One of the most salient moments during the Xarabank debate between the Prime Minister and the Opposition leader was the question a man in the audience posed to Simon Busuttil. “You had promised the setting up of a cafeteria. At what stage is the project?” he asked.
That moment is significant as it gives clear indications of the use that Maltese political parties make of television as part of their political strategy. It also raises important considerations about people’s perception of television. Furthermore it posits the question about whether television can be used to provide serious information about politics and stimulate intelligent political communication.
The interpretation of television content, just like the perception of porn and beauty, lies in the eyes (perhaps, better still, brain) of the beholder. Personal likes and dislikes are among the criteria at the basis of people’s reception of television images. Consequently one’s interpretation, for example, of the performance of Joseph Muscat and Busuttil during the Xarabank debate probably says more about one’s personal history, likes and dislikes than it says about the competence of the two political leaders.
Consequently, outright victories, marginal ones, draws and draws with tiny margins one way or the other were among the assessments given for the performance of the politicians.
There were also many comments about the appropriateness or effectiveness of the question fielded by the little known gentleman. This question baffled some, amused others and irritated several. Only those who had known that the proposed setting up of a cafeteria in the headquarters of the Nationalist Party had been mooted after the election could have made some kind of sense out of that question.
The leader of the Nationalist Party could have retorted by asking what has become of the pre-electoral suggestion by a very high official of the Labour Party that mooted the possibility of Labour Party-run supermarkets. Fortunately, Busuttil did not go down that cynical route, though that would have been a strong ad hominem retort.
The relevance of the question lies in the fact that it was not a question by an unknown person. It was officially crafted by the Labour Party undoubtedly with the approval of the Prime Minister. The said gentleman was just the peg on which the question fastened.
Should cynicism and ridicule be the hallmark of the use political parties’ make of television? The cafeteria question was not the first such (mis)use during Xarabank. Another worse example had been the decision to use Franco Debono to attack Busuttil before the election. At least the ‘cafeteria’ gentleman behaved in a civilised way.
Discourse about political arguments and leaders should rise beyond such cynical gimmicks. The country should not go back to the time when Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici was called ‘zero’ and Eddie Fenech Adami was called ‘vavu bil-ħarqa’ (nappy-clad baby).
The Nationalists were ruefully mistaken to underestimate Muscat when he became leader of the Labour Party. It seems the PL is determined to return the favour by similarly assessing Busuttil.
Can politics in the age of television be different? The media scholar, Neil Postman, among others, answers in the negative. He thinks television has reduced contemporary culture to a peek-a-boo one, shrivelled serious discourse, turned entertainment into the supra-ideology of all discourse, and reduced our culture into a vast arena of show business. Perhaps he exaggerates. But considering that Ronald Reagan himself had compared politics to show business, one starts getting doubts about whether Postman is exaggerating or not.
Writer Edwin O’Connor was somewhat kinder to politics than Reagan. In his novel The Last Hurrah, he presents mayor Frank Skeffington instructing his young nephew in the realities of politics, which he describes as the greatest spectator sport in America.
On further reflection, O’Connor’s assessment is not very different from Reagan’s, since sport has also become a form of show business. Both metaphors bode badly for the understanding of politics as the reasoned and principled running of the polis.
The populating of the mediascape by the social networks has dented the influence of television, but as things stand today it is still a medium of great political influence. TV’s dependence on the image and its increasingly fast pace privilege a certain kind of discourse and personality types. TV is more and more becoming a sound bite medium. It is allergic to long-winded, logically sequenced and intensely explained arguments.
Repetition, quotes out of context, insinuation and ad hominem arguments wash very well on television. It loves visual language and emotions instead of concepts and notions. Television is concrete, not abstract. Most of all, it is quick.
It is kinder to those who master the art of badinage, the shallow rejoinder, punch lines and the easily remembered slogans. ‘Time for change’ is easier to remember that all the arguments that one can bring to propose change.
The tendency to have one format of political discussion should be resisted
Love it or hate it, this is the language of television, at least the language that gets you the mass audiences. The Xarabank format has been such a great success as it mastered television language and consequently rewards those who ‘speak’ it well. In no way am I implying there should not be a place for other formats that discuss politics. Quite naturally there should be, but one has to realistically accept that one’s reach would be considerable smaller.
The tendency to have one format of political discussion should be resisted. But television’s tendency to be self-referential should also be resisted. Several studies have shown that a considerable percentage of television reportage of electoral campaigns is taken up by the discussion of the television coverage of the campaign, more than the political issues. Television is today becoming the issue.
This negative aspect is compounded by television’s predilection for what is described as horse-race coverage, that is, stories about strategy and tactics and the question of who is winning.
Just blaming television for this state of affairs does not really wash.
During one particular scene in Gladiator when the carnage is at its crudest, Russell Crowe throws down the sword while he angrily and disapprovingly asks the audience: “Are you entertained? Isn’t this why you are here?” Without an audience there will be no gladiatorial combat.
Television will continue to provide audiences with politicians on two opposing and warring sides just as long as the audience still sit in the ringside and cheers the combative sides on while being more interested in the adversarial format than the issues.
Television and its audience feed off each other.
joseph.borg@um.edu.mt