
The houses of powerliament [PHOTO: Sofie Jenkinson
Much is being made of the impact that the television is having on this general election. More specifically the televised debates featuring the leaders of the three main parties. The last of which takes place this evening.
And, to some extent, so it should be. It is changing the face of our political landscape as far as the eye can see, possibly forever. However, I have noticed that what is often lightly skimmed over or noted as a side issue by many major commentators in the traditional media spheres is the impact of the internet as a partner in crime to all of this.
I have had my computer open during each of the live debates and have actually started to do so regularly during BBC Question Time as well.
The television debates are offering the public an opportunity to become informed about the policies of each main party and also get a good look at who they want to be in charge of the country. But essentially it is a passive process. Even for the audience, with all the rules that have been imposed about clapping and whooping (unlike on Question Time).
The internet offers a forum of discussion and reaction to what is happening, in real time. It allowed you to become a part of the conversation.
This is something which is picked up on by the more savvy journalists and increasingly by the programmes themselves. I mean, there has been a token mention of twitter on pretty much every discussion so far, don’t get me wrong, but it is the perceived impact of these mediums that I am questioning. Ex-party spin doctors and newspaper editors sit there in neon-lit studios pouring over the details or whatever has just come to pass and looking at the next day’s headlines. But in my opinion they are just not giving enough credit to the reams and reams of conclusions being drawn and informed comment pieces being written just moments after, while they are still on-air.
So, who is part of this conversation?
Certainly most of my contemporaries are involved – the majority of my Twitter pals, for example. But is being a part of all of this skewing my view of how important it is or how much impact it is having?
I honestly believe that Nick Clegg would not have enjoyed such a great boost to his poll ratings had it not been for the kindly reactions and conclusions of the majority of internet goers. The press love to blow their own trumpets about this, pretending that they still call all of the shots, but as we, in the field of journalism, have been learning the hard way for a number of years, it no longer has the sway it once did.
So while the spin-doctors and the press officers sit back and state that this is all to do with the breakdown of political tribalism and MPs expenses I simply want to hit them around the face with a wet kipper. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out what is going on here – local candidates are listing social media sites on their through-the-letterbox leaflets and scores of blogs and tweets are being forged mere seconds/minutes after an event occurs. It is no use trying to ignore this phenomenon if you are advising these MPs, it is happening and it is making a difference.
It is filling the space inbetween when an event takes place and when the traditional media outlets reflect on it. This space is crammed full of informed and opinionated people, from one end of the spectrum to the other. It is creating a throng of people who are more and more informed and therefore increasingly engaged. These are people who are genuinely concerned about the General Election. And British politics in general. When people are crying out about how disengaged people are from politics they certainly aren’t looking over here.
So could we conclude from this that the Liberal Democrats are actually at an advantage because they have more internet savvy supporters? There certainly seems to be more of a liberal influence in this medium.
The most brilliant part of this new way of experiencing politics is the transparency that we are seeing and the attention to detail. Within moments of the YouGov poll being announced after the last debate I had a handful of tweets and re-tweets at my finger tips giving the information that one of the YouGov directors is actually standing for the Conservative party. This is the kind of up to date and accurate information that is allowing voters to become almost as informed at the party press and is, without a doubt, giving us power through knowledge. We can no longer be taken for a ride, it would seem.
It is connecting us everything we could possibly need. Information about how to vote, where to vote and all that jazz over at About My Vote; how much power you have where you are voting over at Voter Power and even a little advise/peace of mind/nudge in the right direction if you’re not sure at Who Should You Vote For. Not to mention the veritable smorgasbord of links and sights advising all the wannabe tactical voters out there (http://tacticalvote.wordpress.com is a good example).
As was pointed out by one of the people on my Twitter stream after the last debate, Conservative supporters don’t really Tweet as much and when they do have seemingly little sense of humour (the second being a side issue, but still worth noting). The Conservative MP standing in my local constituency, for example, has absolutely no presence on Facebook at all and has only three tweets on his page so far.
