Multivocal Apologetic Strategies in Political Scandals Orla vigsø & bengt johansson

Politicians and Scandals O. Vigsø & B. Johansson, JMG Politicians and Scandals

O. Vigsø & B. Johansson, JMG Scandal = Crisis Scandals lead to problems of trust, thus crises that can be harmful But harmful to whom? The politician The party The system, due to diminishing confidence in politicians as such And as we all know, crisis => crisis communication

O. Vigsø & B. Johansson, JMG Why Is It So Hard? Scandalous crisis communication is often unsuccesful, meaning that it does not restore faith in the politician or the party. Even if the crisis communication follows the lines laid out in apologia theory (Benoit, Hearit), it does not succeed. This is of course a problem for the politcians and the parties involved, but it is also a problem for crisis communication as a scholarly field. Apparently, there is a need for a new, elaborate framework for the analysis of scandalous political crisis communication in order to understand the challenges.

O. Vigsø & B. Johansson, JMG Our Framwork Our framework for an elaborate model for the study of crisis communication in political scandals combines three areas: Rhetorical Arena Theory The theory of Political Arenas Multivocality

Rhetorical Arena Theory O. Vigsø & B. Johansson, JMG Rhetorical Arena Theory

O. Vigsø & B. Johansson, JMG

O. Vigsø & B. Johansson, JMG

Gunnar Sjöblom: The Political Arenas O. Vigsø & B. Johansson, JMG Gunnar Sjöblom: The Political Arenas The party executives are regarded as actors in a multiparty system and act in three arenas: The parliamentary arena The electoral arena The internal arena (in the party organization)

Combining the Rhetorical Arena and the Political Arenas O. Vigsø & B. Johansson, JMG Combining the Rhetorical Arena and the Political Arenas When a crisis arises, a rhetorical arena opens up. The existence of the three political arenas means that the rhetorical arena takes on three different and specific forms within these arenas. The media do not constitute a singular entity, but a number of diversified voices with different impact in groups within the different political arenas. In short: how a scandal is conceived within e.g. the internal arena depends on the specific characteristics and the context, including the voice of the media held high by groups within this arena.

Political Crises: Multiple Arenas O. Vigsø & B. Johansson, JMG Political Crises: Multiple Arenas When a crisis arises, the Rhetorical Arena opens but within the three other arenas. The Rhetorical Arena Electoral Arena Parliamen-tary Arena Media Internal Arena

O. Vigsø & B. Johansson, JMG Contexts There is not ONE context which is significant for all three arenas. Every arena highlights its own context. The Media is not a single actor, but a diversified group. For every arena, there is a specific group of media which are considered relevant and significant. The type of the scandal is to be seen as a significant context for how the event is considered within the three arenas.

Types of Political Scandal (Thompson) O. Vigsø & B. Johansson, JMG Types of Political Scandal (Thompson) Types of scandal Characteristics Sexual-political scandals Financial-political scandals Power scandals Codes transgressed Sexual Financial/ political Political Principal forms of power Symbolic Economic/ political Implicated forms of power Likelihood of legal infringement Variable Moderate to high high

O. Vigsø & B. Johansson, JMG When In A Crisis… The politician or party must decide in which arena the apologia should be performed, i.e. to whom it is directed and which media are the most relevant for this arena and this audience. The politician or party must assess the potential damage within this arena and make that the core of the apologia. In most cases, the concept of a ”general ethos” which will be damaged is irrelevant. The damage is to be calculated within each arena. The scandal type will influence the scope of the crisis in the different political arenas.

O. Vigsø & B. Johansson, JMG Multivocality? The rhetorical arena theory point to the multivocality of a crisis situation, the existence of multiple voices in the arena and the impossibility of knowing beforehand which voices will appear. But the introduction of the political arenas also points to the choice the party or politician under attack faces: concentrating on one arena for the apologia, or targeting more arenas simultaneously. If the party or politician wants to address several arenas, there is a need for multivocality in the apologia as well, as the arenas have different logics and ways of looking at possible transgressions.

”What Went Wrong?” – or not O. Vigsø & B. Johansson, JMG ”What Went Wrong?” – or not The model can help explain why some scandalous revelations lead to full blown crises, due to the direction of the aplogia towards one political arena, neglecting the effect in the others. But it can also help explain why some scandalous revelations do not lead to crises, even if e.g. mainstream media consider they ought to. In those cases, the revelations are not seen as scandalous by for instance the internal arena, and the politician remains trusted. Furthermore, the diversification of the media leads to much more complex relations, as different media have very differnt impact in relation to the various groups in the three arenas.

O. Vigsø & B. Johansson, JMG Conclusions (so far) Rhetorical Arena shows how different voices are being spoken when a crisis arises But with a political crisis, there is not just one arena – there are three In these arenas, the accused has to perform a specific apologia, directed at the values this specific arena holds high. But the accused choses which arenas are significant to him/her/them. Thus the accused has to perfom a multivocal apologia in multiple arenas, or a univocal apologia directed at one particular arena. Media has been fragmented, and the consumption (and thus influence) of media tends to be compartmentalized (echo chambers etc.)

O. Vigsø & B. Johansson, JMG So, how a transgression is interpreted varies from one arena to the other, as does the evaluation of the performed apologia. The importance of the media depends on how the specific arena looks upon the media in question, as they may completely ignore the media or consider it to be lying. The accused party or politician choses which arena to direct the apologia to, and may completely ignore the reactions in other arenas. A ”scandal” may or may not trigger a crisis in the eyes of the accused, depending on which arena the accused thinks is the most important, and ignore the fact that others consider this to be a scandal.