What a weekend it was! Not only did we behold the massive nation-branding event that was the Royal Wedding, but public enemy number one, Osama bin Laden, was despatched. Both provided the news services with a tsunami of copy over a 96-hour timeframe. Further, it provided some insight into the nature of foreign policy communications and some valuable lessons to be learnt, or at least identified.

 

The timing of the events was curious and brought forth a number of questions. If they had coincided exactly, the global news machine would have had difficulty responding.

 

Any public affairs officer (as the Americans call them) would have immediately seen the phenomenal influence value of a successful raid, any dilution of which was to be avoided. As such, the timing would have been coordinated within an information synchronisation matrix; a matrix with ‘Royal Wedding’ plastered across it in red. Of course, other tactical considerations would have come into play but a clear avoidance of any other media event would have been high on the priority list. To maximise effect, the media had to be utterly focused on a great victory. And, boy, were they.

 

Increasingly, military and political staff are beginning to understand the nature of the information age and the power of information in the war of ideas. In foreign policy communications, not only is the mainstream media a major factor but social, digital, ‘now’ media is a force to be harnessed.

 

And so it proved. Whereas Twitter was under enormous strain during the Royal Wedding, it had its ‘CNN moment’ after bin Laden’s demise, from almost real-time tweets from a Pakistani local announcing the news through to its maximum tweet volume ever, peaking at over 4 million tweets per minute during President Obama’s statement at approximately 23:30 (US Eastern Time) on Sunday 1 May. Within two hours a Facebook page “Osama bin Laden is DEAD” had accumulated 150,000 likes. Within nine hours the number of blog mentions was at the 40,000 mark.

 

It appeared that the White House had gained the upper hand on the internet. But then came the reminder that one can never forget the tried and tested methods and protocols of good old-fashioned, traditional communication.

 

Within 48 hours, the grand narrative of victory was creaking desperately. Despite a terrifically difficult military operation, timed to perfection and conducted almost flawlessly, the deeper requirements of communication management appeared to have been forgotten amid the euphoria. Those requirements, especially in such a big and politically important story, were for detailed information to fill out and support the narrative, a careful coordination of that information, and an unerring eye on the overall strategic objective.

 

In a melee of jubilation and hubris, aimed only at securing the immediate news agenda, ‘ground truth’ got lost somewhere. Economically speaking, that ‘ground truth’ became a scarce, and therefore valuable, commodity, and it became clear that the White House was unable to provide it. As a result, credibility wavered as press secretary Jay Carney gave stilted and vague statements and deputy national security advisor John Brennan gave varying accounts of what had actually happened.

 

The void created by the lack of credible ‘ground truth’, not helped by the occasional forays of the US government into misinformation and deception, quickly generated disbelief, anger and conspiracy theories within vitally important publics, not least within the Muslim world and the Pakistani government. In grand strategic terms, a mighty victory had been blunted.

 

There are several lessons.

 

That internet media is a now a goliath within today’s information battlefield is without doubt. But its effects are manifestly difficult to understand and predict, especially for digital immigrants, as most senior military and politicos are. One only has to look toward the current issues over super-injunctions and Twitter to see how even very clever and senior members of the legal profession have misunderstood its nature. A deeper understanding of digital media, through education, must be an avenue to explore.

 

Some in Washington have claimed that Carney’s performance, upon which so much lay, was adversely affected by his absence from the ‘dominant coalition’. In today’s world, communication is a massive factor in deciding outcomes but is often left at the back; a soft instrument seen as a bolt-on. 

 

Any organisation wishing to play a major part in fashioning the world of the 21st century has to take communications exceedingly seriously. In any policy or strategy, communication has to run throughout as a deep vein of lifeblood. It seems that the White House may have forgotten this golden rule in its moment of glory.

 

Details matter. A key requirement in any complex but far-reaching event, in any context, is that information management allow rapid and comprehensive transmission of detail to those who will be informing the narrative. The Navy SEAL team that despatched bin Laden would probably have had helmet cameras, if not a Combat Camera Team with them. The value of the details of the operation should have been seen as gold dust, to be sprinkled over the actual victory as they were utilised liberally in the subsequent media engagements. The team should have fully debriefed a public affairs officer, well versed in media requirements, as a matter of urgency. It seems that, once again, the communication element was not given the priority it should have been.

 

Of course, it’s easy to be an armchair general (or communicator). Undoubtedly, the environment and conditions that surround these things are very complex, and some very experienced and capable people, not least Carney, were operating in difficult circumstances. But taking a moment to think of these complexities does allow a degree of understanding of foreign policy communications. The Royal Wedding, logistically challenging and requiring utterly detailed planning, was possibly a PR breeze in comparison to communicating through the aftermath of events in a northern town in Pakistan 72 hours later.

 

What a weekend indeed. The Royal Wedding proved to be a nation-branding event par excellence, whereas bin Laden’s death saw the US administration almost defeat from the jaws of victory.