Is the internet exposing those parts of the our political system that are behind the times and not reflecting the needs of the society it is supposed to be serving?
In a country where I am constantly hearing that people are ‘no longer engaged with politics’ this certainly seems like a step forward. In fact during the debate last week you would be hard pushed to believe that that is the case at all. Yes the expenses scandal dented people’s trust in MPs, but I’m not sure that many people really trusted them anyway and it certainly seems to me that it has got people asking questions – and being an active participant in this situation is half the battle, isn’t it?
I usually watch these programmes with people – friends, family etc. And on the occasions that this is not possible I have found the whole experience far less enjoyable – because there is no discussion. However, since I started joining in with real-time online discussions in this way I not only feel more involved but there are moments where I actually think I might be making a difference. The truth is, and the beauty of it in fact, is that everybody in that situation is making a difference in some small way.
I have learnt more about the policies and ins-and-outs of the current political issues this year by being involved in this way. And I am saying that as someone who is fiercely political and always a moderately well-informed voter.
I would go as far as saying that tweeting while watching live political debates has not only given me more information and cleared up any questions I may have but has also made the whole thing much more enjoyable. Which is probably #nickcleggsfault.
Much of this was in fact picked up on by Newsnight the other night as well as by Will Self‘s segment on This Week. But there was still a lack of acceptance by many people commenting on both of these programmes about just how important the internet conversation might turn out to be.
A great illustration of what I am talking about here came yesterday with the birth of #bigotgate. All day there were people commenting, picking apart, discussing and drawing conclusions on the days events. The mood, even in the Brown camp, was fairly upbeat and whimsical, even in light of the PR nightmare than had just ensued. There were jokes, puns and fake Twitter accounts flying around left, right and centre. Contrast this to the the mood today and you find that something has shifted. Not in every case but while the majority of feedback yesterday was that Gordon had almost done himself a favour and that people were almost appreciative of his honesty about such views, today everybody is talking about the end of the Labour, the end of Brown and how fatal this has been to the campaign. Nothing else had happened during this time so the change has simply got to be down to the plethora of negative newspaper headlines Brown received this morning.
At this point I will conclude with the thoughts of my politically active online friend Mr. Bull:
“I think you may well be right about this two tier thing. And it’s a worry because the things that make the new way so awesome are the very things lacking in the old way. I read the original guardian source of that Daily Mail story about Nick Clegg being a nazi before I heard about the Daily Mail story because Twitter was awash with it. It’s great. Not only are things debunked, they’re shoved in your face whether you give a shit or not so you KNOW when something is bullshit. Amazing, I love it. And nobody writes 200 words around one quote they got from some research report that hasn’t been peer reviewed yet.”
And so, while I may have started on this topic thinking that everything has changed and entirely shifted towards the new mediums I seem to have ended up on the conclusion that there are two tiers of reflection and reaction going on, because essentially there are now two audiences. Those that are on the internet picking up the rolling news as it happens and forming opinions and conclusions at that time and those that are reading the story in newspapers etc the next day and forming their opinions based on information presented them through the filter of how it has been chosen to be represent in that field of the press.
Essentially that means that there is a division forming between those that choose to be active and those that choose to be passive. (Obviously this is a general theory and is not strictly black and white in that someone can be a member of the real-time conversation and still form an opinion based on the representation in the press the next day in the same way that someone can react to the newspaper and breakfast show stories after they have digested them.)
I am certainly glad to be part of a society where I can be involved with such a high standard of political discussion and debate. And although I still love the medium of print and will never, ever stop buying a newspaper I am glad that I can pick it up and read the front page story as an informed reader rather than a sponge for the opinion of the very newspaper that is supposed to be informing me.
The impact of the headline is certainly still there but to what extent has the way in which we take our news and comment knocked the spots off the influence that it once had?
p.s. nice little aggregator here: http://www.socialfuel.co.uk/ and the Guardian reflect on this subject over here.