What's not to like about politics?
TonyHannon Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 12:24:40 PM GMT 
Facebook
I know I shouldn’t and it’s very displeasing when others to do it, but, I’d like a moan. Here is a shortlist of the really vexing things about having an interest in current affairs. Hopefully, some will hit home and there’ll be the discovery that I’m not alone in hating them. There may even be widespread agreement - a critical mass of like minded people leading to a resolution that something is done about some of them – the assertion that democracy works!!!
Or perhaps, an interesting thread on LabourHome…
1. Self-indulgent moaning
2. The three questions at a time
3. The evangelical activist
5. The sing along answer on Question Time
6. News segments with the polar opposites in an argument (1)
6. News segments with the polar opposites in an argument (2)
7. Victims of crime were ‘really lovely’ according to their neighbours
8. Questions to the Prime Minister
9. Attack politics
The critical difference to the moaning I’m about to undertake and the moaning that hopefully all of you also dislike is the “self-indulgent” moaning. The groan of some moron who has not a jot of fact behind the target of his withering dispatch but just lets fly on immigrants, black people, crime, legislation, or anything else of which he or she has no direct experience. It’s the people who even use the same turn-of-phrase they got from their biased newspaper of choice and are happy to vomit it out to anyone who’ll listen.
2. The three questions at a time
This appears to be a new thing when you go to a lecture from a politician or expert. He or she takes three questions at a time and answers them in turn.
Sounds expedient but it’s utterly pointless and I don’t know how it survives as a practice. Every time it happens, the nuance of each questions is lost, there’s no chance for a comeback and the first question is often forgotten altogether! It seems to me that it would be better to have fewer questions properly answered rather than having the subject of more questions loosely touched upon.
If someone goes to the hassle of respectfully phrasing a question to which they genuinely have an interest in an answer – the expert or politician should damn well answer them and (ideally) ask them if they’re satisfied with it.
3. The evangelical activist
There are people who, in a rational discussion with another adult, will neither hear nor accept criticism of his or her chosen party. Nor will they stoop to accept or agree with something said by their opposition.
In a nation of 60 million individuals and their unique set of opinions, we accept that our political options for representation are boiled down to a few choices. This means we vote for those who best represent our views. Not completely mirror them. It’s ok therefore to disagree with the Party from time to time. It shows debate, it shows they thought about it. It shows they are after the best idea not the most uniform one.
The evangelical activist is not happy to accept that and is more likely to get in a row at the doorstep and turn people off not only the Party he or she is selling but the whole political debate.
4. The “play the man and not the ball” thread poster
We all know the type. The BBC threads are magnets for these morons. Anytime we read an interesting thread and feel we’re getting a few interesting points of view on the subject addressed in the blog. Some idiot under the title “Tory1935” rails about the BBC being biased and the author is yet another example of the BBC's bias - or another hapless fanatic - “Redsocialismwithoutquestion07” howls about Palestine when the article was about something else completely.
We all know the type. The BBC threads are magnets for these morons. Anytime we read an interesting thread and feel we’re getting a few interesting points of view on the subject addressed in the blog. Some idiot under the title “Tory1935” rails about the BBC being biased and the author is yet another example of the BBC's bias - or another hapless fanatic - “Redsocialismwithoutquestion07” howls about Palestine when the article was about something else completely.
5. The sing along answer on Question Time
Have you ever noticed the verbal song designed solely to elicit applause that is sung by people answering questions on Question Time? The question may be something along the lines of “What do the panel think is the correct Government response to the increase in knife violence over the last month?”
The panellist will start off an a long preamble outlining his or her thought leadership in that they “oppose stabbings” (Wow – we all marvel - this is the kind of person I’ll vote for!!) and after a series of platitudes and criticisms of the Government (or opposition), the final sentence glib and simple in the extreme, eventually comes crashing down like a last chorus: “…and THAT’s why knife crime is a BAD thing!”
6. News segments with the polar opposites in an argument (1)
On an issue like the expansion of Heathrow airport – to inform the public, news producers think it helpful to bring along the two most biased groups in the argument.
“And here to discuss the expansion of the airport is Mary McFarmer whose field will be torn up for the expansion and her property rendered worthless by the noise. Mary is with the Society for the Containment of Airports Nationwide and is against the expansion.
Joining us also is Henry Boeing Ryan, Chairman of the Forum of Money from More Flights UK and takes the grimly predictable position of favouring the move.”
“And here to discuss the expansion of the airport is Mary McFarmer whose field will be torn up for the expansion and her property rendered worthless by the noise. Mary is with the Society for the Containment of Airports Nationwide and is against the expansion.
Joining us also is Henry Boeing Ryan, Chairman of the Forum of Money from More Flights UK and takes the grimly predictable position of favouring the move.”
6. News segments with the polar opposites in an argument (2)
When there is a proper debate going on something really important presenters feel they have to rush the expert or spokesperson so that their view is summarised in 30 seconds. Why????
It’s 24hr news!!! We could discuss this until tea-time and still have five hours of that day left to discuss other things. I don’t want the weather every five minutes!
7. Victims of crime were ‘really lovely’ according to their neighbours
There’s a line taken by news reporters that this tragedy is even more of a shame because the child who was mauled by the dog was really well behaved. Had the child been unruly, it must follow then, he or she deserved to be bitten? Is that it? What an insult to intelligent news watchers.
Surely, if someone is a victim of crime or accident the entire focus of the news story should be on the circumstances of the crime and how the public can help catch the perpetrator or prevent it happening to them in the case of an animal attack.
The moan here really is the emotive part of a news story taking away from the merit of the story.
8. Questions to the Prime Minister
“Does my Rt. Honourable Friend agree with me that not only have we done everything right but that as a group that we are beyond reproach in every way?”
Enough said.
9. Attack politics
Check out a Conservative blog called 18 Doughty Street. It’s all Tory and there’s some well informed pieces (not many but some). Worryingly, there are two examples of American style attack ads about Ken Livingstone and the BBC. I hate these bloody ads.
A real pleasantry about the level of debate here in Britain is that it is superior and this type of "short-on-fact" and "heavy-on-cheap-emotive" crap is not popular. These ads on the website are trying to introduce them and it is vile. I’m not bothered about people disagreeing with me of course but taking the debate to the gutter is a real problem.
A real pleasantry about the level of debate here in Britain is that it is superior and this type of "short-on-fact" and "heavy-on-cheap-emotive" crap is not popular. These ads on the website are trying to introduce them and it is vile. I’m not bothered about people disagreeing with me of course but taking the debate to the gutter is a real problem.
Check it out and post a comment in protest.
10. Biased news media
Can a newspaper really say it gives the news when that news is spun for a particular readership? When it comes to collective problem solving and decision making – how can we get to the nub of the issue when those charged with informing us have already decided that we’re to disagree?
Can a newspaper really say it gives the news when that news is spun for a particular readership? When it comes to collective problem solving and decision making – how can we get to the nub of the issue when those charged with informing us have already decided that we’re to disagree?
It’s pretty disheartening that when there’s overwhelming fact on an important issue (such as climate change) which easily proves its merit to a reasonable person – there is then a mountain of objections to overcome which are created by spin riddled readerships from across a political divide. Divided, I wouldn’t mind, for no other reason that newspapers have to make money through audience profiling and targeting.
On that, my moan is over – thanks for reading – what’s not to like for you?
[postscript] I had to make a couple of changes to spelling errors.
What's not to like about politics? | 15 comments (15 topical)
What's not to like about politics? | 15 comments (15 topical)
