Failure to engage
| 20:03 UK time, Friday, 8 September 2006
As you'll know, this week's news has been dominated by one story - when will Tony Blair step down - so given the fact that the outcome of this row will have a bearing on when the country will get a new prime minister following almost ten years under Mr Blair, we thought our listeners would like the opportunity to share their views with others on The World Tonight's Listener Debate.
Much to my surprise - given the response to phone-ins and appeals for texts on other ´óÏó´«Ã½ networks - the response was negligible. Our listeners don't seem remotely engaged by the goings on at the top of the government. Our presenter, Robin Lustig expressed his surprise in his weekly newsletter today. The responses so far have offered a variety of explanations - it’s a manufactured story; we know Blair is going but don't know when so what's new; we know Brown wants to be PM so what's new; or people are just cynical about politicians.
All or none of these may be the reasons listeners who have responded in huge numbers to debates - on the crisis in the Middle East, civil liberties issues, and climate change among other subjects - are left unmoved by what most journalists think is the most important and interesting political story to come along in some time.
Why is this? Is it because politics is less interesting and important to people than it used to be, or is it the way we report what's going on that fails to engage people?
Since the end of the Cold War, politics in liberal democracies has appeared to have become more of a competition over who can manage the system best, rather than a struggle between competing ideologies with different visions of how societies should be organised.
It seems that many voters think it matters less which party governs and this could account for the fall in the number of people who exercise their right to vote and are actively interested in politics. The evidence in favour of this is that single issue politics can still galvanise people to join organisations and demonstrations, over such things as fair trade and globalisation, or the war in Iraq.
And when there is a real ideological choice, such as in the last French presidential election when voters had to choose between Jean-Marie Le Pen of the National Front and Jacques Chirac, the electorate turned out in high numbers to vote against Le Pen.
But it could also be the way we report political stories.
Journalists are essentially telling a story and like a good narrative, and drama and tension make for that. So there is a tendency to present politics as a conflict between personalities - which as we have seen this past week are undoubtedly important - as much as an argument over policies. The downside of this is that there's a danger we gloss over the complexities and nuances.
Some listeners tell us all politics is a soap opera - which it isn't always. So are we reporting politics as a soap opera, and does that account for the lack of engagement?
Comments
I don't think it's cynicism about politicians so much as cynicism about the media. There's a feeling that none of this would have happened if you hadn't all spent the last several years stirring it up.
"The news" is about selection.Would you enlighten me on how news items are selected and prioritised ? I suspect easily-found stories, fed to you by political communicators, "think tanks" and pressure groups, win the day...it makes the job easier."The WORLD Tonight" goes with a domestic issue.What about events in Afghanistan,requests for more troops? What about the series of bombings by so-called Islamic terrorists in Thailand a few days ago, and the perspective this should bring to the " war on terror"?What about the lack of effective ongoing accountability of our executive and politicians in this system of governance? Is there not a more effective model "in the world" ? More profound analysis,less emphasis on personalities please.
There are quite a few problems with politics:
1) The skill required to win an argument is so far removed from that required to implement something that works and continues to work.
2) There's an over-separation of strategy and implementation that causes difficulties and delays. Why are strategies expressed in a generic marketing way, to be defined as you go along? Is this just a way of avoiding making actual tangible detailed decisions and changes, and being able to answer the question "What's the strategy" with a label - but we don't actually know what the label means yet!
3) Politicians don't actually express their views. Where are their blogs? How can we see who is continully show excellent or poor judgement?
4) People think that an eloquent statement of intent is a real achievement and just stand back (see Government/NHS IT contracts, diversity etc), but it's the continuous problem-solution cycle that gets results and change.
5) If you look at the diversity of the people reporting politics, why do you think the reporting of politics is any more objective?
6) The strucuture of politics is based on social convention and familiarity. All the bad things about politics are symptoms of over-centralisation and a lack of meritocracy and transparency.
The rise of the ‘professional politician’ means that they have had no experience of life outside of politics. Like the kid at school who was only interested in being a footballer, this new breed of MP has nothing to fall back on if their political career does not flourish. Others get far too accustomed to the lifestyle that an MP’s salary (and expenses) affords them. They become reliant on the patronage of their party leadership to progress their careers and that patronage comes at a cost. A cost usually paid by a betrayed public in the MP’s constituency.
