The internet obsessives told us 2010 was going to be the year that the general election would be won or lost on the internet. Really? Well, television seems to be doing a pretty good job of setting the agenda so far.
The general consensus seems to be that the seventy-six rules imposed upon the broadcasters did not stifle the inaugural debate. Much as I enjoyed it and am glad it has been deemed a success, I did find the proceedings a little stilted as a result of the understandable fixation with timings. And perhaps it was just me, but I still felt like Nick Clegg got the lion's share of the airtime - or was that just because he was doing such a good job of holding my (and the nation's) attention?
Whether or not Clegg can maintain his bounce in the polls, his emergence from the political shadows is testimony to the power of television. It seems incredible that the leader of the country's third party (hardly an obscure political entity) can gain so much traction simply from ninety minutes of unveneered televisual debate with his two main opponents.
What is even more remarkable is that the last-but-one Liberal Democrat leader, Charles Kennedy, had a man-of-the-people message that was just as strong as Clegg's and which he conveyed in an affable style which I don't think Clegg himself has yet mastered. Kennedy's opposition to the Iraq war screamed "different from the other two" more than anything Clegg said on Thursday night. Yet the Scot's seven years as Lib Dem leader saw only incremental gains compared with the recent shift in public opinion of Clegg and his party. The only thing Kennedy didn't have that Clegg did? An hour and a half of primetime television.
So the blogosphere can carry on tweeting to itself while the box in the corner of the living room basks in its reaffirmed status as a superior power broker in the democratic process.
Monday 19 April 2010
Friday 2 April 2010
What next for regional news?
So, where does OFCOM's slightly surprising announcement of its preferred bidders for the ITV regional news pilots leave this interminable debate? The failure of ITN to win control of any of the three schemes can surely not have been the outcome anybody expected. It means that the Scottish and Tyne Tees/Border pilots are to be operated by newspaper groups and television production companies with little or no track record in broadcast news. That doesn't mean it is impossible for them to be editorially successful, but plans in the Scottish bid to include ultra-local news provided by community groups and children has raised concerns that the ouput might be rather parochial for regional television news.
In the Scottish case, it also creates the invidious situation of requiring STV to surrender its regional news slots, in spite of the fact that, unlike ITV Plc in England and Wales, it has never sought to do so. Indeed, STV has increased its sub-regional opt-outs and, as part of the ITN consortium for the Scottish pilot, planned to create a more rounded, outward-looking news offering in Scotland. It does seem a perverse outcome that STV might be forced out of regional news provision when it has never suggested that it wanted to walk away from its licence obligation in that regard. The pre-occupation with trialling the independently-financed consortia in the nations, as well as the regions, meant that the possibility of such an outcome was overlooked.
Added to the mix is an apparent softening of ITV's position when it comes to the future of regional news on the channel. Chairman Archie Norman has said it is an important strand of ITV's output, a very diffferent tone to the one set by his predecessor, Michael Grade, who started the stopwatch ticking on the demise of the channel's newsgathering presence in the regions.
Meanwhile, the Tories remain implaccably opposed to the IFNC concept and, with the contracts now unable to be signed this side of a general election, they could be in a position to scupper the entire scheme. As could ITV, if it decides not to surrender its airtime and either maintains its own output or walks away from regional news altogether.
So at least the future looks a bit more certain, then.
In the Scottish case, it also creates the invidious situation of requiring STV to surrender its regional news slots, in spite of the fact that, unlike ITV Plc in England and Wales, it has never sought to do so. Indeed, STV has increased its sub-regional opt-outs and, as part of the ITN consortium for the Scottish pilot, planned to create a more rounded, outward-looking news offering in Scotland. It does seem a perverse outcome that STV might be forced out of regional news provision when it has never suggested that it wanted to walk away from its licence obligation in that regard. The pre-occupation with trialling the independently-financed consortia in the nations, as well as the regions, meant that the possibility of such an outcome was overlooked.
Added to the mix is an apparent softening of ITV's position when it comes to the future of regional news on the channel. Chairman Archie Norman has said it is an important strand of ITV's output, a very diffferent tone to the one set by his predecessor, Michael Grade, who started the stopwatch ticking on the demise of the channel's newsgathering presence in the regions.
Meanwhile, the Tories remain implaccably opposed to the IFNC concept and, with the contracts now unable to be signed this side of a general election, they could be in a position to scupper the entire scheme. As could ITV, if it decides not to surrender its airtime and either maintains its own output or walks away from regional news altogether.
So at least the future looks a bit more certain, then.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)