G20 Postmortem: Strategies for Communicating in Conflict

Posted on Monday, July 12, 2010

Media coverage of Toronto’s G20 was highjacked by the actions of some Black Bloc members, vandals and looters who burned police cars and shattered the storefront windows. The show was also stolen by the extreme security measures that were taken during the G20 with fortified barricades, surveillance cameras, the authorization of the use of sound cannons, and the invocation of the Public Works Protection Act. The media’s attention was further drawn to the actions of 20,000 police that charged Torontonians on horseback and on foot, shot rubber bullets at people, made the largest mass arrests in Canada’s history (over 900 people), and watched blithely as police cars burned in the streets (during the G20, police were transported via unmarked minivans; the burning cars were evidently an application of the Miami Model, which is used to legitimize the violation of people’s civil liberties). Controversy feeds the media, so it is hardly surprising that the messages that some 10,000 peaceful protesters were trying to communicate were subsumed by acts of violence—primarily by police who used batons, pepper spray and tear gas for the first time ever in Toronto; and also anarchists. 

All that aside, the most obvious factor that blocked communication channels was the articulation of a succinct message by the peaceful protesters. Here are Inbox’s ideas for large-scale messaging that can be used for communicating in conflict: 

1. Form a Coalition

Although the civil society groups, unions and NGOs represented at the G20 protest had diverse platforms, finding common ground could have gotten their message across. Inbox’s client, Independent Media Arts Alliance (IMAA), is a national coalition of some 80+ media arts organizations. Such a concentration would have allowed the organizations at the G20 to speak with a unified voice. Solidarity on such a large scale takes time, and would have entailed coordination at least a year in advance.

2. Great Leadership

All campaigns need spokespeople, but communicating a message in conflict requires great leadership. The heads of such a coalition should include leaders who are featured frequently in the media and understand the kind of commentary that makes news. To make such a coalition official in the public eye, its organizers could incorporate it as a not-for-profit umbrella organization to ensure sustainable communication for its community. In this scenario, a coalition of leaders of the legitimate protests could have made it clear that violence was antithetical to their organizations.

3. Know Your Message

Since many organizations protesting the G20 had a common message about such topics as women’s health, climate change and economic stability, a Web portal or Facebook Page could have listed the organizations that were converging in Toronto. In addition, it would also have presented a unified message—one that was constructive and not necessarily adversarial—something that could be easily articulated to the media. Even a one-sentence message that was supported en masse would have been meaningful. 

4. Creative Media Relations

A news release distributed by a coalition of groups to their respective media contacts would have sent the media a unified statement. It would have been particularly impactful had it been disseminated through a national newswire service. At the very least, the media would have been made aware that a massive coalition of groups was engaging in an easily understood platform via a new and enlightened model. Creative messages are a particularly strategic means of capturing the media’s attention, so the more imaginative and innovative, the better.

5. Spontaneous Media Interviews

During the G20, national, local and international media were all over Toronto. It’s very rare that such a critical mass of media is on the streets putting together their stories beside burning police cars and riot police. This would have been a great impromptu opportunity for organizations to get in front of the camera. At the very least, a conversation could have been had with the media. Such a radical intervention would have had to be done by high profile, well-respected leaders who are already well-respected by the public.

Tags:
Home › News ›