because everything's worth shouting about

Last night an estimated 10 million of us sat down in front of our televisions to watch the first Leaders’ Debate, hoping perhaps for a defining moment that would turn the election on its head. Well that, unsurprisingly, didn’t happen. There was though, a degree of debate that it was feared wouldn’t happen, and as a television event, I for one found it compelling.

As the titles rolled, we could see the three men looking understandably apprehensive as no-one really knew what to expect. Yes, they’d all been rehearsed and yes, they all had their carefully crafted soundbites in their pockets but the unknown quantity was each other’s strategy.

Clearly Nick Clegg had the least to lose and the most to gain – a fact that all three men were clearly aware of – and he capitalised on it. At the start, he looked the most confident and relaxed and set out his stall – I’m not like the rest of them. True in one way: of the three only he stands absolutely no chance at all of becoming Prime Minister.

David Cameron on the other hand had the most to lose. He was the one perceived to be the best performer in front of the cameras and he had to convince the voting public that there was some substance behind the style and that he would be an able Prime Minister. His performance was at best stilted to begin with and anyone watching who had no idea of the makeup of British politics might well have thought that he was the third wheel. He gained in confidence as the debate continued

And then there was Gordon Brown – the only one that managed to elicit an illicit laugh from the audience (who had been told to remain resolutely silent throughout).  The way he dealt with each of his sparring partners was telling – aggression towards Cameron and concession towards Clegg. That, if nothing else, is an indication of quite how close the election is.

Each channel had their sentiment worms tracking the performances in real time, instant polls and Twitter was in overdrive, however I’m not entirely sure that Newsnight’s word cloud worked.

So round one to Nick Clegg, but over the coming days every nuance will be picked over and each of the parties will be looking at the bits that worked and didn’t. It’ll be interesting to see how the dynamics of the second debate differ from last night’s kick off.

I wrote here yesterday about the parallels between the 1960 US Presidential debates and the Leaders’ Debates taking place (beginning tomorrow) here. Now my former paymasters at ITV have come up with a ruse that highlights one of the many differences between then and now – the use of Twitter to gauge how the audience is responding to each of the three protagonists. Brilliant.

How it will work is that a new tool will track the tweets of 5,000 Twitter users (I hope I’m one of them) and give each tweet a sentiment score of between 1 and 5 which will be aggregated every minute and shown on the screen in real time. Is it scientific and statistically sound? Probably not, but it will be a boon to those of us that enjoy shouting at the television in the vain hope that those on it will hear.

Anyone who though that BSkyB would take Ofcom’s decision to force the broadcaster to sell its sports channels at a reduced to price sitting down was, of course, living in fantasy land. At the MIPTV conference in Cannes Sky’s Chief Executive Jeremy Darroch is warning that the decision will have a seriously detrimental effect on some of the smaller channels that appear on Sky’s platform. His keynote speech Darroch warns that the creation of new platforms will result in players that have no interest in content. It is not, he says, simply self-interest but a serious problem for the variety of programming available. Really? A new platform without content will not attract the viewers to make even a cut price deal on sport a viable option.

One of the things that has set Sky apart from its competitors is the fact that they understood from the beginning that in order to attract viewers you have to provide compelling content – it was the genesis of the first football deal with the broadcaster way back when.  And as we move into a new decade, it’s why the satellite broadcaster is investing more in original programming because ultimately content is still king.

The thing that will inspire viewers to change or adopt new platforms such as Virgin Media, BT Vision and Top Up TV will be the quality of the service – and programming. One without the other will simply not work.

Of course Sky will continue to fight and there are undoubtedly some very expensive lawyers looking at Ofcom’s decision very carefully, but will it signal the end for the likes of MTV? Somehow I think not.



So, just a few days to go until the first of the live televised leaders’ debates and I, like countless others, will be watching to see how it will turn out. For me, one of the biggest questions is what the three main protagonists aims will be on Thursday evening – a heated debate or a beauty pageant?

A look back into electoral debate history may provide some clues.  On the 26th September 1960, more than 70 million Americans tuned intot the first televised Presidential debates. Never before had the men fighting for the top job been seen by so many people at the same time.

Now it may be 50 years on but there are some similarities. The US election then, as is the case in 2010 here, was too close to call. On one side a young pretender from Massachusetts from a privilged background and on the other a former Vice President who had a hard childhood in a strict Methodist home.  The stage was set and the players prepared to enter the unknown.

In the run up, Nixon continued furiously campaigning whilst Kennedy prepared himself for the debate. The big difference between the two men was that Kennedy realised the importance of the debates in a way that Nixon just couldn’t grasp -  and he suffered for it. Today’s candidates of course are under no doubt about the importance of getting it right on the night.

The debates of 1960 have entered electoral lore as the turning point in that election – an election in which Kennedy polled fewer than 110,000 votes more than his rival. The vast majority of those that watched the debate on television thought that Kennedy had won, convincingly. However, those that listened on the radio thought that Nixon had the stronger argumnets – Nixon’s problem was that the TV audience was massive and the radio audience simply wasn’t. Maybe a better performance in front of the cameras from Nixon would given us a totally different history.

When it comes to the first debates here, the structure is very clear (although I pity the person who has to watch the clock) and the most interesting part is likely to be the four minutes of free debate that – according to the agreed rules – can follow certain questions.

At the end of it all, will it be style or substance that wins the day? Will voters be any wiser about policy details, or simply be swayed by the leader who shines on television? Will it be good television? Well, sadly I don’t have  acrystal ball, but I am certainly looking forward to reading the (inevitable) polls on Friday morning.

