Darren g. Lilleker Soundbite/Soundbite Culture

A soundbite is a line or sentence taken from a longer speech or piece

of text that can be used as indicative of the broader content. They are

used widely in the media to define an argument, message or policy.

ORIGINS AND LINKS

The soundbite has always been a feature of media reporting. When a

political actor is interviewed, or when they give a statement or produce

a manifesto or policy document, sentences are extracted by broadcasters

that fit with the framing and agenda of the subsequent report. The length

of the soundbite has been reduced drastically over the last four decades

since the 1960s, leading political actors to begin inserting them directly

into speeches themselves, in an attempt to control the coverage of

speeches. Thus a feature of modern speeches is that one brief, vivid phrase may stand out amid much less lucid and more opaque detail; this would be the phrase the writer wants to be inserted into the reports in the

media. This is a central feature of modern news management.

The politician argued to have first used soundbites in a strategic

manner is US President John F. Kennedy; his famous ‘Ich bin ein Berliner’

(I am a Berliner) spoken to offer his solidarity to West Germans living in the shadow of the Berlin Wall remains paradigmatic of his period of

office. In 1964 and 1966 UK Prime Minister Harold Wilson picked up on this style, using it effectively in his first two successful election

campaigns. Subsequent political advisors recorded the necessity for

devising a ‘simple phrase that could be used in speeches, quoted by the

media and generally stick in the public mind’ (Day, 1982: 8). Over the

last two decades since the 1980s soundbites have become a central

feature of speeches, subsequent media reports, and are a staple skill

required for writing political communication.

The soundbite is central to the notions of professionalised

communication. The use of key phrases to attract media attention, and so

control coverage, is as much part of the postmodern election and

permanent campaign, as leafleting was and is. Any political speech that is publicly available will contain a soundbite, probably several, and it is

currently argued that it is impossible for politicians to speak without there being soundbites embedded within their conversation style. Most political actors appear in control during interviews and intersperse their arguments with memorable phrases designed for posterity. Some argue that soundbites have now become virtually subconscious thoughts made aloud, one example being Tony Blair’s well reported, and often pilloried comment: ‘this is not a day for soundbites, for today I feel the hand of history upon us’, on leaving the Stormont building following the brokering of the Good Friday Agreement, so beginning a ceasefire between Northern Irish paramilitaries. Success can be difficult to measure; however, when considering their use and pick-up

rate it can be indicative to locate hard copies of speeches, identify the

soundbites and then check the media for their appearance.

THE ACADEMIC AND PRACTICAL DEBATES

Whether soundbites have become a subconscious element of common

parlance, or if speechwriters are becoming more skilful at embedding

them, almost instantaneously within a statement, is unknown. However,

commentators note the rise of a soundbite culture. The obsession with

receiving positive news coverage that transmits the right message to the

audience means that politicians compete for news coverage through

soundbites. Thus political discourse is no more than a meaningless set of

rhetorical phrases, each lacking in substance and depth and saying nothing meaningful about actual policy. In this environment, it is argued, there is little wonder that the public are ill-informed, disengaged from electoral politics and cynical when a politician opens his or her mouth.

In their own defence, politicians argue that soundbites are a necessity.

If they were to deliver statements in complex, procedural language, listing facts, figures, deadlines or other important information it would just not be reported. They argue that important information is weaved into soundbites, and offered to journalists; it is the media’s fault that it is only partially transmitted to the audiences: the soundbite should be the hook on which a range of factual information can be hung. Thus it should act as a heuristic, a point of reference for the audience; however, often it becomes the sole feature of the story without being fully contextualised.

This leads journalists and politicians to enter a vicious circle of blame,

with both the media and the political communicators seemingly working

in opposition to one another despite both relying on the other for news

coverage, on the one hand, and news items, on the other. Thus academics studying the use of soundbites recognise them as a common and enduring feature of modern political communication, even if some argue they are unwelcome, unpopular and counter-productive.

FURTHER READING

For an early study of strategic communication in a UK context see B. Day (1982) ‘The politics of communication, or the communication of politics’, in R. Worcester and M. Harrop, Political Communications: The British General Election of 1979. London: Allen & Unwin. A broader history, focusing mainly on the UK but with comparative examples, is M. Rosenbaum (1997) From Soapbox to Soundbite: Party Political Campaigning in Britain since 1945. Basingstoke: Macmillan. A critique of the use of soundbites, and of the emerging soundbite culture can be found in D. Slayden, R.K. Whillock and R. Kirk (eds) (1999) Soundbite Culture: The Death of Discourse in a Wired World. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Источник: Lilleker D. Key Concepts in Political Communication. - Thousand Oaks: SAGE, 2006, P. 188-190.