Televised Political Debate: 50 odd years in the making

By Tal-Anna Szlenski

“A historic moment in television” was how Alastair Stewart described tonight’s televised debate between Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Cleg on ITV. To that I can only respond, Yeah right. Erm, did the so-called Nixon-Kennedy debate taking place 50 years ago (yes, 50!) in the US, slip his mind?

The frenzy, zeal and buzz surrounding this happening borders on embarrassing. Don’t get me wrong, such an event is noteworthy. But in this case the hype should have been focusing on the content to be expected (or issues such as Nick Clegg appearing – is Britian truly turning into a 3-party system or is it just for show?) – not the format.

The significance assigned to the fact that this was to be Britain’s first televised election debate, becomes even more laughable considering the fact that much newer mediums have long been introduced to the election race. Just because it is a long overdue first, doesn’t necessarily make it a ‘decisive and changing event for British politics and political communication’. And yes, I am aware that this opinion goes directly against those who are keen to argue that the importance lies in the fact that all three leaders were gathered to discuss policy issues.

I on the other hand argue that apart from them standing in the same room when seeking to trump their rehearsed soundbytes through, this debate did not provide any legitimacy to claims branding it as a new dawn in British politics. Any such claims quickly fade in light of Twitter, Facebook, blogging and of course the 1960 debate between Kennedy and Nixon.

In postwar US a televised debate introduced the so-called personification of politics. It was truly a new way for people to engage with politicians. In a post-recession Britain, where people increasingly find themselves able to gain information and access to political happenings as they are taking place (in the name of transparency of course…), a TV debate is just one of many mediums driving forward the message of the politicians.

If ‘the medium is the message’ as our old beloved friend McLuhan claimed, then tonight’s debate only goes to show that the establishment’s approach to political communication is stuck in the past. This of course confirmed by the appearance of the ITV TV studio which would in mild terms be classified in a category starting with p and ending with an assé.

In other words – as confirmed by most commentators and bloggers out there, nothing groundbreaking in the content of this event either. My own little summary of sentiments derived from the debate:

• Gordon Brown: ‘Let me complete the projects we have started whilst in government. And by the way the recession is a global phenomenon – not just us affected (effectively, it’s not my fault).’

 

• David Cameron: ’13 years of Labour failures. We will provide solutions to mend broken Britain                                            ’, (blank space to denote the ongoing silence regarding Ashcroft and Grayling).

 

• Nick Clegg: ‘Labour, Conservatives – they’re all the same. They have ruled the country for the last 65 years. We haven’t. Now it must be our turn. We’re different.’

Spin in Polling: The Healthcare Debate

By Katie LaPotin

Taking a small break from British politics for the moment, across the pond in the United States Republicans and Democrats alike are dealing with the aftermath of the healthcare vote in Congress. Republicans are celebrating for the most part while Democrats in swing seats are working on saving face. Almost all polls taken over the past six months have a majority of Americans opposing the reforms just passed by Congress last month, and a Quinnipiac poll taken just after the bill passed has 49% of registered voters disapproving of the changes.

American voters generally agree on the need for healthcare reform. This has never been the issue at stake. Where the debate comes in is over the implementation of the reform. And that is where spin doctoring comes in…

Republican pollster Frank Luntz once said that “It’s not what you say, it’s what people hear.” There are few times that this is truer than now. I work as a pollster by trade, and I see this phenomenon occur all the time. If I were to write a survey asking the question “Do you agree or disagree that health care reform is needed?” a majority of voters would likely agree. They would also agree if the question read “Do you agree or disagree that healthcare reform is needed to make the process less bureaucratic?” or “Do you agree or disagree that health care reform is needed so everyone has the opportunity to have healthcare insurance?”

Yet, looking at polling conducted over the past year on the topic, this is not the case. Looking at one recent poll in particular:

Q. As you may know, the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate are trying to pass final legislation that would make major changes in the country’s health care system. Based on what you have read or heard about that legislation, do you generally favor or generally oppose it? (CNN/Opinion Research Corporation, 19-21 March 2010, n=1053 adults, MoE=+3.0%)

39% Favor
59% Oppose
2% No Opinion

A follow-up question was then asked to those voters who opposed the reform:

Q. (IF OPPOSE) Do you oppose that legislation because you think its approach towards healthcare is too liberal, or because you think it is not liberal enough?

39% Favor (from previous question)
43% Oppose, too Liberal
13% Oppose, not Liberal enough
5% No Opinion

As you can tell, there is bias to these questions—albeit not a political one. In the follow-up question, the pollster is trying to elicit a specific response from the voters about the political situation in Washington, D.C.—they want to know whether they think the Democrats in Washington have overstepped their bounds while writing the legislation. The same question could be used to ask about environmental policy, or gun control, or educational reforms.

