Post By: on Wednesday, 05 May 2010
With one day to go until we go to the polls, the most exciting and interesting development of the 2010 UK Election has been the resurgence of the Liberal party as a potential party of government.
This says something about the state of politics in the UK, the state of the country and how people feel about the political establishment - but I'm not here to comment on the state of the country. More importantly for me, it also says something very interesting about media and how we consume information.
The Liberal Democrat Poll Surge: What has changed?
When I look at the Liberal Democrat resurgence in the Polls, I keep asking myself what has really changed in British Politics over the last four weeks? Why are the Liberal democrats suddenly a viable party for Government and Clegg the best candidate for Prime when just four weeks ago they were not even considered contenders?
I find myself looking at the manifestoes, policies and personalities, and in terms of substance, nothing appears to have changed at all. Cameron and Brown are still the same people they were before the debates started, Clegg is the same person he was before and country hasn't changed either. Nothing has changed.
Such surges in party popularity are not unusual in modern politics: Blair and Cameron managed to foster similar explosions in popularity for their parties in the past, but in both cases they also undertook wholesale reform of their party policies and tried with varying success to redefine what their party stood for. Blair made deeper, more dramatic changes - dropping Clause IV was revolutionary in comparison to the change in tone and attitude Cameron has fostered in the Conservative party.
However, when I look at this instance with Clegg and the Liberal Democrats, it seems to me that nothing has really changed at all.
Except of course for the TV Debates.
Just one and a half hours of exposure on at the first ITV debate three weeks ago seemed to propel the Liberal Democrats up in all the opinion polls. When I went online, I found myself surrounded by people enamored with Clegg. All of a sudden the Liberal Democrat Party has the right policies and Clegg is the right man to run the country.
It seemed to me that one ninety minute period of TV exposure had redefined the Liberals and Clegg in the minds of many people as the party for government.
The Medium is more important than the message
I think the major factor that led to the Liberal Democrat surge was exposure they received on an equal footing to Conservative and Labour and the way Nick Clegg presented himself.
It certainly wasn't new, different, or more informed policies that won that first debate for Clegg. They didn't really spell out any policies. The debate was unsurprisingly characterized by political point scoring and clichés - Cameron, Clegg and Brown were all equally as guilty of this.
The message that Clegg kept coming back to was that Gordon Brown and David Cameron were the old establishment squabbling like children, and the Liberal Democrats were the only genuine alternative. They were ‘the party that could deliver real change.'
Indeed, when you listen to the debate back again, there is virtually no genuine content to define what that change actually would be, or what it would look like. There was very little definition of policies, and more of a focus on change as an end goal in its own right.
This demonstrates something very important. It wasn't the content of the debate that was important, it was how the candidates were ‘perceived'. This is what John Humpries on BBC radio 4 described as ‘Presentation above all else'.
In other words, people initial reaction to the debates had little to do with content. It doesn't matter what they said, but how they said it. The exposure via the medium was more important than the message.
Nixon, Mori and Brown on the Radio.
There are three interesting historical examples that support the argument that the medium is often more important than the message. The most famous is the historic case of the first US TV debate in 1960 between Nixon and Kennedy.
Up until the first debate, Nixon had been seen as the leader in the polls up until the first debate, but after insisting on campaigning right up until the debate and a stay in hospital, Nixon turned up to the first debate looking tired, sickly and (having refused make-up) like he hadn't shaved. He was comprehensively beaten in the debate and as if to underline the point, his mother called him after the debate to ask him if he was ill.
Despite the fact that Nixon was polled as the winner by radio listeners, and then went on to win the next three debates, Kennedy went on to win the election that year.
In the current election some fascinating bits of information have come out to support the argument as well. Firstly, all the polls after the first debate showed a huge surge for Clegg based on a masterful media performance.
However, one MORI poll also showed that this Liberal surge was not backed up by conviction. Only 44% of people who backed Clegg as the winner were sure that they would vote for the Liberal Democrats. 56% said they might change their mind.
In contrast, the Tory vote was the most robust. 58% of those polled who said they would support Cameron said they have "definitely decided" to vote Conservative - almost two thirds.
The Clegg surge was a soft surge based on style and a good media performance, but possibly without the clarity of message to back up his personal brand.
This poll suggests that whilst people are susceptible to the power of good media skills, people still expect you to consistently live up to the image you present on the media over the long term.
Whilst Clegg and Liberals enjoyed a surge in popularity, the jury was most certainly still out.
The third demonstration that the medium can be more important than the message came from a comparison of opinions between those that listened to the third and final debate on the radio versus those who watched it on television.
The general consensus from TV viewer polls was that either Cameron or Clegg won and that Brown was a distant third.
This couldn't have been more different from the results polled from radio listeners. One survey was based on two panels of seven members.
Of the seven who watched the debate, six thought Nick Clegg won and the seventh went for Gordon Brown. However, of those listening on the radio, six of the seven voted for Brown and the seventh went for Cameron.
This style VS content or medium VS message debate was summed up for me by the gradual Liberal slide back in the polls we have seen over the past two weeks. As one member of the public interviewed on BBC radio 4 said,
‘Nick Clegg got boring.'
It seems to me that when the shine of newness began to war off, the effect of the media exposure began to fade away.
When Clegg got Cameroned... and why it will all end it tears
So Clegg has undergone the same kind of personal surge in popularity that Cameron enjoyed when he first took the stage to launch his leadership bid at the Conservative Party conference in 2005.
The reason Cameron did so well then, and the reason Clegg is doing well now is not so much about the substance of their message or what they are trying to say, rather it is the fact that first Cameron, then Clegg were a breath of fresh air at a time when people were very jaded with the other politicians with whom the shared the stage.
However, in this 24 hour media world, Cameron wasn't the fresh face of change for very long - and Nick Clegg will suffer the same fate. This may all end in tears for the Liberal Democrats - either in a slide in their share of the vote at the election proper, or after the election when Clegg becomes just another familiar face in the pantomime of parliament.
I would contend that this has more to do with the nature of modern media and how we consume it rather than bad policies, a poor message, corrupt politicians or weak leadership.
Summary
I had hoped that the 2010 election would be characterised by vastly wider popular engagement and debate of the issues because of technologies such as social media, and the TV debates. I don't deny this has happened to some extent - and I still hold out hope that tomorrow might see a high turnout and a larger proportion of younger voters. However, I don't necessarily expect this and certainly don't think that this will be my over-riding memory of the election.
Instead, this election has been characterized by the impact of the medium or media itself. The information consumed has been of secondary importance, if not irrelevant, in comparison to the effect the media coverage has had upon it. From Clegg's masterful media performance in the debates to Browns microphone gaff, the shifts in the polls have not been because of wider engagement with the issues - but more to do with how slick and smooth the candidates looked on TV and how well they performed in the media. The 2010 election has not seen the beginning of a new age of digital political engagement - but rather the ultimate triumph of style over content.
I think the abiding lesson of the 2010 Election will be that when it comes to the information we consume and the opinions we form, the media used to deliver the message is often, if not usually, more important than the message in question.
Comments (0)