A new apolitical political party has emerged to try to address the balance of loyalty a MP has between their constituents and the party leadership. It simply lets the voters exact thier revenge on the MP that ignores their wishes. The Protest Vote Party gives people the right to actually vote 'None of the Above'.
The aim of the party is not aim for power for itself but to act as a catalyst and change politics from within. Even in "safe seats" the public will be able to rid themselves of an MP who votes against their wishes, or reject a candidate forced upon them by the party leadership and yet eventually have a MP from the same party.
I was always told you don't talk about politics or regligion and my feeling is that as a nation we don't. That said - I would hate to be Tony Blair. Give 10 years to leading the country and this is how it ends? With so called "friends" like that who needs enemies. Mind you even Jesus had a Judas...oops - there you go - I have mentioned both politics and religion in the same post.
The in-fighting of the Labour party, and the political hacks glee about it all, is probably far less interesting to people than the state of schools, hospitals and roads.
This comment is about a Danish newspaper's decision to print several anti-Israel cartoons to appease Iran over the newspaper's now infamous printing of a cartoon depicting Mohammed with a bomb attached to his head.
It is remarkable how uncritically this story is reported by the ´óÏó´«Ã½ online. First of all, why Israel must be the target of Iran's response, rather than the paper itself, already belies the irrationality of that country's anti-semitism and prooves that Iran is simply exploiting an opportunity to fan any anti-Israel flames it can, rather than truly "testing the limits of free speech," as the article claims. If Iran was angry at the Danish paper, then the target of it's retaliatory cartoons would logically have been the Danish paper, not Israel.
Secondly, given the above, it is truly sad that the editor felt compelled to appease Iran--yet another example of Jews being pressured into self-denigrating situations which others would not tolerate for themselves.
Perhaps the Danish paper should denounce the Holocaust as a lie to apologize for its editorial decisions. Or better yet, it should print the names and addressess of all its Jewish employees. That should prove to Iran that freedom of speech is alive and well.
-Max
I agree with Stephen to some extent, though I believe its good that the media keeps the government on its toes. The media is the only thing the government listens to, so someone has to do it.
I agree with the previous comment. It all reads like hype to me. I see a procession of journalists puffing their interpretation and telling us how important it all is. The internal workings of politics is like the internal workings of a marriage- all absorbing for those involved but no one outside can posssibly tell what is really going on. Anyway who cares- it's the outcomes that matter. I just wish you'd leave it alone and concentrate on events rather than interpretation
It's simply not news. Yes, we all know Gordon Brown and Tony Blair have had a tacit agreement that one shall follow the other as party leader. It's pretty obvious that Blair can't possibly hang on forever. So the "Big News!" amounts to "hey! he admits he's not going to hang on forever!" WOW! Gripping stuff, guys!
Is there anything about this story that is in any doubt? Is the coverage actually adding any real information? If there were some leadership challenge in the offing, that would be noteworthy and people would probably want to find out more about it.
Our dear editor seems to be missing the point, here. What does he expect a "listener debate" to sound like, really, on this subject? "Blair should leave right now" - "No, he should leave April 21" - "No, you're all wrong, he should leave December 14." Come on. That'd be a foolish waste of time. There are far weightier issues to discuss.
This kind of disinterest reflects a general phenomenon of "watching instead of doing." Direct participation in political activities is down, as are personal participation in athletics, reading of newspapers, etc.
In place of participation, more and more people watch TV, letting the media spoon-feed increasingly meaningless glop into their uncritical minds. I honestly would like to see every person take 2 days' break from TV every week.
Some trends - such as the growth of blogs - seem to buck the watch-not-do trend to a certain extent. I think, however, that political blogging has taken off precisely because the density of politically aware, politically involved people has dropped, and to achieve a "critical mass" of interest one must often "go national."
I understand that there is no such thing as an apolitical person in that everyone has opinions some of which must encompass one or other political faction.
However I do not watch the News on TV nor do I read Newspapers and am therefore generally blissfully uninformed about subjects such as these.
From this position I can say, with a certain amount of authority, that it actually does not make a lot of difference which political party is in power let alone who is at the helm! With a few notable exceptions the news is just that; a soap opera designed to sell media and satisfy peoples nosiness about their neighbours.
I suspect many are like me who do not give a toss about the Bliar and his *spinning* ways or what happens to him. Honest.
After he championed NOT to stop bombing Lebanon, he now tries to play peacemaker.
Can you really believe this guy?
