Where did we get this idea that mainstream political journalism is ‘unserious’?
No, seriously. Apart from the odd viral clip where a presenter asked a daft and flippant question about a serious topic… I don’t see much evidence for it.
The Economist, FT, New Statesman etc, are endlessly serious. The Spectator, The Guardian, The Times, The Telegraph, combine fluff with utmost seriousness.
These outlets have, to varying degrees, a relatively narrow and highly politically engaged audience. The BBC and Channel 4 on the other hand, have a duty as public service broadcasters, to provide political coverage in an accessible manner. Commercial broadcasters, who want to engage a broad and casual viewership, also need to keep their political coverage relatively breezy, light and accessible on their primetime shows.
I’ll be honest at this point, I despise all political panel shows. I used to occasionally watch Daily Politics and Sunday Politics, and sometimes, This Week, but their successor, Politics Live, I find unbearable. I don’t think I’ve watched a full episode of Question Time in at least a decade.
I get my political fix from podcasts, The Rest is Politics or Political Thinking with Nick Robinson. Stuff like that. I continue to watch the occasional episode of Panorama, Dispatches and HardTalk. These shows are in-depth, serious and not everyone’s cup of tea. A quick, pacy, lighter-touch politics show has its place.
I hate political panel shows as much as the next Twitter-wonk. I hate how panelists are not given the time to breath. Each show is consumed by white noise. Politicians pumping out soundbites. Edge-lord commentators, who are gifted at the quick-fire, bleating out their hot takes. Nobody has time to make a substantive point or have a dialogue.
My hunch is that shows like Politics Live are not really designed for those who subscribe to The Economist, Tribune, LRB or listen to The Rest is Politics. These shows are there to give Joe Bloggs a short cover of political events and a bit of accessible comment on them.
Politicians know that these shows are mostly scanned over by casual viewers. They know most viewers will takelittle away from the show, apart from the most memorable lines — policy goals summed up in a one-liner — i.e. the soundbites. That’s why politicians pump them out. They don’t want to be drawn into the detail or taken ‘off message’.
We hear the same lines by politicians, uttered over and over again. By we, I mean the people who might read this blog. The hyper-engaged. We therefore find soundbites jarringly shallow and repetitive. We cry out for a politician to actually ‘say something’.
I know people like me cast our eye longingly to by-gone eras. We think of that grainy black and white footage of political and journalistic heavyweights slugging it out in a verbal political-philosophical duel, sparring at length through rhetoric. But there is probably a good reason why we don’t have shows like that on primetime TV anymore… because they’re really boring for most people...
My two pence on The Joe Lycett Affair is that he shares similar politics to me and he’s similarly very politically engaged. We both despair at the shallowness and vacuity if mainstream political panel shows and at how ‘skilled’ our senior politicians are at saying very little beyond buzzwords and soundbites.
Lycett was probably making a protest at the sheer pointlessnes of him being on there. For example, put me on that panel… how on earth do I critique Truss’s entire economic strategy, her response to our energy bill crisis, and her focus on economic growth while rejecting the most obvious policies that would help drive economic growth— all in 45 seconds while I have a presenter and two other guests jabbering over me? It’s basically impossible (maybe some people are gifted enough to do it. I am not, and I doubt Lycett is either). So Lycett made a joke out of it, cos well, he’s a comedian and it was all he had left.
However, my Twittersphere is filled with mainstream journalists talking about how we live in serious times™. I see endless streams of articles and podcasts discussing the rise in populism, the growing divisions in society and our declining faith in democratic norms. I see endless detailed discussions on the impending crises we face, from our ageing population and productivity crisis, to global conflicts, to our energy crisis and the devastation of global warming.
I don’t think the BBC has made Politics Live like it is just for the bants. I imagine it is formulated to be loud, buzzy, shouty and shallow, because that’s what mainstream audiences want. This is what gets Joe Bloggs watching news and political debate. If Joe Lycett believes the show lacks depth and gravitas, he should try and get himself on HardTalk or The Week in Westminster instead.
For the past 15 years, our Cabinet have gradually become more and more vapid. Soundbite spluttering, populist crowd-baiting, intellectually uninteresting bunch of nothings who have provided over a decade of stagnant growth and rising inequality, while kicking can after can down the road until this moment of doom and crisis. But fundamentally, journalists and politicians reflect our desires as voters/consumers, they do not lead us.
In a democracy, we get the politicians, and the talkshows, we deserve.
— — — — — — —
If any ex or current BBC journos and producer-types are reading this, I’d love to get your views on it. Is my hunch right, that primetime politics shows are becoming more shallow and shouty because that’s what keeps the viewers entertained? Or are you just bad people who choose to feed us vacuous debate and and let empty politicians off the hook because politics is all a game for you?
