With the nights drawing in and the pavements crisping up with frost it can mean only one thing; the return of audience participation driven reality shows, giving magazines and newspapers something cheap, easy and lucrative to write about. An interesting aspect of shows like X-Factor is that, contrary to what is often believed, those who are slated by the media and the judges can often prove to be the most popular – just take this year’s twins in shiny suits and the popularity of John Sergeant dragging his dance partner across the floor last year.
However, when contestants fail to work within the expected structure they can have huge amount of pressure put on them to resign. A lack of trust in the public’s decision-making skills? In a democracy…?
Of course it can be helpful to have experts analyse and scrutinise the things that affect us. I don’t just learn about politics by going out and participating, it also requires academic writing and journalistic reporting to help piece together some kind of bigger picture. How much of the voting and public opinion is swayed by the media and judges words? Is it right that we have experts who tell us ‘the best way’ to vote?
My brother-in-law teaches in a comprehensive school and it has certainly turned him more in favour of an elitist system where there are clear experts on a subject. (I think there is only so many times you can hear “err sir, you have a beard, you look like Frodo.” before you loose faith in humanity. Any passing watcher of The Lord of the Rings knows that Frodo had hair principally on his feet, not his cheeks.)
So what is the balance we should strike between listening to ‘expert opinion’ of the media we consume and trusting that as individuals may have spotted something they like outside of the media gaze?
This seems particularly dangerous in the arena of politics as the public generally receive very little information that hasn’t been mashed together in the form of a media report. At least with the X-Factor people watch the live show, then listen to the judges and then read the media rehash and they can make a judgement. In politics it is impossible for one person to watch everything that is going on and therefore we entrust other people to give us their judgement on the outcome of events. In politics, there is no live show. Only an army of Simon Cowell’s purporting to know best.
And it’s not just politics which can suffer when the media gets hold of a money spinning story; witness what the media and one academic managed with the (unfounded) MMR scare. In recent days Jan Moir of the Daily Mail has been criticised for writing a column entitled “Why there was nothing ‘natural’ about Stephen Gatley’s death” and has received a record 21,000 complaints in the process, but the damage has already been done for some people.
Of course ‘the media’ does have real people behind it too who also share citizenship and a right to express themselves, but editors can wield huge power over the slant a paper takes on a certain story. This in turn is influenced by thoughts about profit and readership – they claim to be delivering what the public want.
Our media and academics have a duty to give their best shot at objectivity and not just chase the next big headline or funding package. A failure to understand the frameworks and pressures that ‘experts’ work in can lead to much worse situations than a certain outcome for X-Factor. If you’re going to trust a journalist (and I will regret writing this) give them hell before you do.
Read – Flat Earth News by Nick Davis. Watch – Manufacturing Consent with Noam Chomsky. Talk to – the Student Direct sub-Editors
Got a political quandary you want to air? Email Sarah at politics@student-direct.co.uk
Add Your Thoughts