tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4161823577443456821.post1243519838430796042..comments2019-12-21T21:05:39.702+00:00Comments on Hoping For More Than Slogans: Sack PaxmanLon Wonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08084739915361657921noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4161823577443456821.post-17612278133275623802012-06-28T16:19:22.609+01:002012-06-28T16:19:22.609+01:00In a similar vein, Michael White of the Guardian, ...In a similar vein, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2012/jun/27/chloe-smith-difficult-deployment" rel="nofollow">Michael White</a> of the Guardian, goes out on a limb in questioning the value of Paxman's approach.<br /><br />Meanwhile <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/2012/06/28/call-off-the-hounds-brett" rel="nofollow">William Brett</a> argues that "anti-politics" in British journalism is becoming a serious problem.<br /><br />Finally, <a href="http://liberalengland.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/problem-is-not-chloe-smith-but-jeremy.html" rel="nofollow">Jonathan Calder</a> has posted a timely reminder of observations he has made about Jeremy Paxman: <br /><br />"Paxo acts as a channel for our hatred of the political class. It is all great fun, but contempt for democratically elected politicians is not the mark of a mature democracy."Lon Wonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08084739915361657921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4161823577443456821.post-86974769186381263962012-06-28T15:45:59.765+01:002012-06-28T15:45:59.765+01:00I'm sure you're right Simon.
On the one h...I'm sure you're right Simon.<br /><br />On the one hand this style of television attracts people into thinking about political issues, people who might not otherwise have engaged in the issues at all. But on the other hand it genuinely dumbs down our political discourse to the level of slogan, personality and insult.<br /><br />I don't know which is worse: lack of engagement or entirely superficial engagement... :-(Lon Wonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08084739915361657921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4161823577443456821.post-3399430432755031572012-06-28T08:53:58.334+01:002012-06-28T08:53:58.334+01:00Some years ago, I worked in drug treatment service...Some years ago, I worked in drug treatment services. My then-wife worked in television. We were sat watching a TV debate on drugs policy, and there was a clear polarisation of "expert" opinion on the show: one policy wonk in favour of drug legalisation, another in favour of shock-sentencing, zero tolerance etc. The debate (unsurprisingly) was emotive and full of hyperbole, on both sides. "More heat than light", as they say.<br />I fumed. "This is pointless!" I shouted at the TV, "this does NOTHING to move intelligent debate on in drugs policy." <br />"It's not designed to," my more pragmatic wife sighed, "it's designed to make people watch the programme. And you're still watching it."<br />If Paxman's job was to play the role of opposition, then yes - his approach in the Chloe Smith interview might be questioned, and his focus seen to be missing the bigger points. But that isn't his job. His job is to create exactly the sort of "car crash tv" that people watch, keep watching, and virally circulate (as indeed they did.) And at THAT job, Paxman is excellent.<br />I'm not saying I LIKE this particular reality, by the way, but sadly, reality it is.Simon4Pinhoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10849619860536815732noreply@blogger.com