The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[Clint Planet]

Should you be looking to television for any kind of enlightenment though?

Where has this "Should" come from?

A better question may be "Is it possible for televison to be enlightening and informative?" and the answer, of course, is "Yes."

Did you, for example, see the BBC documentary on the Baby Peter affair last week? Or the John Pilger documentary on Australian aboriginies, "Utopia"?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Where has this "Should" come from?

A better question may be "Is it possible for televison to be enlightening and informative?" and the answer, of course, is "Yes."

Did you, for example, see the BBC documentary on the Baby Peter affair last week? Or the John Pilger documentary on Australian aboriginies, "Utopia"?

I don't have a television I'm afraid, but I did hear about the baby P program. I'm fairly sure however that it wasn't used as an educational seminar for health and social care workers.

I've no doubt that television can be fantastically informative. BBC wildlife programs are typically top drawer, and things like the Christmas lectures are great for youngsters. They're the exception rather than the rule though I suspect. I mean is the Apprentice supposed to educate us on the ways of business?

As superficial as they can sometimes be, I'd say TED videos have done more to educate people around the world than television has, which isn't a great advertisement given the huge money going into television broadcasting.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Typical of you to try to reduce it to "management."

Again, what you're saying is fascile and ill-thought-out. One aspect of politics is the constant battle to impose your own ideas and aganda, even within parties or alliances. Whether everyone is "actively trying to undermine and disrupt" is open to debate. Sure, it will sometimes happen but it could alternatively be characterised, within a coalition setting, as "arguing their case" or "lobbying their position" or even "representing the interests of their constituents."

Almost everyone predicted that this Coalition would crumble within 18 months but, whatever you may think of its achievements, it found a way of functioning.

I am more and more convinced that our current voting system and absolute majorities are bad for this country, despite the usual mantra from mainstream parties.

You're not making any sense at all. America is anything but a coalition government situation so it hardly backs up your point.

Are you resorting to insults now? I think coalitions can be great, but the constituents of it need to work together. If you think it's facile and ill-thought out, I suggest you study the works of Scott Page. He's arguably the authority on the value of thought diversity and he outlined four main tenets for it to be required.

1. The problem needs to be tough enough that no single person will always come up with a solution
2. The team members need to have some intelligence in the general area of the problem
3. The team members need to be able to incrementally improve solutions to the problem
4. The team needs to be large enough to have a genuinely diverse talent pool

So far so good. A coalition could contain all of those things, but he also explains that they need enough similarities to bind them together. Stick an Exxon executive and a Greenpeace member in a room and they have diverse thought, but they won't achieve much as they have little in the way of common ground.

I get the feeling that you'd check out the window if I told you the sun was shining. If you look at PMQs, do you get a sense that they're a group of people that will gladly work together towards a common goal? I'm not sure I do.

Re the television debate, here's a video of a Page lecture. Use it as you please.

 

[Clint Planet]

I don't have a television I'm afraid, but I did hear about the baby P program. I'm fairly sure however that it wasn't used as an educational seminar for health and social care workers.

*rolls eyes*

 

[Clint Planet]

Are you resorting to insults now?

No.

 

[Clint Planet]

I've no doubt that television can be fantastically informative. BBC wildlife programs are typically top drawer, and things like the Christmas lectures are great for youngsters. They're the exception rather than the rule though I suspect. I mean is the Apprentice supposed to educate us on the ways of business?

No, it isn't. As you well know. You seem to be suggesting that television can have only one role in society which is plainly ludicrous (or, dare I say it, fascile and ill-thought-out).

As superficial as they can sometimes be, I'd say TED videos have done more to educate people around the world than television has, which isn't a great advertisement given the huge money going into television broadcasting.

Always a right-wing-agenda to your posts, isn't there? Subtext: Privatise the Beeb! Let the great unwashed educate themselves with TED and be damned if they don't take up this wonderful opportunity!

TED lectures are great but if you're seriously suggesting that they've had a bigger impact on this country (and, yes, I know you said the world but we're discussing Britain here, not Honduras or America) than the vast, enormously high-quality materials that the BBC has produced for schools over the years then there really is no hope for you.

 

[Clint Planet]

So far so good. A coalition could contain all of those things, but he also explains that they need enough similarities to bind them together. Stick an Exxon executive and a Greenpeace member in a room and they have diverse thought, but they won't achieve much as they have little in the way of common ground.

But it isn't necessarily about what one person or one viewpoint wishes to achieve. In an ideal situation, the Greenpeace member would act as a check on the worst aspects of the Exxon executive. If Exxon failed to achieve all it wanted, that would be seen as a success by many, not least Greannpeace members (but also many other members of society).

Sounds like Page is talking rubbish.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

But it isn't necessarily about what one person or one viewpoint wishes to achieve. In an ideal situation, the Greenpeace member would act as a check on the worst aspects of the Exxon executive. If Exxon failed to achieve all it wanted, that would be seen as a success by many, not least Greannpeace members (but also many other members of society).

Sounds like Page is talking rubbish.

I rest my case. I've given you a lecture above, or you can read his book if you want. I mean you wouldn't want to appear facile and dismiss something you haven't explored

http://www.amazon.com/Difference-Di...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1330628832&sr=1-1

 

[Clint Planet]

I rest my case.

As you wish. You've hardly made a compelling one.

 

[Coach]

As superficial as they can sometimes be, I'd say TED videos have done more to educate people around the world than television has, which isn't a great advertisement given the huge money going into television broadcasting.

Since you don't have a telly how do you know?

For a start Sesame Street has done far more than TED ever will.

 

[HuddersfieldToffee]

I don't have a television I'm afraid

If you don't have a TV, what's all your furniture pointed at?

 

[rascal]

If you don't have a TV, what's all your furniture pointed at?

The fireplace proper Victorian style

 

[Jxg]

Yes, they can. And I can call it a load of horsewank if I want, too. I didn't call for it to be banned or anything, did I?

Point is stop complaining, because that's how the world works. UKIP's media coverage directly correlates with how well they're doing. If they're getting programmes made about them it's because people will watch it.

 

[Blue 1]

Point is stop complaining, because that's how the world works. UKIP's media coverage directly correlates with how well they're doing.. If they're getting programmes made about them it's because people will watch it

Better not complain about anything.

The BBC affords them way more airtime than how well they're doing merits.

Yes, I know this is C4, and yes, it's all about ratings.

Was just pointing out that if past efforts are anything to go by it's likely to be a trashy bit of tabloid TV which will add nothing to the public discourse. Which is fair comment, no?

 

[Coach]

Point is stop complaining, because that's how the world works. UKIP's media coverage directly correlates with how well they're doing. If they're getting programmes made about them it's because people will watch it.

They also made Big Brother - probably as the pilot for the UKIP show.