft thoughtful loyalty emails showing the impact that your past actions and donations are having, not just in numbers, but through personal storytelling and photographs.

Trans Day of Visibility – Conversation on Campaign Strategies & Ideas

 

 

Transgender Visibility of Day (TDoV) on March 31st celebrates the resilience and success of Trans* and gender nonconforming people.

As we celebrate Trans* visibility, we particularly think of those who still feel invisible, even in their own communities and live every day in fear of discrimination or violence. On TDoV and every other day of the year, we must fight for a world where every trans person is respected and protected!

Though the COVID-19 pandemic limits in-person celebrations for TDoV 2021, activists and campaigners are working within the restrictions to shine a light on Trans* rights.

In order for Trans* activists to exchange experiences and ideas about campaigning under the COVID-19 pandemic, we organized a webinar where we had the opportunity to hear the voices of Trans* campaigners and activists from around the globe.

You can access the entire recording from our webinar here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fighting back disinformation

Like many of us, you might be facing attacks from opponents consisting of lies, propaganda, and other forms of disinformation.

A natural response is often to snap back with the truth. But one of the foundational principles in communication is that the “currency” of communication is not Truth, but Meaning.

So what is to be done, to reclaim people’s awareness of the reality?

This article from Nonprofit Quarterly offers interesting leads.

In a nutshell, the lessons are:

  1. Train people who do your comms in how disinformation works. Especially, train them to  not repeat the disinformation: denying that “homosexuality is not a sin” just serves to reinforce the connection between the two elements in the unconscious mind of the audiences
  2. Listen to how your own community spreads disinformation: Some lies are obvious and will be automatically screened. But some are subtle and might be spread by your own community. Make sure you also scrutinise what your own “field” is saying.
  3. Be serious about monitoring the field: disinformation spreads like a bush fire. Reacting too late is useless. There are some good tools out there to help you react in real time. 
  4. Disinformation engages feelings, like fear and excitement. Make sure your own comms do the same.
  5. Being reactive is good. Being proactive is better. Plan disinformation before it happens, and you will help “inoculate” your audience. Again, there are good tools out there to help.
  6. Collaborate across organisations to build on each other’s knowledge and expertise in fighting disinformation

Defanging Disinformation: 6 Action Steps Nonprofits Can Take

 and 

January 26, 2021

On January 6, some of us watched the storming of the Capitol with horror and surprise. Others of us watched with horror and resignation—an awful feeling that this was an inevitable outcome of the past four years of increasing right-wing extremism and surging disinformation incited by President Donald Trump.

In a BuzzFeed article entitled “In 2020, Disinformation Broke the US,” reporter Jane Lytvynenko recapped a perfect storm of disinformation that led to this point. Conspiracy theories around a “plandemic” shadowed scientific research about the novel coronavirus and how it spread across the globe. Racist lies about antifa-led violence marred the beauty of mass global protests for Black lives. Trump and his GOP loyalists’ attacks on the integrity of the elections eclipsed conversation on record voter turnout. Together, these streams of disinformation have undermined trust in public-serving institutions and even our democracy as a whole.

Disinformation like this has been effective in part because it preys on the raw emotion of fear. In moments of heightened uncertainty, disinformation offers easy scapegoats and appeals to a primal “us versus them” mentality. Disinformation also depends on old and often racialized narratives to gain traction in people’s minds and in the public debate. For example, false claims of voter fraud piggyback off of old narratives about government corruption and Black and brown criminality. “Plandemic” disinformation relies upon anti-Asian and anti-communist narratives. Because of this, we need to combat disinformation not only at the level of social media posts, news articles, and communications platforms, but also at the broader level of narrative strategy.

Over the past four years, we have seen facts take a beating from a number of abusers. But of course, disinformation did not begin in 2020, or even in 2016. As Steven Pool writes in the Guardian, there has never been “a golden age of perfect transparency.” Misinformation, disinformation, propaganda, and hoaxes can be traced back to ancient Rome.

Today, we are in a particularly evolved (or devolved) era where we’re plagued with what Claire Wardle of First Draft calls “Information Disorder.” The US as a nation has contributed a great deal to this global state of affairs. It has also contributed much of the technology through which disinformation propagates while remaining relatively buffered from its effects, until now. Renowned Philippine journalist Maria Ressa has characterized the current American confrontation with Orwellian disinformation as blowback, saying “Silicon Valley’s sins have come home to roost.”