As someone who considers themselves an ITN man through and through, I can’t help feel sad that the Government has decided not to allow ITN to run at least one of the regional news pilot schemes which have been announced today.
It’s not simply about the quality of regional news, or the fact that they are incumbent, the decision will, I fear, have implications for the way that ITV/ITN delivers its national news.
News organisations (yes, even the BBC although not to the same level) are being squeezed by commercial pressures, and use regional bureaux and newsrooms to help deliver a national picture. From a financial perspective, ITN has always been the poor relation to the BBC, yet continues to deliver great popular journalism and scoops with some of the best journalists on the television – think Bill Neely, John Irvine, Paul Davies et al.
ITN knows how to produce compelling television news and understands its audience and whilst I’m sure that the preferred bidders will deliver on their promises, I for one would have liked to see ITN in the mix.

Thanks to @naomidulfer for sharing this example of what happens when someone brings two icons together and making my day just that little bit better – just beautiful

So the political charm offensive is ramping up as we head closer to the election and it’s no surprise that the main parties are viewing the television as even more of a key battleground as the polls show that it’s going to be a close run thing.

Key to the election planners’ strategy is trying to create the right image with voters before the debate is muddied by such trivial things as manifestos and policies – and even in the internet age, free to air, network television is still the best way to reach the widest number of people. There’s also the benefit of having a good idea of the audience demographic. We know who watches Alan Titchmarsh, Piers Morgan et al – and so do the parties’ advisors.

This Sunday, we’re going to be treated to a behind-the-scenes look at David Cameron and the Tories’ operations on ITV prime time with Trevor McDonald – a Mothering Sunday appearance to rival Gordon Brown’s Valentine’s Day chat with Piers Morgan. And yet again, the Liberal Democrats will benefit from the notion of political impartiality with a similar programme when Sir Trevor meets Nick Clegg.

Of course it doesn’t always go to plan – Gordon Brown’s offer to appear on Match of the Day 2 was politely declined.

Titchmarsh, Morgan and even Sir Trevor will all, of course, be relatively soft interviews – the warm up act perhaps for the leaders’ debates which kick off with my former colleague Alastair Stewart asking the questions – a man who will undoubtedly not let the three protagonists get away with much unchallenged.

It remains to be seen whether the voting public – or at least those few voters in the marginal seats who will ultimately decide the election – be swayed by the ‘man behind the politician’ strategy, but all the parties are hoping that the numerous and varied appearances by the two main protagonists will work in the same way as Molly Dineen’s  portrait of Tony Blair did in 1997.

Mark Thompson has now come out and said publicly what he said “privately” to The Times last week, that 6 Music and the Asian Network will close . There has been a lot of talk and chatter about the importance of 6 Music and more people have signed the Facebook and Twitter petition than ever listen to its most popular shows. In fact, if everyone who is bemoaning the end of 6 Music actually listened to it regularly, then it might not be facing the chop.

I tend to agree with the Director General’s assessment though, that the BBC needs to spend most of its money where it matters – in programming. Fewer web pages on bbc.co.uk may also not be so much of a bad thing as long as it doesn’t affect the news, sport or weather pages (yes, I admit a degree of self interest – they’re the pages I view most regularly).

The challenge now is going to be how to spend the extra £600m programme budget. Will we get more Celebrity Horse Rider or terrible game shows? I do hope not.  The strategy review is a great opportunity to once again drive creativity and take risks with programming that simply wouldn’t be viable in the commercial sector. Get it right and it will help make the case for a continuation of the current funding model, but get it wrong and there will be no shortage of people shouting for an end to the BBC as we know it.

The Guardian is reporting today that the Government is going to make an extra £7 million available for the regional news pilots for ITV which are due to start later this year – proof perhaps that Ministers are now becoming aware of the challenges facing any broadcaster wanting to provide comprehensive local and regional news.

Regional news plays an important role in the lives of millions of people who want more than the perceived metropolitan focus of that national news bulletins provide. The fact that all the major news organisations have ‘North of England’ correspondents and are based in London (the organisations not the North of England Correspondents) does little to help counter the view that the London media is London biased. I know through personal experience that national broadcasters work hard to represent the regions in their coverage and very often it’s with the help of their regional colleagues.

What is true, however, is that regional news (of the type that’s not on the BBC) needs help and it’s important that there is a plurality of outputs. As the world, as viewed by the media, becomes smaller, I feel sure that there is a desire to know what’s happening just around the corner as well as on the other side of the world. Let’s just hope that the new focus on regional coverage will result in a service that’s local, available across a number of platforms and above all, relevant.

“My behaviour has been a personal disappointment. I have hurt my wife, my kids, my mother, my wife’s family, friends, my foundation and all the kids around the world that admire me. I plan to make amends, never repeat the mistakes I have made and live a life of integrity.”

Well it was truly the media event of the day (well of teatime at least), Tiger Woods bearing his soul for the first time since his ‘episodes’ were made public. The strategy was clear – face up to it, don’t hide and don’t make excuses. I lost count of the times he said sorry, but he delivered his well-scripted lines with feeling.

He talked about being “irresponsible” and “selfish” and issued a plea to the media to leave his family alone – the tacit implication being that he realised that he was still a story (and who wouldn’t want THAT interview).

If you consider where he was – from a reputation point of view – today’s press conference was a great piece of PR, brilliantly executed and the first step on a long road back to both the golf course and the public’s respect.