As well as initial research into the pandemic and the way it was handled by the government, I wanted to go even further to continue to research into the topic in order to develop more of an understanding for different aspects of the failed response and how they might start to shape the project.
At the moment, the only idea set in stone for the project is that it is aimed at relaying information about the governments failed response to Covid to a younger audience, the way in which I do that I’m still unsure about, so hopefully more research can help me start to generate some ideas.
The first part of the initial research which stood out to me was the idea of the government using propaganda during the pandemic. I had discussed and spoken to David before carrying out the research about the idea of the Government provocative and more emotional language in their briefings and seemed as though they were trying to pull the wool over everyones eyes in an attempt to ensure the public, in many cases, don’t question their decisions. I carried out some research into this and discovered that propaganda during Covid was actually well documented and many of the things I was questioning were actual issues.
The public information briefings that occurred at about 5 pm each day from Downing Street during the first lockdown in spring and summer of 2020 were episodes in propaganda straight out of the wartime playbook. Rather than being ‘public information’ events as they were so described, they were in fact filled with ‘strategic communications’ intent on manipulating the public to the ends of the powerful. They were carefully staged, choreographed and scripted by spin doctors and other political communications professionals working for a government that is addicted to propaganda and cannot fathom engagement in public communications through any other prism.
Furthermore, the UK government’s approach to Coronavirus briefings in the first half of 2020 may harm the long-term trust of the public in governance and the various organs of state that are entwined with the crisis. Public Health England, for example. Indeed, Chris Witty, Patrick Valance, Jenny Harries et al – by standing next to the cabinet minister of the day – may end up tainted as manipulators-in-chief themselves through their (and the organisations that they represent) implicit endorsement of the government’s approach to public communications.
In propaganda studies we differentiate between ‘public information’ and ‘strategic communications’. Both are forms of propaganda: mass communications intended to persuade a target audience of whatever is the source’s objective. However, public information focuses on truth-telling, the broadcast of facts (albeit selective facts), without spin and without a desire to create overly emotional responses among the audience. There isn’t any violin or piano music in the background and it keeps poetic or rousing language to a minimum. It gives the audience information clearly and concisely. It refrains from slogans and jingoism and maybe even take a warts ‘n’ all approach to its selection of information. It respects the audience and asks that they do what is in theirs and the wider public’s best interest to do.
Strategic communications, on the other hand, is the form of propaganda that people are most familiar with and most afraid of. Here, there tends to be greater urgency and anxiety that a target audience be appropriately railroaded towards the source’s determined end. Strategic communications tend to involve more provocative language than public information approaches. It encourages the audience to make decisions based on emotive rather than rational thoughts. It will align with ready-held cultural symbols (flags, patriotism, the Royal Family, positive moments within collective memory – war victories, for example) in order to achieve its aims. It may use misinformation or disinformation techniques but not always. This is the type of propaganda that people worry about for it involves psychological manipulation, the so-called ‘dark arts’ and possibly even the defilement of the human soul into engaging in barbaric activities that are the culmination of skewed logic and are certainly against better or even more humane interests.
The author also goes on to list many of the things to look out for, the sort of techniques that might be used within the briefings.
To this end, here are ten war propaganda techniques to look out for as the November ‘shows’ continue:
Appeal to the instincts rather than the reason of the audience.
Discuss definite objects rather than large concepts.
Build around a slogan. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.
Always consider the timing of the release of information.
Never be dull or offensive.
Direct communications solely to the masses. Do not talk about them.
Awaken the audience’s social conscience.
Make reference to episodes of gallantry and fellowship within cultural memory. E.g. Blitz spirit.
Encourage the notion that those on the frontline are national heroes.
Never deviate from the line that ‘victory will prevail’.