The disinformation we’re facing today is no less than a technology-assisted form of soft power and social control. Dr. Joan Donovan, research director of the Shorenstein Center at Harvard, defines disinformation as “the creation and distribution of intentionally false information for political ends.” Bad actors seed false information online by manipulating algorithms and relying on unwitting actors to spread it, creating cascades and echo chambers where the misinformation is reinforced. The result is a spectrum of harmful impacts, from general confusion to vaccine rejection to the radicalization of white nationalists. All the while, harmful narratives of scarcity, competition, and survival of the fittest become more deeply entrenched.

There’s an old adage that says, “A lie can travel around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes,” and these days, those analog lies have the power of billions of bots and digitally connected humans behind them. The pandemic has put more and more people across the globe online for more hours in the day and has limited our access to trusted community sources of information that relied on in-person connections, such as church gatherings and neighborhood meetings. Disinformation now travels at the speed of the internet and has been shown to spread faster than the truth. In this context, disinformation is becoming more effective at generating chaos and seeding doubt in reality.

But we can fight back. And as mission-driven institutions committed to uplifting unifying values, the nonprofit sector has an important role to play.

In this context, we offer six action steps for nonprofits to combat disinformation, defend democracy, and build narrative power for progressive change:

1. Train staff and stakeholders in disinformation literacy.

Much like a virus, disinformation can only spread through susceptible hosts. We can help our staff and stakeholders inoculate themselves and their communities by training them to recognize misinformation and disinformation, and to resist the urge to share it.

There is a wealth of existing tools for nonprofits to draw on to build disinformation literacy in our organizations. Donovan and her colleagues created the excellent Media Manipulation Casebook with examples of disinformation campaigns and how they have spread. ReFrame and PEN America created a Disinfo Defense Toolkit with election-specific as well as general tools for building disinformation literacy.

In Minnesota, ISAIAH Communications Director JaNaé Bates says they first and foremost train staff and members to use their own “Spidey senses” and deeply held values to detect disinformation designed to harm their communities. Specifically, they use the Race/Class Narrative curriculum to train organizers, influencers, and member leaders to help them recognize and respond to racist dog-whistles.

Bates also started a disinformation alert newsletter with Faith in Minnesota and statewide partners. The newsletter, Repugnant, features a pug dog who calls out disinformation and racially coded dog whistles. One of the issues was titled “Don’t use the F word”; it advised readers to avoid repeating the word “fraud” at all costs when talking about voting—even when trying to debunk claims of voter fraud. This is because repetition of words like “fraud” directly contributes to disinformation around voter fraud, both by increasing the volume of conversation around fraud, and by reinforcing the cognitive frame of fraud.

This is one key mechanism by which disinformation spreads—through humans more than bots, and sometimes these humans are actually trying to debunk the disinformation by sharing it. If nothing else, nonprofits must train our stakeholders to not feed disinformation to the algorithms, and to share vetted and engaging stories that advance our larger narratives instead.

2. Listen for misinformation in your communities.

Oftentimes, full-blown disinformation streams begin as murmurs within our own communities. Nonprofits can add methods to listen for misinformation to the feedback and communication loops you already have with the communities you serve. ReFrame has created a START [Strategic Threat Analysis and Response] tool to help nonprofits document this process.

For example, organizers with Florida for All created a Slack channel that allows volunteers to record misinformation they hear from community members they call and text. Other methods include creating a misinformation tip form on your website or putting out a call for direct messages about misinformation through your social media accounts. If you have a communications person or team, they might devote a half hour every day to scanning social media channels for misinformation shared by followers and allies.

3. Integrate real-time narrative research into your program work.

Since disinformation can go from low chatter to trending topic in an internet minute, it’s critical for nonprofits to have access to real-time research on these trends. To this end, nonprofits can develop partnerships with institutions that conduct research on how conversations spread. This research can help keep your organizational communications from amplifying brewing disinformation and can indicate areas of political education or training necessary to inoculate stakeholders against new trends. This research can also inform new areas of work like the platform accountability campaigns run by MediaJustice and Kairos and the disinformation-specific program work of The Leadership Conference and United We Dream.

Potential partnerships abound: Research institutions like First Draft News specialize in daily and weekly research on disinformation trends. The Shorenstein Center conducts research on how disinformation spreads through various corners and various types of actors of the internet. ReFrame and its sister c4, This Is Signals, conduct research on narrative weather trends that include disinformation as well as trends in broader stories and conversation.

