Tomorrow will mark two years since I started Full Spectrum Jordan. In the last two years, the region has changed immensely. In the past few months the world has entered another era of upheaval. Maintaining the newsletter has become a challenge to balance with my private clients and other writing. Many of you have asked me about the Muslim Brotherhood and the events of the past week. I cannot provide you with more information than has been provided already. But I do, however, have thoughts on the government's performance in communicating such a sensitive matter - and yes, it’s critical. A personal passion of mine (and topic of frequent heartburn) is political communications. That is what this newsletter was launched to address. But now the region seems to be on the constant brink of explosion, and the international stage changes every morning when President Trump wakes up. It is disheartening to see the Jordanian government still failing to adapt and evolve its communications. In this volatile world, where strong narratives are threatening to engulf us and our youth, you would think the state would finally develop a comms strategy against misinformation, conspiracies, and confusion.
Three things you should know:
Where their narrative failed: The immediate press conference by the government was a missed opportunity. Instead of establishing state strength and evoke support - the government chose to make it political. Why was the mention of the “previously dissolved group” such an important point to get across? It portrays the state as weak, by highlighting this is a previously dissolved group and yet is still a threat makes it look as if the state is not on top of the issue when in fact they have been since 2021. If your issue isn’t political you just made it one. Armed groups within the state are a redline - why? Because the monopoly of violence lays in the hand of the state - the group behind it should be irrelevant in that press conference, the one unified message that should have been to highlight that the intended danger that was not made clear to the public - there is only one correct narrative: the danger was to the people of Jordan.
Why another failure? Strategic communication is about reputation management not reactive talking points. Talking points are to get specific facts, quotes, or positions into the media in order to affect coverage of a specific story. Talking points are often reactive following an event or crisis. Reputation management is about always framing the issue to highlight the danger of such a group, and the strength of Jordan. And that would be true. Creating a frame for discussion is not spin, does not try to cover up incidents, or discount other views. A good frame is like a pair of eyeglasses, not a set of blinders. If the narrative is successful, the public will see things through your lens, even if they don’t agree. In this case they would have to agree. Children were under threat of being harmed by homemade weapons that could go wrong at any moment. The factual and effective way to portray them was ‘running with scissors’. After all, who was making these weapons? Specialist engineers with a lifetime of experience? Or Uncle Iyad learning from a few YouTube videos? Don’t make the other side seem strong or effective. Show them as they are - reckless and uncaring. Leave them with an image of Uncle Iyad.
Make it memorable: Every message opportunity should drive home its point and make it easy to remember. In this case, the public doesn’t need to remember the Brotherhood's history, or the 2021 dissolution, or get into its political motives. There are simple messages. a) Jordan fervently guarantees its stability. b) The state holds the monopoly of force. No other group is allowed to maintain force for the safety of the public. c) Any group that also tries to gather force for whatever use is a danger to the public, a threat to the children of Jordan, and a danger to the country’s stability. d) As a result, this group is being dissolved and prosecuted. Who will argue? Who thinks a strong modern state allows multiple armed groups to operate? (besides Idaho). Hit with a powerful leave-behind that is memorable and can’t be argued against. Endangering citizens with reckless actions is wrong. Full stop.
My Take:
Years ago, the government could treat the media as an afterthought- newspaper deadlines and evening news and some emerging websites. Now, 24 hour media cycles mean that stories can go viral and trends spin out of control. Social media trends mean that stories or events can impact a country’s reputation and become stories, even written by ‘influencers’, citizens, activists, and other non-journalists. Search engine results mean that negative stories in smaller channels or by lesser known journalists can be picked up for citation by larger outlets. Domestic and global media are no longer separate, and local writers and sources can quickly be picked up by global outlets. This is how you end up with the same five people always providing context for stories on Jordan. Foreign journalists are not Jordan experts and usually stationed elsewhere with other priorities. As if online media was not vicious enough, we Jordanians love conspiracy theories. For us, Joe Rogan is tame. Conspiracy theories abound when there is a lack of information (except for Idaho). Any official press conference or presentation will be picked apart if it is not concrete and clear.
We have a region that is frequently on the verge of an explosion. Youth have been radicalized and angered by the onslaught of violence for the past two years. We have a rise of new media, strong unified narratives with central messages all going against the state. And what do we do? We ignore all of this and deliver less than stellar press conferences and then (by tradition) issue a gag order. Our youth are out there online. I’ve written previously on the narratives being promoted online. If you focus on reactive statements without a frame, your message will only be dragged away by the strongest current opposing you. While Jordanians might not be able to write, share and read their own takes on the case right now, plenty of outside voices still can. A regional podcast I have previously highlighted in my ‘battle of narratives’ discusses this case at length, even indulging in questioning Jordan’s role and history. But that's ok, the gag order should take care of that, right? Or this one where the conversation was about the Muslim Brotherhood’s history instead of the fact that weapons were in the hands of a group outside of state control? While the gag order may have relieved the state of having to deal with the aftermath of a foggy communications strategy, it does not apply to the wider region and the multitude of platforms, shows and podcasts targeting our community and youth. These platforms are not debating whether the weapons were intended for domestic use or trafficking, they are debating the identity and place of the country and its leadership and our youth are listening. (On gag orders, these are used when a clear message was not conveyed. Easier to stop debate rather than clean up after one.)
I am appalled at the reckless endangerment of my fellow Jordanians by the weapons manufacturing and intended use. I am also frustrated with the official response which portrayed the Brotherhood as strong and a political foe when they are weak and endangering the public. This isn’t even about the Brotherhood. It is about any group that tries to use violence or force to achieve its message. It’s not allowed. It's against the law. It's a crime against the people. I am with the government that has embarked on courageous and promising reforms and initiatives to allow more inclusion in the political process. Yet fails to communicate it. We dwarf our role as the voice of consensus, dialogue and diplomacy, when we are still behind in a world of high speed, high intensity, social media. Enough. Let’s return to the same strength in our messages to the people that we have in our stability.