And this is how all of the questions used by pollsters nationwide are being worded—less about the legislation and more about the reaction. And that my friends, is spin. Rather than looking at whether the American people want healthcare reform, we are asking about healthcare reform to spin the debate away from the general desire for reform to the public option, or whether the legislation has become political, or even if the Federal Government should be involved in the process of healthcare reform at all?

Spin is omnipresent and fits in well in the political world. To me, there is no politics without spin. And to some extent, there is no spin without politics.

An Unfair Playing Field

By Joshua Hatten

Well the election is finally here. Thank you Queenie for kindly agreeing. After 13 years of Labour rule there is a faint (fading, albeit) hope of a new era for Britain, although the polls are not promising.

A Poll this week conducted for the Guardian only puts the Conservatives four percentage points ahead of Labour. With those sorts of numbers I’m holding off on booking my flights and pre-purchasing tickets to Saturday night at Heaven in celebration– I couldn’t think of anything better. Unfortunately these are not fantastic numbers. I guess we’ll have to see what the mood is like as more polls are released this week. Not that 4% is to be snuffed at. The problem is that 4% will just not do. It may not even suffice for a hung Parliament with the Liberal Democrats holding the balance of power.

The reason for my concern lays in the parliamentary system itself. I’m not suggesting wide scale gerrymandering or rotten boroughs. The problem lies in Conservative voters deciding that the company of other like-minded individuals is to be preferred. Can you really blame them? I mean, except for a few artists or champagne socialists (the make-up of most of my left-leaning friends) who wouldn’t prefer dinner with a Conservative? It can be thought of like this: things are just generally more pleasant in this part of the world, warmer climate and fewer funny accents being just two pros for this region.

The Conservative heartland is in the southeast, not Scotland as many would initially believe. Because of this concentration of right-minded individuals whilst the Conservatives will probably win the popular vote (more votes in the ballot box across the country) forming Government (determined by seats in the House) is a much more difficult challenge. The concentration is the major problem. In 2005 in England for instance the average electorate in a Conservative-won seat was 73,217 and the average number of votes cast was 47,973 compared to 67,684 and 38,964 in Labour-won seats.

Twice since WWII has the party forming government had fewer votes nationally than that of the party relegated to the opposition benches, in 1951 and 1974. It’s my prediction that it could well happen again in 2010.

What are we to take from this? The Conservatives are greatly disadvantaged in this fight. Britain is at the cross-roads with Government debt spiralling out of control and a Labour party who has no plans on how to tackle this crisis, save introducing a new tax on jobs via a rise in National Insurance contributions.

If the Conservatives are not to win, and I hope this is not the case, those who are friends of democracy will have to look at the distribution of seats and how the people of Britain can be better represented. David Cameron and the Conservatives have a mighty battle ahead of them. I think the Conservatives can just get over the line, time and polls will tell.

Spinning Before It’s Been Spun

By Kyle Taylor

Well well, it looks as if a UK election is FINALLY just around the corner. After more than three years, Gordon Brown MUST trot down to Buckingham Palace and ask the Queen to dissolve parliament so the voters can remake it again. The tell-tale signs are there: Weird, confusing, totally unclear maps like the one above are being reproduced everywhere with captions like “breakdown of the UK electorate likely voter turnout by county excluding outlier opinions and small parties were the election to occur tomorrow.” WHAT? Is this it all scientific? Then there’s inevitably some new interactive feature that allows you to “sway the vote and see what happens.” What happens, you ask? You “spin” the dial and the colors change, making a graphic you initially could not understand even more confusing and turning you into a spin doctor in the process. “Look how easy it is to totally convolute the news,” they seem to say.

The other tell-tale sign? Each party begins to spin the election and “what it’s about” before it has even started, meaning they’re spinning before there is even anything to be spun! News reports like this one in the Guardian say thinks like: “the Prime Minister will say” and “the Tory leader will counter this by saying” and “that other guy from that other party will then double back by contradicting the first guy and chastising the second guy before declaring what the election is ‘really about.'”

The media used to be in the business of telling what happened. Now they’re apparently psychics, telling us what the news will be tomorrow! Isn’t that in and of itself – a newspaper that tells the future – a cover story?!?! The reality is that the “will say” is now code for: “We’re not going to wait to convolute, contort, manipulate, and angle our story. We’re going to try and spin it before it’s a story that way when it becomes a story, it won’t appear to be “spun,” it will just appear to be news.” It’s rather brilliant on their side, rather detrimental to get fair information on our side.

Are we to the point where we’re spinning and spinning so much at every stage in the game that it’s impossible to wade out the garbage, or are we as a public so aware of it now that we just simply write it off as “spin” and ignore it all? It’s hard to tell, especially when our base line may have actually been pre-spun for us too.

Stay alert Britain. This is a big one.

How to Appeal to the Electorate

by Tal-Anna Szlenski

Today’s Guardian offers some interesting comments and campaign suggestions for the two main parties from a line of advertising wizards.