ReFrame and This Is Signals’ approach, adapted from Upwell, combines machine intelligence with human intelligence to monitor the “narrative weather” and to track conversations over time. The tools used for machine intelligence scrape data from different platforms (YouTube, Twitter, reddit, news sites, etc.) to yield broad trends such as spikes in conversation on topics like “police” or “socialism.” Then, researchers apply human intelligence to home in on the content of these conversations among specific audiences (for example: what Black elders 65–80 years old were saying about police after George Floyd was murdered, or what Venezuelans on the right versus the left were saying about socialism in the month before the presidential election). Taken together, these methods allow researchers to aggregate what people are saying and where they are saying it to identify what is resonating and what isn’t with different audiences in moments across time.

Groups in Florida partnered with ReFrame and This is Signals during the election to apply this research. Natalia Jaramillo and Jonathan Alingu of Florida for All both identified the pairing of narrative research and constituent-based communications as best practices.

“Yes, let’s have our content banks and messaging guides,” says Alingu. “And we need the ingredients to adapt and tailor messages in real time to different constituencies.”

“We tried to feed the research into spokesperson prep and media appearances,” says Jaramillo. “We have to invest in infrastructure that allows us to be more spot on and respond to the emerging conversations, and that doesn’t treat communities as a monolith.”

4. Tell stories that engage feelings.

We also need to up the emotional content of our storytelling. While we can’t just fight disinformation with content, no matter how constituency-specific it may be, we can make sure that the content we do create has more impact.

Disinformation travels faster than factual information in part because of sensationalism, which activates people to share out of deep emotional impulses like fear and excitement. Disinformation streams give new emotional urgency to old narratives and thrive in voids of clear, factual, and equally emotional information. Therefore, our content must engage feelings, but rather than prey on fear, our content can focus on movement-building emotions like joy, rage, humor, and pride. We can do this without giving into sensationalism because there is so much authentic emotion in our work. Examples include the Movement for Black Lives’ GOTV content and victory video.

The secret lies in not being afraid to focus on individual characters and relationships who represent larger communities and issues. In work with the Disinfo Defense League, Donovan has used the example of sharing accurate information about voting by explaining how your grandmother is going to vote, rather than just sharing the dry facts.

5. Fill the voids, and plan ahead to prevent the spread.

Here is how Alingu is thinking about future integration with nonprofits in Florida:

We need to incorporate disinformation research into opposition planning and support members in critical thinking. We also need to look at information voids and make sure we’re communicating with people to fill those voids, because otherwise what fills those voids is disinformation.

We know that once disinformation is amplified, it’s difficult to erase its impacts; once the genie is out of the bottle, it’s hard to squeeze it back in. So, as much as possible, we have to prevent disinformation from spreading as early as possible in the chain of amplification, and provide accurate information to spread in its stead. To accomplish this requires planning.

Nonprofits can incorporate disinformation defense into various levels of planning to inoculate communities against disinformation for the long term. All it takes is knowing what makes the communities you serve vulnerable, and proactively moving narratives that are both explanatory and values-based to create a foundation of inspired understanding that leaves no room for disinformation to creep in.

For example, in Florida, when Alingu talks about information voids, one of the voids they identified was a lack of information reaching eligible Black voters that both acknowledged historical conditions of voter suppression and offered detailed information to help people overcome these obstacles. What thrived in that void was disinformation about rigged elections that ultimately discouraged some from coming out and voting at all. Alingu says he will apply this lesson to planning for future electoral campaigns and for their upcoming legislative sessions.

6. Collaborate across organizations.

When we asked Donovan about the role of community organizers and nonprofits in combating disinformation, she replied, “While I know the pandemic will end, or at least we will manage it through treatment and vaccines, I do not know how misinformation-at-scale will be slowed without a similar whole-of-society approach.”

One hub in this approach is the Disinfo Defense League. The League was started last year by the Media and Democracy Action Fund to fill a void in the larger disinformation field and to focus specifically on disinformation targeting communities of color heading into the 2020 election. This is an important formation for nonprofits to connect with, contribute to, and learn from.

Organizations interested in collaborating in the fight against disinformation can develop specific partnerships to share research, collaborate on communications, co-create narrative strategies, and train overlapping constituencies. Whether we are focused on slowing the spread of misinformation specifically or on shifting the narrative terrain to make it more hostile to the manipulation of facts, it will take a whole ecosystem response to seed new trust in our institutions and our democracy.

Unchecked disinformation poses an existential threat to our society as a whole. But the same technology that allows for the spread of disinformation also allows for the spread of beauty, connection, and collaborative creation that was completely unfathomable to our ancestors.