Has he any credibility left?
James Burke
I think people can't see any viable alternative. No one who will be any different and do the things that are necessary. So they think 'what's the point?'.
Many Labour voters feel let down and really quite staggered that Tony Blair is still PM. That so many in the cabinet and party have compromised their principles so they can stay in a position of power. There is a feeling of hopelessness.
Much of the population has no interest in politics these days. Everyone is so busy now trying to earn money to stay afloat. When they get home they want to escape from real life.
Has this situation just developed naturally or has it been created deliberately? Certainly it works to the benefit of politicians who don't want to be accountable and questioned as they pursue their agenda.
This was stirred up by the media and kept going by the media.
On the radio the other day it was stated that Mr Blair yearned to be back in his mothers womb, all because he sometimes holds his hands on his mid-rift when making a speak.
Today the ´óÏó´«Ã½ said he suffered from a split personality. This was stated by someone who had never spoken to him, let alone met him.
The ´óÏó´«Ã½ has become a tabloid newspaper, a Red Top, more interested in making the news instead of reporting it.
Years ago I got my news from two sources, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ and the Daily Telegraph, why?
Both reported the news accurately, and where necessary, gave a brief synopsis, so we could understand what had happened on the days or weeks before.
I stopped reading newspapers about eight years ago, when in their battle for circulation, they lost their objectivity.
I now find the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is going the same way, you even go so far as to give the newspapers free advertising, by telling us what will be in the newspapers the next day.
Your correspondents give us their slant on the news, with their interpretation of what they think has been said.
Politicians and Journalists are the two least respected professions, so what makes you believe we should get all excited about a small group of Labour MP's who have enlarged ego's?
In my opinion you need to remember the license payer. You as editors should make sure that what is reported is accurate. If you want to SPIN a story in a particular way, use a current affairs broadcast, not a news program.
You make a large number of errors in your reporting, but I have never heard you admit you were wrong.
Please report fairly and accurately, thats the way to engage us.
Perhaps (like me) your viewers are turned off by the personality journalism being practised on ´óÏó´«Ã½ News and in particular by Nick Robinson. His reports this week have cast himself as one of the major players in this drama and the final straw came on Saturday when he centred his report on his 'smart alec' question to the joint prime ministers' press conference in Israel. Does he not understand that this was both rude and irrelevant.
Come on ´óÏó´«Ã½, train the cameras on the newsmakers at the front of the news conference - and not on the reporter in the front row. Your viewers want News on the News.
Don't forget that Climate Change is an issue, war in the middle east is an issue, blair and brown having a tiff is not even close.
The banality of party politics can hardly be expected to capture the public imagination, however much the media TRY to make a story out of it for thiere own ends.
People just don't want to waste there time.
There are issues in politics, and people in politics connected to them, that matter immensely to me, but most of the way politics is covered by political journalists these days is intensely disengaging. It's the stuff of those too involved, that people concentrate upon when it is intended that nothing will really change. That they intend will distract whilst people forget or issues are shuffled by outside events. Meanwhile the consequences of the politics have hugely adverse effects out there, and whilst the infighting procedes that is largely ignored. Imagine how Israeli politics looks to Palestinians, or American politics to Iraqis, well that's how Westminster is looking to the rest of us in the country. All the deeply gossipy reporting merely says there's no real evidence Brown will be any different from Blair, that there are any alternative contenders, that the Tories or Libdems will be any more suited to be in government next time around. In other words democracy in the UK is utterly in limbo even as so much is going wrong. We listen in hope, but no more.
I couldn't agree more with Stephen Turner. There's no question at all that the arrival of a 'news on demand' culture and the democratisation of content production (where anyone with a video phone can in theory contribute to the Ten O'Clock News, provided they have managed to capture five seconds of Gordon Brown smiling fiendishly) should be greeted with general rejoicing. However, the fact remains that the massive increase in news output has tended to require journalists to dig around for things to talk about. I believe this has resulted in a great many stories being created - or at least exaggerated out of all proportion - by the media.
The Blair / Brown relationship is a case in point. Whether or not a 'deal' was ever done at Granita is a matter of supreme indifference to those of us who live outside the Westminster media scrum - and yet the media would have us believe that it is the story of the decade. Sure, PM and Chancellor may not get along that well - but who are you kidding if you want us to believe that this is anything new? The only difference is that with Blair and Brown, we are getting to hear about it all, to an excrutiating level of detail - which believe me, is a HUGE turn-off. And is that their fault, or the fault of the media? Discuss!
