Lazy Journalism in Politics

I felt the need to write this piece in the wake of the news that Diane Abbott is stepping aside as Shadow Home Secretary for health reasons.

 https://pixabay.com/en/vote-word-letters-scrabble-1804596/

By many this is said to be the result of a mass loss of confidence in the Labour Party following the two epic gaffes made by Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott in two different interviews in almost as few days. Admittedly Corbyn and Abbott both made silly and highly undesirable blunders at a crucial time in British politics. Some people say that people are rightly questioning their allegiance to the party and whether they should vote for a party who doesn’t know how much what their manifesto policies will cost. For those people Abbot stepping aside is the correct, and only, thing for her to do in order to ensure the success of the Labour Party.

People across the length and breadth of the country are now asking of both Abbott, and the entire Labour Party, if they are unable to recall such an important figure as the cost of one of the policies they want to implement then how “strong and stable” (if I might recycle a phrase I heard somewhere) would they be at running the country? What people are forgetting is that the fact Corbyn and Abbott could not recall the exact figure of one of their policies when asked in an interview with immense pressure on them personally and with a lot at stake is irrelevant. Yes, it doesn’t look good, yes, that sort of error should be avoided when making a radio or television appearance but ultimately it doesn’t matter!

The simple fact is that their errors were pounced on by interviewers keen to humiliate the pair because it makes good viewing/listening. By not letting the matter drop for the moment, or not giving someone the time to respond to a question without being interrupted as Corbyn, for example, asked when he was being interviewed on Woman's Hour and by Jeremy Paxman, creates drama and draws immense public attention to their programme making their show more popular, thus giving them more security in a time of cuts and vast competition from online entertainment. Personally, it makes me question the integrity and intelligence of the interviewer. Could they think of no better questions to fill the short segment that they had been allocated?

Have you ever tried remembering a large amount of numbers? How about trying to learn the date of every battle in British history for instance? Off the top of my head I know that the Battle of Naseby was in 1645, but right now I can’t quite remember when the Battle of Edgehill was. However, if I was going to sit an exam paper on the Civil War I would find out first. So, yes, it doesn’t look good that neither of them knew the answer to the question that they were being asked at that time, but that doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t check before sitting their exam paper, i.e., before implementing their policies. After all, they have a fully costed and approved manifesto so they must have some idea of how much their policies will cost. And before those policies would get implemented they would be brought in front of a full house to be debated, torn apart and finally voted on.

Focusing so deeply on simple human errors like theirs detracts from what’s important during an election. Policies. Yes, we should be asking how much policies cost and there should be an answer to that question (there is, it’s in their manifesto) as well as where that money is going to come from.

But ultimately the most vital aspect of an election is working out what each party stands for, not getting distracted by asking futile (albeit amusing) questions like ‘What’s the naughtiest thing you’ve ever done?’ or ‘Who does the household chores?’. Causing drama and humiliating guests in an interview prevents the nation from getting to the heart of the policies that each of the parties is campaigning for. It’s a distraction from what actually matters. What matters is finding out what matters to the politicians who want your vote. Usually these policies are the reason why that person got into politics to begin with. Surely that should be at the core of any interview with a politician? We should be asking them what matters so that we, the citizens of this nation, can then ask ourselves whether what matters to that politician also matters to us. We should not be basing our vote on which politician performs the best publically. Surely someone’s opinion on equality, health, human rights and people, is more important than whether they look good aesthetically and can charm people with smoke and mirrors or whether they can distract the populace with frivolous ephemera?