Dr. Colin Alexander is a senior lecturer in Political Communications and speaks extensively on the government and how they framed their communication during the pandemic. He states that the government used strategic communications within their briefings in order to reach the desired affect. It encourages the audience to make decisions based on emotive rather than rational thoughts. It will align with ready-held cultural symbols (flags, patriotism, the Royal Family, positive moments within collective memory – war victories, for example) in order to achieve its aims. The things I discussed previously about the governments clap for the NHS example where classic examples of this propaganda, they encouraged people in the UK to clap for the NHS using emotive language and cultural symbols to persuade them, whilst actually doing nothing to help the NHS over the course of the pandemic. Clap for NHS in itself uses many of the techniques to successful propaganda listed above, Appeal to the instincts rather than the reason of the audience, Build around a slogan. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat, Awaken the audience’s social conscience, Encourage the notion that those on the frontline are national heroes, and even more to further push this idea of the strategic communications. The more people thinking about how great the NHS is, the less people realise how little the government did to help them.
Another example was the lockdown, which as I discussed previously was guilty of being implemented too late. The government used the slogan ‘stay home, save lives’ and plastered it all over the place, everywhere they could possibly stick it. Again, the slogan itself follows most if not all of the techniques shown above, Appeal to the instincts rather than the reason of the audience, Build around a slogan. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat, Awaken the audience’s social conscience, Never be dull or offensive, Awaken the audience’s social conscience. The whole slogan was based around encouraging people to stay home during lockdown and used all of those techniques to encourage the audience to do so. And while the lockdown was definitely needed and by no means am I discrediting that, the whole idea of appealing to the audiences instincts and awakening their social conscience aims to convince people to move forward and accept the lockdown and in turn stops people from questioning that we should’ve gone into lockdown earlier, as Dr. Alexander states, filled with ‘strategic communications’ intent on manipulating the public to the ends of the powerful.
The whole idea behind the Covid propaganda is one which is really interesting to me, it questions the way the government communicate with us and in turn also questions the way they have responded to the pandemic, both things which are at the top of my ‘to do list’ for this project. The idea of pulling wool over the viewers eyes is one which definitely stands out to me, the way the government frame many parts of their communications to show the public what they want to see is definitely something which could be strong, maybe creating a speculative brand or campaign which covers up what its really about in order to illustrate what the government have done.
The Response
Lockdown
As well as the propaganda side of the response, the government has a multitude of things which people deemed they didn’t respond to in the way they should’ve, from lockdowns to improper funding of the NHS, to failed test and trace systems. It’s these mistakes the government made which is why the propaganda is such an issue in the first place, because it seems as though it is covering up for the mistakes made. I wanted to find out more about the mistakes and what characterises them, again in order to create a deeper understanding and hopefully use it to come up with ideas for the project.
He said the UK was served neither by “a very weak cabinet” nor Johnson’s character: “He’s not Trump, though there is something similar in their approaches, but in this kind of challenge you need to really work hard on details. He’s not a details person.”
Not assessing the details, facts and figures enough
Beyond Italy – where the Covid-19 death toll, which does not include suspected cases, is just over 29,000 – German commentators were also critical. Britain has emerged as Europe’s “problem child” of the Covid-19 crisis, the DPA news agency’s London correspondent Christoph Meyer wrote.
“Only a few weeks ago, Britain had the reputation of a country in which the coronavirus was only spreading cautiously,” Meyer wrote in an opinion piece published in several newspapers in Germany and Austria. “Politicians were already slapping each other on their backs and praising the health system, which was better prepared for the pandemic than any other country in the world. But that has quickly revealed itself to be a fallacy … There are now many signs that the government in London massively underestimated the pandemic.”
Underestimating the pandemic and assuming it would all just blow over with no big problems. Also no help for health care because it was assumed it was already prepared enough – again an issue with not assessing details and looking far enough into it, underestimating the damaging effect the pandemic might have.
In a piece this week drawing on the British prime minister’s frequent deployment of classical allusions, the London correspondent of Spain’s left-leaning El País queried suggestions that the prime minister was some latter-day Odysseus. “The conservative press tries to present Johnson as a man of reborn wisdom”, whose experience of Covid-19 had led him to “lash himself to the mast to resist the siren calls” of those demanding the lockdown be lifted soon, wrote Rafa de Miguel.