Similar to responding to pandemics, we cannot rely solely on the efforts of a few good people or a few good organizations to beat back disinformation. Neither can we solely rely on one network of organizations, nor the self-regulation of social media giants. We can take steps to curb the rising influence of disinformation, and we also need to challenge and overturn old narratives that give disinformation a foothold in the public imagination. In their place, we can seed new narratives that reflect the aspirational values of a vibrant multiracial democracy.

Jen Soriano, Co-Founder of ReFrame and MediaJustice, is a writer and nonprofit consultant who has spent twenty years doing cultural and political work to shift narratives toward justice. 

Hermelinda Cortés (she/they), Program Director at ReFrame and This Is Signals, is a strategist working at the crossroads of politics, culture, and narrative to build powerful movements towards the liberated world we and future generations deserve.

Joseph Phelan, Co-Founder and Executive Director of ReFrame, is a creative strategist grounded in social movements working towards liberation for all people and the planet. 

What will make people care for you?

As a campaigner, you deeply care about your subject. And your ultimate goal in (that part of your) life is to get as many other people as possible to share your concern, and take action with you. But there are many misconceptions about how to do this. We share here a couple of clever insights that we pulled out of the article “What makes people care” from the Stanford Social Innovation Review.

————–

First tip: Informing people doesn’t work

Social service organisations collectively spend millions of dollars each year on communications that focus on informing people. Sadly, these kinds of efforts ignore the scientific principles of what motivates engagement, belief, and behavior change. Consequently, a lot of that money and effort invested in communications is wasted.

Research from multiple disciplines tells us that people engage and consume information that affirms their identities and aligns with their deeply held values and worldview, and avoid or reject information that challenges or threatens them.

Research tells us that people are really good at avoiding information for three reasons: It makes them feel bad; it obligates them to do something they do not want to do; or it threatens their identity, values, and worldview.

People seek information that makes them feel good about themselves and allows them to be a better version of themselves. If you start with this understanding of the human mind and behavior, you can design campaigns that help people see where your values intersect and how the issues you are working on matter to them.

For example, researchers have found that people anticipating feeling pride in helping the environment were more likely to take positive action than those anticipating guilt for having failed to do so.1 

“I’ve learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel,” poet and writer Maya Angelou once said. Research backs her up. To gain influence on your issue, you’ll need to understand what compels people to invest their attention, emotion, and action. If you’re going to make a difference, you have to use the science of what makes people care as the foundation of your strategy.

Second Tip: Move from monologue to dialogue

When you walk into a crowded cocktail party, you do not loudly introduce yourself and spout facts and opinions from the middle of the room. Instead, you grab a drink, scan the room, and look for a conversation or group that interests you. You sidle up, listen for a while, and—when you have something to add—join the conversation. Organizations often aim their communication efforts toward building their own profile with messages and tactics that are more about them than about the issue they’ve set out to address and the audience they are addressing. They are essentially walking into a party, announcing their presence, and asking people to pay attention.

This requires advocates to move beyond a focus on building and disseminating a message to stepping into the world of their target community. Think of communication less as a megaphone and more as a gift to your audience. Does it help them solve a problem? Does it make them feel good about themselves or see themselves as they want to be seen? Does it connect to how they see the world and provide solutions that are actionable? If we want people to engage and take action, we have to connect to what they care about and how they see themselves.

 

1 Claudia R. Schneider, Lisa Zaval, Elke U. Weber, and Ezra M. Markowitz, “The influence of anticipated pride and guilt on pro-environmental decision making,” PLOS One, vol. 12, no. 11, 2017.

How PR pros can harness the power of podcasts during COVID-19

This article first appeared at PR Daily

 

The format has grown even more popular despite fewer commuters during WFH. Here’s how communicators can make the most of it.

However, as routines shifted and the world acclimated to the “new normal,” this has changed. In the U.S., 18 percent of adults said they are listening to more podcasts since they started isolating and social distancing, according to Morning Consult, and Gen Z has increased podcast use by 31 percent since they started social distancing.

Spotify has reportedly seen an increase in podcast listening during activities such as cooking, doing chores and family time, Ostroff said, and the top 10 publishers reported a 52 percent increase in unique live streams in May 2020, over May 2019.

Among the thousands of podcasts launched during quarantine are:

  1. Here’s the Deal – Former Vice President Joe Biden’s new podcast.
  2. El hilo – The second podcast by Radio Ambulante Estudios, for Spanish-speaking audiences.
  3. Wind of Change –  An eight-part podcast series created by Pineapple Street, Crooked Media and Spotify, led by New Yorker staff writer Patrick Radden Keefe.
  4. EPIDEMIC with Dr. Celine Gounder – A twice-weekly podcast on public health and the coronavirus.
  5. SSW People’s Radio – A weekly podcast featuring stories and interviews from the people of the South Side of Chicago.