As a cynic I would have to say that I feel a large number of these "Tony In Crisis" stories are put out to divert attention from real issues like finger-printing school children; a real human rights story of biblical proportion.
Will we ever see a re-make of Fawlty Towers, with Tony as Basil and people sneaking about whispering "Dont mention the war" ???
ps I was going to write in and say Tony was going to resign when the Space Shuttle launches, but they finaly made it off the pad.
I might be more interested if you actually reported NEWS, rather than 'political soap opera' or speculation, masquerading as analysis-to-death, on what MIGHT happen if . . .
There's always the thought (lurking cynically) that some of the 'crystal ball gazing' is being manufactured at the computer, in an attempt not only to duck Issues but to duck having to go out & gather data so you can report them! (I know I'd rather sit at the computer than get on with my housework any day)
I think there's a pervasive and widespread scepticism (I'm not saying cynicism) about politics, politicans and the media that report them.
Part of the analysis is right. Since the mid 80's the debate has shifted and now everything is couched in the language of what was the right: free market, 'liberal' economics. At the same time, however, in terms of social activity, we are becoming ever more autoritarian. This is something that many in the West have criticised China for: giving their people the right only to consume. We seem to be heading the same way
For many, there is little real political choice. for all the sound and fury, the landscape here is very much dominated by the centrist free-market mantras. And that is why many people have disengaged from the system. It says nothing to them and doesn't have any relevance in their lives because things would be much the same, whoever formed the government of the day.
But the media don't escape either: they are simply another arm of this rather cosy establishment. After all, the media depend on the contiuned operation of such structures to survive. The ´óÏó´«Ã½ (and Channel 4 perhaps) is a case apart because of its funding mechanism, but large scale media operations are also large corporations (eg NewsCorp) and are part of that very same structure. As a result, we cannot expect any kind of deep critique from such sources, as they are keen to preserve their own positions.
It is interesting to see that when sources turn up that are seen not to be allied to that system, they become very popular. Think back to things like Drudge in the US for evidence of that.
We are lucky in the sense that our state-funded institutions, Channel 4 and the ´óÏó´«Ã½, have obligations to kick against accepted wisdom, but it is noticeable that there is certainly a herd mentality sometimes and that they will follow the agenda set by others. I think this is partly what is happenning right now.
My concerns are more about the way the rights of the public are effectively being removed by the Government - such as the police's automatic numberplate recognition system, fingerprinting of children in schools, the National ID Card scheme - than the glorification of the handover process.
It seems that by keeping this in the headlines - rather than the more worrying implications for civil liberties - the Government have effectively removed the public from the debate.
Leaders should lead by example if we want to show the world we are in a democracy we shouldcalled immediate new elections and let the people decide who he wants to be prime.i think the Queen coulddo such thing by refusing to sign... I think only in the event of a death a new leader couldbe appointed internally.
No one likes those who stir up trouble between people who should be friends and comrades; who are persistent in doing so and appear to revel in the process.
i think the issue of tony blair or the other candidate and the lobby swing of anti-blair comments on vociverous people's mouths in britain is a sign of immaturity. britain enganged in world power polics 100 years ago - 1st and 2 nd world wars. britain needs one person like blair to engage russia and china for once and for all to stop all wars and gun manufacturers on earth, it is time for politics to stop NOW and engage the 8 nations who started wotld conflict. these are japan britain usa germany italy france russia china.
we are no longer interested in brtain's blair or not blair rubbish or hearing about UN resoluitions. we wnat the maddness on earth to be stopped NOW and we want britain to engange china and russia to enter the conflict zones and destroy all weapons.
this is what we want and i am tired of hearing britons complain about blair.
the madness was started by our forefathers and not by blair.
i wld go so fat as saying that if britains called in the italians you wld see the reponse you wld get ... if the issue was a global destruction of armaments and a slap in the face to all waring countries who are not part of the 8 above.
This issue has become the journalistic equivalent of "pester power". Over enough time the persistent repetition of the question "When is Tony Blair leaving?" forces the issue, as eventually everyone wants him to leave not because of anything he has or hasn't done but rather so that the media will stop asking the question and start reporting the news again!
While this may provide some form of perverse entertainment (and indeed continued employment) for journalists and political analysts I'm not convinced it's really in either the country's or the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s best interest.