“In fact, it’s far from clear whether such determination is the fruit of careful calculation – or the result of simply closing one’s eyes when there’s no other option.” Officials in Greece, which has been widely praised for its handling of the pandemic, have watched London’s handling of the crisis with disbelief, with epidemiologists also criticising the UK government’s initial embrace of a “herd immunity” policy.
“Closing one’s eyes when there’s no other option” – leaving it rather than actively looking for a better option.
The progressive daily Ethnos described Johnson as “more dangerous than coronavirus”, saying one of the crisis’s greatest tragedies was that “incompetent leaders” such as Johnson and Donald Trump were “at the helm at a time of such emergency”. Before changing tack, Johnson “had gone out and essentially asked Britons … to accept death”, wrote the columnist Giorgos Skafidas.
Theres clearly many reasons for a late lockdown in the UK. There was calls for herd immunity which halted the calls for lockdown, incompetence from Boris in not realising what the consequences might be, even hoping that the infection rate and mortality rate would simply level out after countless deaths. Not only do the failings in terms of the late lockdowns show that the government wasn’t prepared enough to make strong decisions concerning lockdown, but it also shows that the government weren’t prepared enough the the pandemic overall. Ultimately there are so many failings on the governments part which I can take advantage of and use within the project, from specific comments to just ideas of how it was handled. Another idea which could work well is to take the response and the general aura of it and use that within a branding project, taking ideas like underestimating and not assessing details to show how that might look within a branding context, whether that be a new brand or changing aspects of existing brands to see how they might change.
The fact that the government clearly weren’t really sure what to do at all but acted as if everything they did followed a clear plan also falls in line with the idea of propaganda throughout the pandemic, misleading the public that everything is perfectly fine and accounted for, don’t worry about continuing to work, or going to the pub with your mates because you’re perfectly safe, when in reality the government were just hoping for the best.
Test and Trace
The government’s test-and-trace programme to combat Covid-19 in England has repeatedly failed to meet targets for delivering test results and contacting infected people despite costs escalating to £22bn, a damning official report has revealed.
The National Audit Office (NAO) has found that the centralised programme is contacting two out of every three people who have been close to someone who has tested positive, with about 40% of test results delivered within 24 hours, well below the government’s targets.
The report said a target to provide results within 24 hours of in-person testing deteriorated to a low of 14% in mid-October before rising to 38% in early November.
Government claims of contacting weren’t lived up to, meaning thousands of people received late or undetermined results.
Utilisation rates remained well below a target of 50% throughout September and for much of October. This means substantial public resources have been spent on staff who provided minimal services in return.
Jonathan Ashworth, the shadow health secretary, told the Guardian that the report has uncovered a gaping hole in the country’s defences against the disease.
“The £22bn test and trace now has a budget larger than policing and fire service combined, has seen multimillion pound contracts handed to big private outsourcing firms rather than mobilise experienced public health expertise, and failed to trace sufficient numbers of contacts or ensure those who are contacted have decent financial support to isolate,” he said.
The study from Whitehall’s spending watchdog found that up to the end of October, the scheme spent £2bn less than forecast due to underspending on laboratories, machines and mass testing. Of the £15bn of funding confirmed before the November Spending Review, about £12.8bn (85%) was assigned to testing and £1.3bn to tracing.
In total, 70% of early contracts by value were directly awarded without competition under emergency measures, the report said.
As well as lockdown, it’s clear that other areas of the response were flawed, in this case the test and trace system branded as being ‘world beating’ and ended up being nothing but. The money and contracts given to the test and trace system was questionable in itself, however the extent of its usefulness was even more questionable. The government, for whatever reason, clearly handed out the contract to a company under qualified and it came back to haunt them, with a budget bigger than policing and fire services combined, it still failed to trace and contact a sufficient amount of people and there was also questions asked about the support given after testing positive. None of which lived up to the standards set out by the government and was far behind the tracing systems in other countries.
Again, regardless of the specifics and facts/figures it’s clear to see that the government response in terms of the test and trace system was way below par and not only could’ve resulted in lives lost along the way, but also resulted in millions of pounds being lost. As I stated previously, using the characteristics of the failings by the government in a branding project is something which could be strong and could make use of the test and trace failings, from the use of money, to questionable contracts handed out to under qualified companies, to the way it was marketed as a world beating system (more evidence of propaganda/strategic communications looking to use good old British pride and arrogance to make the public feel assured).
