Can TV be used to their advantage in the run-up to the General Election?
We learned late last year that all three main political parties in British politics will have the opportunity to take part in three-live televised debates in the run up to the 2010 General Election.
This is a landmark decision by the politicians and the broadcasters alike and a first of its kind for this country.
Labour’s Gordon Brown, Conservative leader David Cameron and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg have all agreed to appear on these three live televised debates. The first is to be shown on ITV, the second will be on Sky and the third on the BBC.
The programmes will be broadcast in peak-time during the General Election campaign and will be around an hour and a half long in front of a selected audience.
Though is this something the British people really need? Could it be the pivotal turning point for British politics, which is seeing declining popularity?
Politics is in a drastic need of change. Voter turnout has been in decline since 1992, with the elections in 2001 and 2005 having the lowest voter turnout in over 60 years.
Many will argue that this is a blessing for free speech – having a live political televised debate. But is it really?
Having politicians speaking freely and head-to-head against each other is no different to when they are doing it the House of Commons, so why should it be any different on TV. Will the issues raised in these debates become diluted for the TV audience? Or will it be the same monotonous, speech-making regurgitation we have all become so used to.
Let’s hope these debates won’t be turned into a form of entertainment for the broadcasters – hoping to clutch those ‘all so important’ viewing figures. This must also not turn into some public relations-fest either creating a political fiasco.
Politicians today are becoming much savvier at portraying their image in the right particular way in the media. Sadly politics is becoming more interested in image, not policies. How you look is becoming more important than education, health or welfare.
David Cameron is very confident and slick with his image in the media and has very adept televisual skills – an asset for any politician. Tony Blair for Labour also had a very good PR image – until his downfall.
This looks very familiar to the media’s relationship with politics in the United States. These live televised debates between Labour, the Conservative and the Liberal Democrats are very similar to those that have for so long helped establish the result of American presidential races.
As we saw in the United States presidential election, the media played a massive role before and after Mr Obama’s victory. Maybe this was partly because he was the first black president of the United States. But the media storm was a significant factor in his inauguration.
Everywhere you looked Obama’s face was somewhere. Social networking sites also played a role – with Obama’s facebook page generating millions of friends, forgetting not to mention blogs among other things. This helped Obama spread his message to a wider audience than say the newspapers – or even broadcasters.
How about the other legitimate political parties though, don’t they have a say? For example, The Scottish Nationalists, Plaid Cymru, the Greens and UKIP. Would it be democratic and impartial not to let them raise issues in front of a national audience.
And if these live debates do bring in a massive audience, how likely is the performance of the politician likely to affect the viewers voting decision?
Whichever way you look at it, this is partial democracy – as not everybody is getting a say, but how possible is it to listen to everybody – not very realistic at all.
For a start at least the broadcasters are trying to enhance the image of politics and with these debates we can judge for ourselves.
On the Fence 