Newsnight's X Factor
The magazine publisher - on his generally rather good blog - has at last night's Newsnight send-up of the Lib Dem leadership contest as the X Factor. He asks, "have they done some research that indicates that people are more likely to tune into a current affairs programme if all the items are tricked up like student skits?".
The answer to that is no, but perhaps you can send us some ad hoc feedback below. In general, I'm not a big fan of the pastiche, which in fact was far more prevalent on Newsnight in years gone by than it is these days, but I think the complaint is a bit po-faced. It's rather like saying that quality newspapers shouldn't include cartoons.
Comments
In scanning through comments on frequent occasions, I observe that the government must be very grateful for the Internet. Doesn't it keep people busy, even more than TV?!
If half of posters' bile and castigation of the government, so evident in posts on various topics, were directed in other ways (such as e mailing 10 Downing Street or e mailing their MP) then perhaps the government would listen to potential voters.
Bread and circuses works every time.
I think your complainant has missed the point here - X Factor is as much a contest of popularity and personality rather than about actual talent.
Given that the Lib Dems policy is decided by the party, it seems a useful parody of their leadership contest...
And as the votes had to be recounted, there may be more in common with the real 'X-Factor' than they might like to think.
Yes, but was the pastiche entertaining? Was it illuminating? Or was it just a feeble gimmick to try to stand out from the media crowd?
The discussion between the three pundits (Finkelstein, Grender and Hyman) was far more insightful, and showed up the superficiality of Paxo's interview with Clegg.
"It's rather like saying that quality newspapers shouldn't include cartoons."
That's a bit Clegg isn't it? I would say Newsnight excesses are more like reporting flooding on rainbow paper. I have asked, before, where the "ageing population" now turns for current affairs, presented with gravitas. No one seems to know - or care.
Apologies, but we've had to remove the segment from the on-demand version of last night's Newsnight for copyright reasons.
Current Affairs presented with gravitas?
You will be wanting a radio, rather than newsnight.....
I enjoyed it, but then I'm easily amused.
;-)
ed
There are analogies, similes and metaphors.
Analogies are considered the best and 'truest' form of expression whereas a metaphor is the most like a lie.
To say x is like y is a simile,
To say x is like y because of an existing relationship is an analogy, To say x is y is a metaphor.
So 'A shepherd is like a ruler' is the simile.
'The shepherd and his sheep is like the ruler and his subjects' is the analogy
To say 'the shepherd is a king' or 'the king is a shepherd' is the metaphor.
Analogies are superior art.
So the lib dem leadership contest is not an X factor. Does the X factor winner have 'leadership' as the result?
All that is common is an election and not that much as its not a phone vote open to anyone. So an X factor metaphor is pretty poor stuff as nothing much is true between the two?
So a good and skilful analogy would have found at least something where the winner has a 'leadership' element?
So as we are talking about rulers and subjects we could have the analogy of Shepherd and sheep which in the lexicon of TV brings 'One Man and his Dog' to mind?
The 'shepherd' most skilful at herding 'the sheep' wins?
Newsnight would not dare to do a skit on either the Labour or Conservative parties. But they are quite ready to do the jeering of these established parties for them.
The Lib Dems believe and practice one person- one vote, and all votes counting equal. Compare that with the convoluted franchises operated by the other parties.
I was the producer of this item. I'm very aware that some of our audience are dead set against the use of visual devices or pastiche. But I'm equally confident many appreciate a different style of presentation when the same story, with the same pictures, has run across every news outlet all day.
I take issue with David Hepworth's assertion that "content" was at the expense of "television". I'd be interested to know what 'content' David felt was missing from the piece? Had I produced it with simple agency shots of the press conference and library pictures, the content would not have been any different.
To David's question of whether we've done "some research that indicates that people are more likely to tune into a current affairs programme if all its items are tricked up like student skits?", the answer is I haven't seen any. But do we need to try and increase the number of people watching current affairs. I think so. And will using X factor or visual devices help on some occasions? Based on no hard research, I say yes. Call it a producer's hunch.
Some may think that it will encourage new viewers to watch but does the gimmick not put off a good percentage of present viewers.
Gimmicks will not increase the viewing figures for Newsnight as it is not seen as that kind of programme by the people you are (inexplicably) trying to reach. The presentation style may help but not, I believe, in the Newsnight slot.
I'm glad this has been raised, it did slightly annoy me when I saw the X Factor pastiche and I had been planning to give some feedback. It sounds cliche but I think there is a danger of politics being trivialized with such things. In the US politics as entertianment is the norm - is that where we want to be heading? It's as if politics can only be made interesting through pop culture and it reinforces the idea it's all about personality rather than ideas (something all media is guilty of, of course, but newsnight less so).
And even if it were true that this would increase viewing figures, so what? That's not why people watch Newsnight and there are plenty of programmes that cater for that kind of audience.
If this is part of an attempt to engage 'young people', I'm sure it's misguided. I'm 23 and I thought it was distracting.