NHS
NHS bosses have asked doctors and nurses to work without protective full-length gowns when treating Covid-19 patients, as hospitals came within hours of running out of supplies.
The guidance is a reversal of Public Health England (PHE) guidelines stipulating that full-length waterproof surgical gowns, designed to stop coronavirus droplets getting into someone’s mouth or nose, should be worn for all high-risk hospital procedures.
In a significant U-turn, PHE advised frontline staff to wear a flimsy plastic apron with coveralls when gowns ran out, in a move that doctors and nurses fear may lead to more of them contracting the virus and ultimately putting lives at risk. The PHE announcement on Friday evening came shortly after the planned move was revealed by the Guardian. Meanwhile:
- Nearly 15,000 people were confirmed to have died from coronavirus in UK hospitals, with the total rising by 847 on Friday to 14,576. After a peak of 980, fewer than 900 deaths have been recorded in hospitals for six days in a row.
- Only 21,000 tests were carried out – some of them duplicates – putting the government far short of its goal of 100,000 a day by the end of the month.
- The health secretary said Britain would restart tracing the contacts of people with coronavirus symptoms, having stopped in early March.
- The government set up a vaccines taskforce to help the development, rapid production and introduction of a vaccine.
The government confirmed that 1bn items of personal protective equipment (PPE) were to have been delivered across the UK by this weekend – but hospitals and care homes continued to suffer shortages, in particular of gowns. More than 50 frontline healthcare workers have died amid fears a lack of PPE is leaving them exposed.
Advising staff to use aprons instead of gowns carries the risk of a major confrontation with staff groups. The Royal College of Nursing last week made clear that nurses should refuse to treat patients if they were not happy that the level of PPE available would protect them properly. The British Medical Association, which represents doctors, has also warned that doctors’ lives are being put at risk by stocks of PPE having reached “dangerously low levels”.
Shortages of gowns in hospitals in England are far worse than Matt Hancock, the health secretary, has admitted, hospital bosses claim. “We are tight on gowns. That is the pressure point at the moment,” Hancock told MPs on the Commons health and social care select committee in an evidence session on Friday morning.
He said: “We have another 55,000 gowns arriving today and we’re working on the acquisition internationally of more gowns, but it is a challenge. This follows changing the guidance 10 days ago which increased the advice on the use of gowns but also said that they should be used for sessional use rather than for individual patient use … And it is a big challenge delivering against that new guidance and we’re doing everything we possibly can.”
He could not guarantee that every hospital would have the supplies needed to tide it over this weekend.
Hancock had sought to reassure MPs by stressing that 55,000 more gowns were due to arrive on Friday. However, those equate to about eight hours’ supply because the NHS is currently using 150,000 gowns a day.
There were only “several tens of thousands” left in the NHS’s reserve stockpile, sources said on Friday. “Gowns have in effect already run out,” one said. “The situation is so serious that some trusts will run out today and others over the weekend.”
The response in terms of running the NHS throughout the pandemic sums up the overall response, lack of correct funding, underestimating the impact the virus will have and not planning accordingly/hoping it would all just blow over, and lying about the amount of PPE and funding which the NHS was being supplied with. Similar to the other aspects of the response, it’s clear to see that even without looking into the specifics, the response was highly flawed and looks as though the government ultimately didn’t care enough. The same characteristics of the failed test and trace, lockdowns etc. are the same as the NHS in that certain phrases or features which allude to the governments response could be used within the project.
Again, the ideas themselves still need to be played around with however the goal is the same, to draw attention to the failed response of the government and give information to the audience allowing them to formulate their own opinions. I still want the project to be a branding project, and ultimately I think the way brands build up visual identities with recognisable features throughout could allow me to attribute characteristics of the governments response to a brand in order to sum it up within a brand, whether that be a new brand or an existing one.
Ben Jackson 