It’s becoming all rather predictable now. A demo or rally happens, the BBC ignores it and social media is suddenly full of people bemoaning the ‘ media blackout’. I’ve been guilty of it myself. It’s frustrating when a so called ‘impartial’ broadcaster appears to show such bias, but I’m rather bored of the furore now, and here’s two reasons why.

1) If your strategy to oppose austerity depends on getting BBC coverage then you, quite frankly, have no strategy at all. We know that the BBC’s coverage is skewed, we’ve seen their overreaction to UKIP and their studious avoidance of reporting anti-austerity stories. We know this. It’s so predictable you could set your watch by it. So why the obsession with getting the BBC to report demos? What does it achieve?

If you look at where successful challenges to austerity and it’s effects are happening (the living wage campaigns and some of the actions around university cleaners in London, to name but two), they are based around straightforward, old fashioned organising with a savvy eye on social media. They haven’t in any way depended on getting the big ‘old media’ coverage, and yet they’ve been more successful than some larger actions.

2) The obsession with BBC coverage is bad political framing. How you talk about your campaign, and the emphasis you place on certain aspects of it, is terribly important. A truism of any political action is that it’s not what you say about your actions, but how people hear it. When we take political action, and then bemoan how terrible it is that the BBC have ignored it, it sends the message that big media coverage is more important in the campaign than, in reality, it actually is. It tells a story that we need BBC coverage to be successful. We don’t. We can be successful without them. It also tells a story that getting the BBCs attention is more significant than getting people involved in a wider, grassroots level set of tactics. After an action like yesterday’s demo we need to tell stories of what it achieved, not what it failed to achieve.

I’m not saying that getting TV coverage isn’t useful to a campaign, but it’s just one way of raising the profile of political action. This obsession with the BBC does nothing to build campaigns and opposition to austerity. Every minute that is spent moaning about the BBC is a minute that’s not spent organising in a more successful way. Let’s end this obsession with the BBC. Let’s be our own media – learn to utilise social media and grassroots campaigning in successful ways. If someone has a practical strategy on how to change the BBC I’ll happily take part in changing it; but if we haven’t then we need to focus on what we can change

It sounds harsh, but some broadcasters ignore us. Let’s note it, get over it…and organise around the things we can change.

I’ll say right from the off that this is a personal view, and doesn’t necessarily represent the views of anyone or any organisation other than myself. This personal view also comes at a time when I’ve scaled back by activism to concentrate on studying for an MA in International Labour and Trade Union Studies. So, the criticism could be levelled at me of ‘what have you done’ and I’ll take that on the chin. Though I will say, taking time out to really study the current situation in the labour movement as a researcher and observer, rather than activist, does give an interesting perspective.

2013 was a mixed year. On the one hand, we didn’t see the call for a General Strike translate into any kind of reality but we did see victories. This was a year that was dominated by the General Strike call and my view on this hasn’t changed. It’s a call that has detracted from meaningful action and has been based on an attempt to transpose tactics from the past onto the present. This is understandable, the movement has comfort zones and we are all are affected by them. It’s seductive to believe that the TUC will spring into action but there are some things to consider.

First and foremost, is the tactic (and it is a tactic not a strategy) achievable, and is there a mood for it? The key thing here is not to conflate generalised anger with any immediate ability to deliver a tactic. Yes, a tactic like this needs building – but what we are talking about is the mass mobilisation of all workplaces, including those with little or no contact with unions at present. In effect, what we are talking about is not a General Strike, but coordinated action amongst mainly public sector unions, which is immediately less than what the term ‘General Strike’ conveys to most people. Which in turn creates a narrative of compromise and scaling back.

I wonder if there is a comfort zone with other strategies and tactics. I know with all certainly good union activists busted a gut agitating and building for action, but it seems that again anger did not turn into wider action. As trade unionists we learn our craft with a tried and tested set of actions – put out a leaflet, hold a meeting and this is how members get info, but do they work in every circumstance? A key question here is the that of ties. The creation of a network of personal ties between members. Often union work is the ‘organising group’ imparts and receives info from members, then the organisers go away and create a strategy. This can and does work well. However, sometimes, and I emphasise sometimes this means that individual members feel a strong tie to the ‘organisers’ but far less of a ‘union’ tie to fellow members. We all know as activists, it’s easy to organise an ‘event’ for people to attend, but much harder to build up solidarity between members, over time.

One thing that’s clear from such campaigns as the 3 Cosas campaign is that various successful ways were employed to create and maintain these ties, and the one I’m going to look at is social media. As Aaron Bastani rightly points out in this excellent article a lesson has been learned in 2013 that to successfully use social media for political organising, it has to exist amongst often long hard work creating ties and solidarity between members. A good example is one of the first successful Living Wage campaigns at Harvard University. Using a relational form of organising , campaigners spent almost two years of talking to people one to one, building solidarity between individuals before they even made their first demand. Once they did, it was far more effective because of the creation of these strong ties.

Unions often use social media in a way that reflects non-digital tactics. Something posted on Facebook is like an announcement at a meeting, and may create discussion, but is at heart a one way announcement. Often unions use Twitter accounts but never engage with replies. Don’t get me wrong, there are some very honourable exceptions to this, but it does happen. Much is made of social media in the Arab Spring, but one lesson is clear – it has to be something that is a two way conversation, a ‘choreography of action’ as Paolo Gerbuado (2012) describes it. Social media should not be just part of a tick list of organising. It seems to exist and evolve within the campaign as a living creatures strengthening ties and connecting people. Social media works best when it’s not a monolithic account imparting data, when it’s creating conversations, engaging with debates and dissents over strategy. It is at it’s strength when engaging and connecting individuals, building on ‘real life’ organising rather than replacing it; being the sign posts to opportunities to engage in collective actions with those you feel the strongest ties with.