The ‘new normal’ for podcasts

What does this mean for PR pros?

If pitching podcasts isn’t already a central component of every media relations campaign, now is the time to start making this tactic a bigger priority.

Podcasts offer exceptional opportunities for executives to conduct long-form interviews during which they can convey multiple key messages, the company’s brand values, and their “hot takes” as thought leaders. They also empower companies to connect in a meaningful way with niche audiences, who are often devout listeners of the podcast, and who may truly move the needle for them. In addition, podcasts present an exceptional platform for exploring contemporary and complex social justice topics, if doing so is on-brand and appropriate.

However, effective podcast outreach isn’t as easy as doing a simple Google search to see what articles have been written on which topics and by whom. Becoming familiar with a podcast requires listening to several episodes—yes, each entire show, from beginning to end—to research the recurring segments, themes and types of guests the show invites on.

Still think podcasts don’t have a large enough reach to warrant the effort? Consider this: “The Joe Rogan Experience” podcast gets an estimated 200 million monthly listens, which is over four times the reach of The New York Times online, at 43 million unique viewers per month.

 

Here are the top 10 podcasts in the U.S., by ratings:

  1. Crime Junkie (229.5K) – A true crime podcast by audiochuck.
  2. The Joe Rogan Experience (165.3K) – The podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
  3. Call Her Daddy (120.9K) – Alex Cooper and the Daddy Gang exploit the details of their lives.
  4. My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark (126.1K) – Lifelong fans of true crime stories tell each other their favorite tales of murder.
  5. The Ben Shapiro Show (96.6K) – “The hard-hitting truth in a comprehensive conservative, principled fashion” brought to listeners by Ben Shapiro.
  6. The Daily (65.7K) – “What the news should sound like,” hosted by Michael Barbaro and created by The New York Times.
  7. Office Ladies (59.4K) – “The Office” co-stars and best friends Jenna Fischer and Angela Kinsey do the ultimate re-watch podcast.
  8. Stuff You Should Know (51.3K) – An iHeartRadio podcast covering everything from champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD and El Nino to true crime and Rosa Parks.
  9. Up First (37.4K) – NPR’s “news you need to start your day.”
  10. The Dave Ramsey Show (22.6K) – A financial podcast devoted to “straight talk on life and money.”

Podcasts are the new blogs

Podcasts are replacing blogs as the premier outlet for thought leadership content.

If PR pros don’t already have the capabilities to create a podcast, now is also the time to get in the game. This includes learning how to secure and use the right equipment, record the podcast audio (including backup audio and possibly video recordings), generate a run-of-show and content calendar, secure guests, create structure, create introductions and upload the podcast for syndication.

The upside of producing podcasts over blogs is that they present an opportunity to exponentially expand brand awareness.

If podcast guests are invited to speak on the podcast each week, and every podcast is shared by the guests via their social media channels, the podcast audience can grow organically. This presents a phenomenal opportunity for brands to expand their footprint by inviting synergistic brand representatives to be guests on the show.

The downside of producing podcasts, from a PR perspective, is that the executives have to do more of the work themselves. In other words, no one can ghostwrite a podcast, even if a team can help with the production end of things. It requires a serious, ongoing commitment from the leaders within the organization, who must then show up (often on camera) and feel comfortable sharing their thoughts on various topics publicly, which can veer into political waters quickly, without warning—and without any intention to go there.

It could be especially worth it for brands in the top five categories currently demonstrating increased listenership:

  1. Design
  2. Food
  3. Music
  4. Medicine
  5. Music history


The future of podcasting

Regardless of whether PR pros decide to dive into pitching or producing podcasts during the pandemic, one thing is certain: Those once odd little audio programs that seemed like fringe mediums are not so little, odd or fringe anymore.

In fact, at the start of 2020, 75 percent of Americans were familiar with podcasts—up 10 million from the year before, according to Convince and Convert—and 55 percent of Americans have now listened to a podcast, up 51 percent in 2019.

Since the first podcast was recorded in 2004, this medium has grown exponentially, and today podcasts actively competing for serious advertising dollars. Experts predict podcast advertising will surpass $1 billion by 2021.

Since most of the nation is still quarantined, this seems like the perfect moment for PR pros to research and invest more in this growing medium—while there’s still time to get ahead of the rising curve

 

.