Impolitic 4: News Vs Twitter

 

A discovery: politics is everywhere. Not ground-breaking as discoveries go, I grant you. But I suppose what I’ve really discovered, is that I must have been squandering huge amounts of energy avoiding politics before now. Across every radio and TV channel, the bonging of Big Ben was the signal to channel hop. So as soon as I decided to take an interest in politics, the veil was lifted and news appeared to spout from every screen and speaker within earshot.

The chiming of Big Ben is in many ways a sound comparable to the sounds and rhythms of every news bulletin. The perfect middle-class monotone of the newscaster. The well-rehearsed words of a speech. It’s emphasis practised and predictable.

One could hardly describe the average news segment as charismatic. But of course the general flatness in delivery, archetypal of the newscaster, is intentional. Their job is to remain impartial. Objectivity over subjectivity. The complete removal of emotive responsibility. It is the unwritten contract held between public and newscaster. Let the stories speak for themselves so that the audience may draw their own conclusions. Yet, despite this intentional removal of personality, we are still obliged to sit through the casual adlibbing of co-anchors, usually with little success at achieving nonchalance.

Twitter Vs. News

This impersonal approach hardly makes one enthused about watching the news either. No wonder the viewings are going down. You know what young people are like. Give us bright colours, made up words and sound effects. That’ll get the young’uns involved! Patronisation of my own age bracket aside, Twitter is the news channel for the younger generations.

TV is attempting to assimilate with the new media, displaying Twitter feeds alongside live coverage. The effect is somewhat confusing, and many viewers agree.

“Dave from Tumbleridge says, ‘Why is the Chancellor sharing half the screen with the thoughts of @iLivThruTwitter and #tags about his unkempt nose hair? It is distracting and inane.’ Thank you for your thoughts Dave…”

Continue reading

Impolitic 3: “It’s not Dinner Party Conversation”

Dinner Party Battle Edit

(For those who are unfamiliar with my earlier posts: I am 21 and until recently, I made no effort to engage with politics. I recently made the decision to change that.)

The way the media and indeed the parties themselves perpetuate the hype and tit-for-tat style of campaigning, it is difficult to know what and who you are really voting for. It’s so easy to vote for the person rather than the policies, the Figurehead rather than the Party. What’s more, it is not uncommon for someone to align with one party, but fail to relate to that party’s leader.

“I vote for The Whatsit Enthusiasts, but Mr Thing-a-me Bob is a nincompoop.”

Why is it so common for the general public to find themselves backing a leader they think incompetent? Political leanings can flip-flop dramatically when a new Party Leader is elected. And, come the general election, you might find yourself voting for who you want to be PM as opposed to what party you want in charge.

Policies begin to take a backseat. Likeability and public presence become overriding selling points. It’s a popularity contest no one can ever truly win. We are often faced with men and women who have been coached on how to present themselves. But people are not stupid. I for one am very wary of people who try to market themselves at me – not to me, but at me. Though they were all guilty of it, the worst offender during the Leaders Debate was Ed Miliband. Miliband would periodically assume a practised posture: shifting his stance and looking directly down the camera, he would deliver what was clearly a prewritten speech, in measured, mannerly tones. Anyone I have spoken to about this has agreed with me. His attempts to stare down the camera and engage personally with his constituents was emphatically transparent and as such, ineffectual.

The Leaders Debate, while interesting, did little to help me reach a decision. As a first-time voter, I am striving to approach the election without bias or preconceptions and consider the policies for their merit, but feel inundated by bias on all sides. Whenever the P word comes up, Passion runs high, often with Prejudice not far behind.

“Politics and Religion are not Dinner Party Conversation.”

– I was told this not two days ago, after proudly sharing with the guests that I had watched the entirety of the Leaders Debate.

If talk of politics either leads to damaging statements born from preconception, or courtesy leads others to abstain from the conversation altogether, how am I supposed to gain an informed understanding of politics? How can young people find a credible, unbiased source of information that will not lead by the collar, but guide by the hand?

Answer:

Continue reading