Ranting as a form of persuasion
Can public outrage at traffic, incessant legislative investigations, initiatives against outsourcing, or company-specific decisions on pending projects gain traction with media blasts? Is ranting an effective form of public persuasion?
There is a presumption even among corporate types that bureaucrats who frustrate you by sitting on your proposals for an unreasonable period of time without any feedback can be nudged into a sense of urgency by means of media pressure. This not-so-gentle push requires venting dissatisfaction in media to stampede the recalcitrant bureaucrat into seeing reason and frantically green-light some pending request. Of course, the company invokes “public interest” as a shield to ensure that the rant is untraceable to a particular source. Willing media assets are employed in this body banging exercise. This theory holds that nothing nudges a bureaucrat into action more effectively than being publicly depicted as incompetent, dismissive of the public good, or beholden to hidden interests pulling his strings. This bullying theory employing headline- inducing fulminations ( foreign investors will flee this country and treat us as an investment pariah), seems to accomplish the opposite effect. Bureaucrats and their masters dig in their heels and become unavailable for comment — we will not be stampeded into a hasty decision by powerful forces that exhibit their disdain for the national interest. Bureaucratic inaction is easily overtaken by the waning attention of a public distracted by yet another political football in play.
Anyway, sometimes the issues like clean energy or the benefits of virtual currencies are too technical and clearly benefit only particular companies.
It must be noted that bureaucrats consider it an affront to their masculinity ( or femininity) and power as the recognized Alpha Male or Reigning Valkyrie ( a Norse goddess who decides who dies in battle) to succumb to public pressure. ( I eat rants for breakfast.) Media, on their own, can make vociferous demands on behalf of an enraged public as differentiated from a BPO executive denouncing the proliferation of holidays and the increasing need for premium pay. Calls for action need to be seen as relating to public interest, as opposed to private benefits.
Still, politicians can change even publicly held positions in their own time and in their own way. They will espouse some “win-win” solution nobody is happy with. They will cite new information (commute time is rising and needs to be addressed) or the sudden realization of the public good — this project while supposedly despoiling the environment which has yet to be proven will raise the region’s GDP by 21%. It is axiomatic then that politicians only change their minds on their own and not due to public pressure. There is no mention of the effect of friendly persuasion.
Insulting public officials in an ambush interview where the besieged petitioner throws caution to the winds is guaranteed to invite only the ire of the targets. Enumerating a litany of fruitless meetings with bureaucrats who in the end failed to deliver on their promises simply raises the number of enemies. As economic suicides go ( a favorite turn of phrase for business types prejudiced by some government initiative) the reverses are seldom visited on the objects of the rants.
Perhaps the rise of corporate frustration ending up in media can be traced to the decline of influence peddlers, who used to move more quietly behind closed doors, but can cost as much as the required incentives. No longer are there reliable brokers who are practiced in the arts of working in the background, serving as some kind of consultant in getting things done. ( They are not always lawyers.)
In an atmosphere where corruption is ostensibly abhorred, frustration mounts and finds expression in media. The dearth of the old-fashioned and unlicensed influence peddler has opened up other forms of pressure or access.
Of course, new media offer new opportunities for rants. In this space, both the critic and the public official have equal opportunity. The latter has jumped the queue by employing trolls in an organized way to attack the attackers. The outcome has been a decline of civility and the rise of political noise. Troll power has even joined the mainstream with appointments to formal positions.
Rants may be counter- productive. Their penchant for the shrill and sensational ensures their ineffectiveness in influencing policy or policy-makers. Anyway, political targets have learned to shrug off media rants by dismissing them as... fake news.
In an atmosphere where corruption is ostensibly abhorred, frustration mounts and finds expression in media.