However, can this evolution of politics truly ever take place when we have an opposite trend running in parallel? The Media are increasingly receptive to information in short, memorable phrases that will quickly provide their audience with what they deem the key points. The result of this is that politicians are more likely to get on prime time media if they provide the media with policies in sound-bite format, if not the politicians run the risk of not being heard or facing criticism for being unclear. This may not be because the politician is actually unclear but because the media, in their preferred format, can’t represent them properly.
The most recent example of this is Ed Miliband, and whilst neither supporting nor opposing his views, this is a man who has been criticized for not taking the Labour party in a clear direction despite declaring his intent to change the party. He has adopted many varied policies from different parts of the political spectrum. He has taken left-ideas and declared war on “boardroom excess” but also taken what many to see as a right-wing view and declared another war on “benefit scroungers.” This has been massively criticized, as not being true to traditional Labour values nor being clear as to whether Labour seeks to change these values. The media appear to be unwilling to allow him to be flexible in his policies and demand that Labour keep to sound-bite politics where the party and the policies can be easily summed up. Is this why Ed Miliband plans to mobilize grass-root activists rather than use sound-bite media to generate party members?
This again raises the question, can politics ever evolve from it’s current state or will sound-bite reporting of politics remain dominant? I for one hope that it doesn’t; for the political world has become less structured since the 1900’s and will become less structured. Ever better communications means that our interest in politics covers a bigger area in terms of foreign policy and ideas, and the speed of reporting of global and domestic events is increasing due to better access to information. This information-explosion has resulted in the public having much more to sift through in a decreased amount of time to do so. The media has then responded by preferring sound-bite politics to combat this, as many people have neither the time nor inclination to wade through the information jungle. In a political world that is becoming more complex and less structured the mainstream media is reporting it in two short sentences or a sound-bite. The two factors are moving in opposite directions and working against each other. This runs the risk of the complex and progressing politics of today’s world not being fully understood by the public, with the result that they are increasingly unable to make informed decisions.
How far can the media reflect the complexity of modern politics accurately in this format? Can the two develop together without the media alienating the public from the evolving politics?
The most recent example of this is Ed Miliband, and whilst neither supporting nor opposing his views, this is a man who has been criticized for not taking the Labour party in a clear direction despite declaring his intent to change the party. He has adopted many varied policies from different parts of the political spectrum. He has taken left-ideas and declared war on “boardroom excess” but also taken what many to see as a right-wing view and declared another war on “benefit scroungers.” This has been massively criticized, as not being true to traditional Labour values nor being clear as to whether Labour seeks to change these values. The media appear to be unwilling to allow him to be flexible in his policies and demand that Labour keep to sound-bite politics where the party and the policies can be easily summed up. Is this why Ed Miliband plans to mobilize grass-root activists rather than use sound-bite media to generate party members?
This again raises the question, can politics ever evolve from it’s current state or will sound-bite reporting of politics remain dominant? I for one hope that it doesn’t; for the political world has become less structured since the 1900’s and will become less structured. Ever better communications means that our interest in politics covers a bigger area in terms of foreign policy and ideas, and the speed of reporting of global and domestic events is increasing due to better access to information. This information-explosion has resulted in the public having much more to sift through in a decreased amount of time to do so. The media has then responded by preferring sound-bite politics to combat this, as many people have neither the time nor inclination to wade through the information jungle. In a political world that is becoming more complex and less structured the mainstream media is reporting it in two short sentences or a sound-bite. The two factors are moving in opposite directions and working against each other. This runs the risk of the complex and progressing politics of today’s world not being fully understood by the public, with the result that they are increasingly unable to make informed decisions.
How far can the media reflect the complexity of modern politics accurately in this format? Can the two develop together without the media alienating the public from the evolving politics?
No comments:
Post a Comment