Obvious from the proposed ad strategies is the fact that there is very little differentiation between the parties. Hence, as Richard Exxon, Chief Executive of RKCR, notes:

we may all need a shower after this election, but in the absence of any vision from either party, negative campaigning it is. By their sins shall we know them.

Somehow, I doubt the negative campaigning will reach US levels. But it should be interesting to see what is in store, and which scandals are yet to appear.

At the same time, as the parties seek to outdo each other in sleek PR performances (which have of course not always gone according to plan), I have to admit that it is ‘SamCam’s’ novice approach to the cameras which has caught my eye today.

I actually find it refreshing and endearing to observe her small hesitations and insecurity in front of the camera. To a great extent, her less than perfect performance underlines the irony in both Brown and Cameron seeking to appear ‘real’ and ‘in-touch’ with the electorate by hiding their imperfections through a documented usage of make-up and heavy air-brushing.

Humour: An Underrated Weapon

by Tal-Anna Szlenski

Internet, schminternet… What is arguably becoming the defining feature of the 2010 UK General Election is something as plain and simple as ‘humour’. Not that British humour is ever just plain and simple.

Judging by recent campaign initiatives, it appears that the British political machine is seeking to connect to voters through a mean which stirs reaction (a laugh, smile, frown, maybe even just a “what the ****?”) to a much greater extent than even the savviest iPhone application could wish to achieve.

As election fever rises, wit and satire have been heavily employed as the electoral weapon of choice. Just consider the Lib Dem parodical creation of ‘the Labservative party and Gorvid Camerown’, the many spoof entries of Conservative campaign posters to be found on MyDavidCameron.com, or the comic Conservative retorts following Labour’s poster depicting David Cameron as a 1980s Gene Hunt.

Usage of parody, satire and comedy is now no extraordinary occurrence. A Guardian April 1st mock story perhaps illustrated this best, when it led people to believe that the Labour party where to turn Gordon Brown’s bad-tempered reputation into an advantage through a string of tongue-in-cheek campaign posters presenting Brown as an alpha-male leader for Britian. It might have seemed rather peculiar, but not to the extent that it was unbelievable – hence many people fell for the joke.

Even after the revelation of the falsified story, the fabricated campaign-slogans “step outside posh boy” has gained popularity in its own right. T-shirts with the slogan are now on sale (though perhaps this is a continuation of the April’s fool story?), and the Tories have created their own spoof of what was a spoof ad in the first place.

This active usage of humour originating from the the political establishment itself (and not just satirists) is to begin with quintessentially British. Further, it is what makes this current election stand out and gain character, amidst the many wishful (not to mention wrongful) comparisons to the preceding US campaigns of Howard Dean and Barack Obama.

And perhaps it is humour which as a generally appreciated deed can serve as a valuable foundation for common ground when seeking to appeal to a broader segment of the electorate. If done right it will prove itself to be of much greater worth than kissing babies and visiting hospital wards in front of the camera.

And as such: let humour be the message, and the iPhone app be the messenger.

The Death of Spin?

by Kyle Taylor

Here with an entire online space dedicated to understanding and analyzing spin, it seems pertinent to raise the question, does spin even exist anymore, or has it just been replaced with flat-out lies?  There is a certain art-form to “spin.”  You’re taking the truth and finding the angle that’s most advantageous to your side of the argument.  Take the health care debate in the USA, for example.  Democrats spin the debate to lowering costs and covering more people.  Republicans spin the debate to big government and Communism.  At least, that’s the way it used to work.

Now, it seems, when most people support something (like health care reform) and your spin isn’t working, you just start lying.  You may argue there is a fine line.  After all, what is truth anyway?  We’ll save that question for a much more philosophical blog.  The difference between perception and reality can be quite enormous and spin attempts to turn reality into your desired perception.  I think politicians do know the difference and recently, when their perception hasn’t really “stuck,” they’ve decided it’s better to just make stuff up.  After all, once it’s on TV, it’s true!  Lets take Sarah Palin and her claim of death panels – this notion that the government will set up boards where old people have to go and essentially defend why the government shouldn’t kill them.  No, seriously, people believed this.  Or that the IRS is going to hire 16,000 new people to tax those who don’t get health care.  Also totally not true.

Entirely unrelated, Senator Scott Brown has started suggesting that Rachel Maddow, a TV commentator, is planning a bid for his Senate seat; a claim she has denied about 100 times in this video.

Does it matter that she has denied it?  Absolutely not, because he already said it!  It’s a tell strategy coming from a party that doesn’t offer new ideas or even new spin on old ideas.  It’s like they had a big meeting to discuss how their ideas are wildly unpopular then some guy in the back shouted, “how about we just make stuff up?” leading to the inevitable group think of nodding heads and big smirks of old white men who are so disconnected with public opinion, the only way they can get something done is to make stuff up.

So then, is spin dead?  Is lying the new spinning, or is there hope that this art form will somehow survive this all to destructive denigration of politics?