Editorial

Communication contends with fact-checking

 
Media coverage of the electoral campaign for the French presidential election in 2012 has shown us that the discourse of political decision makers is more than ever subject to strict, constant and almost instantaneous surveillance.

Challenged, monitored and subject to verification, the candidates’ discourse – and more generally, any public discourse – is now under the surveillance of those who, on the Internet and in television and radio studios, step in either afterwards or instantaneously with the true figures or the very latest declaration. This campaign has proved that the trap of ‘memory in a click of the mouse’ and ‘compiled data’ has closed around those whose discourses are inconsistent or who endlessly spout figures.

Indeed, the memory bank that is the Internet – which now counters the age-old saying that ‘there is no memory in politics’ – and the pressure of social networks – where anything can be said immediately – have led the media to joyously engage in the game of political fact-checking, a new journalistic craze which has become a public pastime. Therefore, public debate, and in this case political debate, now has a further constraint to deal with: the pressure of constant verification.

Let us briefly deal with the problem that this development has brought about, which is nevertheless important: why have so many media chosen to turn this practice into an almost programmed reflex? Doesn’t this verification – or need for verification – reveal a suspicion or a presumption of mystification which seems to be the media’s new technique for deciphering political discourse: mystification by figures, but also by turn of phrase, since many have been caught out on various types of declarations.

This undermining of the political discourse is a new phenomenon. Through this method, which is incontestable in itself and certainly welcome, the media is validating the idea that politicians lie to us, or could be lying to us, since the excuse of accidental error is generally given little credit. The media as a guard or a censor; this is what is at stake with fact-checking, that and the crucial issue of trust, which is normally the cornerstone of democracy. Therefore, in a world where everything is public knowledge, it is no longer possible to say everything and anything and the media have seized this chance to wield their power as a counterbalance. But it should not reach the point where verification replaces opinion in media coverage.

In this context, how much credit can be given to the promise of genuineness that some of those involved in this last campaign have taken great pains to claim for themselves in their communication stance? The old promise of ‘speaking plainly’ has now become ‘speaking genuinely’, the only difference being that their discourses no longer evaporate into thin air and that those who are caught in the act of lying are now immediately challenged. This is undoubtedly a fact that political communication must take it into account from now on.

This flexibility with the truth, which is now under surveillance in the political sphere, has long been unacceptable in corporate communication and the economic crisis has reinforced this situation.

Indeed, the exercise of comparing statements against the reality of the figures is something that directors of listed companies now take in their stride. Ever since they have been subject to the rules of financial communication, they are constantly judged by journalists, analysts, and even staff and shareholders, who sift through the company’s facts and figures with a fine tooth comb.

Company road shows, press conferences and interviews are all moments when the directors’ discourses must be based on verified figures, precise analyses, clear messages and true words, within the limits of the visibility that such a troubled period allows. Otherwise they could arouse panic amongst the stakeholders which include... politicians. Political mystification can now lead to electoral defeat, while economic mystification, and this has been the case for a long time, can cause a company to fail. Corporate communication is well aware of this, especially since the Lehman Brothers affair. And it is not only the case for financial communication.

The expectations placed upon what politicians say are now the same as those placed upon listed companies and vice versa if we look at the number of societal issues that the latter are faced with in the public debate. Parity, diversity, sustainable development, training, culture, and commitment are just some of the issues that company directors must take onboard.

Ultimately, it is undoubtedly because political leaders and company directors are actively involved in the public debate - and because they are confronted with the same society and the same opinion which encompasses, notably due to the explosion of media activity, the employee, the consumer and the citizen - that the expectations placed in them and their communication strategies are increasingly similar.