How can politicians influence public discourse in the age of authenticity?
Responsible authenticity isn’t always the easiest blend, not least because authenticity has been somewhat hijacked by populism over the past decade. People want their politicians to speak and sound like them, not like trained hacks who have learnt a type of political accent that is totally adjacent to how the average person talks.
Let's look at our friends across the pond.
Kamala, Romney, and McCain, all esteemed politicians in their own right, lagged miserably in authentic messaging against competitors who had mastered the art. Many will remember Kamala’s cringeworthy attempt to tap into popular culture through her ‘brat-summer’ online campaign, but outside of the small and shrinking liberal-centrist bubble, this looked like a desperate attempt to appear relatable.
Politicians, wherever in the world they are, can build trust and connect with diverse audiences by creating content directly at the point of engagement for the average person, and, crucially, by speaking to them in the language they’ve come to expect.
The days of political waffle and non-committal filler are over - people expect direct communication, delivered in the way they view other content, which is increasingly online. For the most part, that involves watching normal creators who speak, sound, and behave in a way that resonates with them. Like other content, if people don’t like what they’re seeing, the algorithm detects it and shows them content they will approve of, and that keeps them on the algorithm’s social platform.
Traditional news media is a dying art form, and increasingly, people want short-form answers that delivers vote-deciding messaging in a way that is digestible, just like the rest of their content. The politicians who capitalise on building trust through this medium are often now the ones who get ahead.
What strategies or tips can work across platforms to engage voters without sacrificing credibility?
Frankly, it’s reaching people with the content they’re already engaging with. You’ve seen it from the Trump administration; they’re using political imagery and montages that have become a staple of the online right over the past decade. And it’s not just the Republicans in the US who are beginning to understand the art of ‘reaching people where they’re at’ - Zohran Mamdani just led a revolutionary grassroots campaign that garnered global attention, heavily powered by content that engaged his voter base. His older rival, Governor Cuomo, lagged behind, relying on traditional campaigning techniques. Ultimately, for both Trump and Mamdani, the outcome was the same: victory and, ultimately, power.
Then the question comes of credibility - and the answer is yet another question: credible to whom? In the eyes of their voter base, this is the kind of political messaging they now expect, as it aligns with their other content consumption habits. Do the deportation montages being pumped out by government departments seem odious to those outside the Trump voter base? Sure, of course they do. But that’s not who the content is intended to address. To his core voters, this is precisely the kind of content they have come to expect, and delivering it reinforces his credibility to the people it’s designed to reach.
How are authenticity and digital storytelling reshaping political engagement?
Many will remember Trump’s campaign launch in 2015 - it was bashful, unstatesmanlike and brilliantly authentic. Following an era of Romney’s, McCain’s, and even Bush’s, America had begun to tire of the same roulette of known career politicians. Even if, like Romney or McCain, they’d had successful lives outside of politics, these figures had become synonymous with the political elite, and they all said loosely the same robotic corporate answers that Americans had come to expect.
Since then, political discourse and digital storytelling have been shaped by a new brand of Trump-esque authenticity worldwide, evident on both sides of the political spectrum. Approximately 54% of U.S. adults report receiving news from social media at least occasionally, a trend that has increased year after year.
Assumed 2028 Democratic Presidential candidate, Governor Newson, recently instructed his new communications team to directly copy Trump’s tweeting style, posting all-caps monologues slandering the President in his own writing style. As they say, imitation is the highest form of flattery, and it’s evident that this kind of blunt, unstatesmanlike online political communication has now become the norm for engaging their intended audiences.
What potential pitfalls should reporters watch for when interpreting online authenticity and political branding?
Authenticity doesn’t mean politicians are right about anything they’re saying. Just because they’ve excelled in making themselves appear relatable, scrutiny still needs to lie with what’s under the bonnet - policy, expertise and convictions. Unfortunately, that scrutiny has become ever more difficult for reporters, as these ‘authentic’ politicians have also built personality cults, and scrutinising boring details like policy is no longer the sexy topic or even remotely popular. Gone are the days of debating taxation policies down to the last percentage; it’s mostly now about the top-line headlines that your average Joe can understand, with the boring details buried in the broadsheets for analysts to examine.
The other obvious answer is not to fall for the shiny branding - these are not products, they’re political candidates that will profoundly impact the lives of ordinary people.
Zohran Mamdani is just the latest example in the long line of recent US politicians to produce impressive, modern branding that fits outside the political norm. Reform has been producing similar modern branding and content in the UK.
Just because the branding wouldn’t look out of place in a trendy Soho or NYC cocktail bar, it doesn’t make the candidate even remotely more credible… at least it shouldn’t for reporters. To their audience, it absolutely does - otherwise they wouldn’t have used it.
