PolPod Episode Transcript
Aired: 24th March, 2015
Transcription date: 23rd March, 2015
Hosted by: Leah Rea
Transcribed by: Leah Rea
Podcast opens
Hello and welcome to PolPod, the daily political pondering podcast brought to you by your resident political addict, Leah Rea. Let’s call this to order.
Audio clip of Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow fades in, plays and fades out
Well, today it’s rather Shakespearian in the form of ‘to debate, or not to debate’ as I focus on the relationship between politics and the Press – aka the recent debacle over televised debates in the United Kingdom as we head into the General Election. This ‘debate about debates’ includes squabbling politicians and bickering broadcasters, and took the media by storm. Yet, I cannot help but wonder how this will impact upon the electorate in the crucial countdown to voting day. The politicians involved have been embroiled in a PR crisis, each portraying their message as the ‘right’ one - none more so than Prime Minister David Cameron, who I think opened the proverbial can of worms and could suffer a drop in public opinion and a electoral backlash as a result.
Cameron proposed in strict terms that there would be one single debate involving leaders from seven political parties. Seven egos arguing for ninety minutes? Clever move, Prime Minister – carefully preventing any real opposing message to your own from being heard. Unsurprisingly, his terms were rejected by the parties and broadcasters alike, who insisted on three debates. Cameron, quelle surprise, refused. The result was a ‘war of words’ gleefully covered by the Press. Opposition Leader Ed Miliband had a field day, attacking Cameron during Prime Minister’s Questions.
Audio clip plays – Ed Miliband speaking in the House of Commons during Prime Minister’s Questions, ‘If he’s so confident, why he’s chickening out of the debates with me?’
Well. Ouch.
The constant coverage of negative remarks fed to the public by the media must surely have influenced their opinions of Cameron. To back out of debates and therefore open scrutiny prevents accountability and, I think, democracy itself.
Audio clip plays – David Cameron speaking in the House of Commons during Prime Minister’s Questions, ‘He wants to talk about the future of a television programme: I want to talk about the future of the country!’
That soundbite suggests that Cameron, in so easily dismissing the concept of televised debates, is dismissing transparency just as readily. Not a good perception for the public to have so close to the ballot box. Especially considering that The Sunday Times recently obtained exclusive YouGov polling results which reveal that the general public ‘overwhelmingly’ believes the televised debates are good for democracy and that Cameron is in fact scared of the other parties. Evidently, the constant refrain of negative descriptions hurled at Cameron from the other parties which is published in the Press has influenced the thoughts of the general public – quite the PR crisis.
Cameron as the incumbent PM could seek solace in the sympathy of the media, who do traditionally tend to gloss over any cracks for PMs during election time. But his behavior in refusing to accept the media’s terms has alienated the four major broadcasters in the UK. Torie Clarke has commented on the need to work with the media to ensure successful communications and Cameron should have listened to her. Instead of softening the blows for Cameron, the broadcasters are increasing them by reporting on the debate crisis with each news cycle, meaning the public has increased exposure to negative comments about Cameron, which will influence their thoughts… And potentially their voting behaviour.
Broadcasters have eventually agreed to Cameron’s proposals, confirming for me the continued existence of Bernay’s ‘Engineering of consent’ theory. The powerful political elite have had their say and indeed gotten their way. But not without a fight from the Press.
No doubt we shall see whether Cameron’s calculated gamble of short-term negative coverage versus long-term protection from less exposure to scrutiny will in fact pay off.
Until the next pondering session, I’m Leah Rea and thank you for listening.
Audio clip of Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow fades in, plays and fades out
Podcast closes
Aired: 24th March, 2015
Transcription date: 23rd March, 2015
Hosted by: Leah Rea
Transcribed by: Leah Rea
Podcast opens
Hello and welcome to PolPod, the daily political pondering podcast brought to you by your resident political addict, Leah Rea. Let’s call this to order.
Audio clip of Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow fades in, plays and fades out
Well, today it’s rather Shakespearian in the form of ‘to debate, or not to debate’ as I focus on the relationship between politics and the Press – aka the recent debacle over televised debates in the United Kingdom as we head into the General Election. This ‘debate about debates’ includes squabbling politicians and bickering broadcasters, and took the media by storm. Yet, I cannot help but wonder how this will impact upon the electorate in the crucial countdown to voting day. The politicians involved have been embroiled in a PR crisis, each portraying their message as the ‘right’ one - none more so than Prime Minister David Cameron, who I think opened the proverbial can of worms and could suffer a drop in public opinion and a electoral backlash as a result.
Cameron proposed in strict terms that there would be one single debate involving leaders from seven political parties. Seven egos arguing for ninety minutes? Clever move, Prime Minister – carefully preventing any real opposing message to your own from being heard. Unsurprisingly, his terms were rejected by the parties and broadcasters alike, who insisted on three debates. Cameron, quelle surprise, refused. The result was a ‘war of words’ gleefully covered by the Press. Opposition Leader Ed Miliband had a field day, attacking Cameron during Prime Minister’s Questions.
Audio clip plays – Ed Miliband speaking in the House of Commons during Prime Minister’s Questions, ‘If he’s so confident, why he’s chickening out of the debates with me?’
Well. Ouch.
The constant coverage of negative remarks fed to the public by the media must surely have influenced their opinions of Cameron. To back out of debates and therefore open scrutiny prevents accountability and, I think, democracy itself.
Audio clip plays – David Cameron speaking in the House of Commons during Prime Minister’s Questions, ‘He wants to talk about the future of a television programme: I want to talk about the future of the country!’
That soundbite suggests that Cameron, in so easily dismissing the concept of televised debates, is dismissing transparency just as readily. Not a good perception for the public to have so close to the ballot box. Especially considering that The Sunday Times recently obtained exclusive YouGov polling results which reveal that the general public ‘overwhelmingly’ believes the televised debates are good for democracy and that Cameron is in fact scared of the other parties. Evidently, the constant refrain of negative descriptions hurled at Cameron from the other parties which is published in the Press has influenced the thoughts of the general public – quite the PR crisis.
Cameron as the incumbent PM could seek solace in the sympathy of the media, who do traditionally tend to gloss over any cracks for PMs during election time. But his behavior in refusing to accept the media’s terms has alienated the four major broadcasters in the UK. Torie Clarke has commented on the need to work with the media to ensure successful communications and Cameron should have listened to her. Instead of softening the blows for Cameron, the broadcasters are increasing them by reporting on the debate crisis with each news cycle, meaning the public has increased exposure to negative comments about Cameron, which will influence their thoughts… And potentially their voting behaviour.
Broadcasters have eventually agreed to Cameron’s proposals, confirming for me the continued existence of Bernay’s ‘Engineering of consent’ theory. The powerful political elite have had their say and indeed gotten their way. But not without a fight from the Press.
No doubt we shall see whether Cameron’s calculated gamble of short-term negative coverage versus long-term protection from less exposure to scrutiny will in fact pay off.
Until the next pondering session, I’m Leah Rea and thank you for listening.
Audio clip of Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow fades in, plays and fades out
Podcast closes