Finally, and most controversially, I think our own history can work against us. I personally think, as an activist and a student of our history, the labour movement has achieved more for ordinary people than most other movements in history. We should rightly be proud of, and do all we an to preserve, our history: a history often distorted, denied and dismissed by our enemies. However, I think there is danger in how we use it sometimes. There’s no denying that beyond the ‘activist bubble’ or within certain specific communities that link to our history is weakened or broken. It’s an automatic reaction sometimes, when trying to mobilise members to point to the huge victories of the past. Sometimes this is a effective tactic, but equally often it can be counter productive and here’s how. Mobilisation and political activism is based on two things: narrative and perception. When we engage with members we tell stories, not overtly, but our engagement is often based around a narrative. So, a narrative of why an injustice is wrong, a narrative of solidarity when discussing collective action; and how we pitch these narratives is crucial, because they are how members perceive us. So when we talk about how unions in the past fought huge battles, or that in the past individuals sacrificed a lot for the movement, members with little conception of the history will here these words: in the past. This can create a narrative that unions are not effective now compared to the past, which may well be true. It tells a story of deescalation, of the shrinking of effectiveness. We cannot underestimate how far that disconnect with history has gone. I recently taught a new union rep, all of 18 years, who had never heard of Thatcher until she died. Am I suggesting ditching our history? Of course I’m not. It’s crucial that activists know where we have come from and the strategies used by past generations. What Im arguing is that we need to be far more strategic in how we use this history.

I recently overheard an activist tell a member that “we need a General Strike like 1926”, and the member retort “but that was last century” (and not to forget we lost in 1926). Immediately there was a barrier to mobilising. Our history is crucial, but when we first engage members we need stories of now, not stories of then. We need people to understand what they can achieve this moment, not what others have achieved in the past. Then, and only then should we start the education of the path our movement has taken.

So to sum up…well, since this was a bit of a ramble there’s not much to summarise beyond suggesting three to consider for this year:

1) Refocus our resources and energy into building that solidarity in workplaces, and accept that this is not a short term strategy. This does not mean abandoning what we currently do, but to seek ways to enhance our tactics to create the strong ties needed between members.

2) Reassess our use of social media. See it as something to be moulded to our strategies, and use it as a living network of debates, signposts. Use it as a catalyst rather than ‘just another way’ of putting info out.

3) Use our history as a weapon, selectively and skilfully deployed to maximum effect. Yet also accept that our history does not have all the answers – and our story of now can be as powerful as our story of then.

Ref: Gerbuado, P: 2012. Tweets and the Streets: Social Media and Contemporary Activism. London. Pluto

I joined the MA in International Labour and Trade Union Studies, at Ruskin College, in October this year, and after a fantastic, inspiring first weekend, I find myself struggling at times. Finding time to study. With understanding what I’m reading, and I’ll be honest, that ever present fight between tiredness and motivation.

So this blog is an attempt to put my thoughts in order, share some ideas, post interesting links and recommendations and reflect on how my ideas are developing.

I guess my starting point is that I have fairly clear ideas about what interests me. Labour and Trade Union studies is a broad subject which covers just about every aspect of social sciences: economics, sociology, communications, media studies, psychology….it’s got them all in one form or another. So, I guess knowing vaguely where I’m going with this is a head start.

My “thing” is social media, which is probably a polite way of staying I’m a union activist with a Twitter obsession. Fair comment. However, it’s becoming apparent that social media is becoming more than just a tool to organise with. It’s a catalyst, a factor in determining how people relate to, and react to, the issues that confront them.

Prior to joining the MA, my reading on it was confined to Clay Shirkey’s “Here Comes Everyone” and Erik Qualmann’s “Socialnomics”.  Both superb intros to the whole field, but now I find myself looking at it far more critically, and strategically. The Arab Spring was not a Facebook revolution, though it did play a role in certain aspects. It helped the world get smaller, it helped keep us more informed – but is it more than that?

Manuel Castell’s “Networks of Outrage and Hope” is throwing up some interesting ideas, and I’m certainly swayed by the whole idea of networked individuals, something also explored by Paul Mason in recent writing. (He’s guest speaker at next residential weekend *cue fan boy screams*

The second thing I’ve become fascinated by is social movements – Occupy, the campaign against student fees, UKUncut for example. Whilst they differ in crucial ways from trade unions in terms of tactics, there are shared values there, and whilst their activities can seem unfocused, it can’t be denied they have changed the debate. For instance, without UKUncut, would we be where we are on tax justice in the UK? Public opinion against tax avoiders and big companies being dragged before Parliament. At the very least there is an analysis and debate to be had here.

Also, 21^st century social movements are more and more inextricably linked to social media in organising, tactics and even in values (open access to ideas, horizontal structures etc).

The third thing that I am interested in is solidarity. A word we bandy around a lot, but what does it mean in reality. How does it work? What forces, influences and mechanisms are at play? Does how we relate emotionally and organisationally to others change when put through a prism of “solidarity”; and more to the point does it work? And does it also change in a ‘smaller’ social media dominant world where information flows like water.

So there you have it, the beginnings of a dissertation. A convergence of my three interests – all the “S”s – Social Media, Social Movement and Solidarity.

Now if you don’t mind, I’m at least three weeks behind on my reading. Or that’s what it feels like.

More dispatches on my MA experience to follow.