What are the advantages if the major television networks no longer follow politicians on the election-campaign trail?
Last week’s column gave details of a proposal where the networks would pool their resources to send one five-person camera crew with each political party’s plane, then later share the footage.
Most obvious is the cost saving. Hundreds of thousands of dollars will be saved by media organizations by doing this and that’s very appealing to everyone, especially CBC and its critics.
Secondly, journalists will have a better chance of escaping the manipulative agendas of the politicians.
Read Also
Topsy-turvy precipitation this year challenges crop predictions
Rainfall can vary dramatically over a short distance. Precipitation maps can’t catch all the deviations, but they do provide a broad perspective.
During an election campaign, political parties carefully organize events with party faithful, and try to avoid controversy and confrontation with the electorate. Forget spontaneous meetings between a farmer in his field and Jean ChrŽtien.
The reporters would have a chance to question the politicians for 10 minutes on air, and probably longer afterwards if they wish. This would allow the politicians and journalists to spar as each group attempts to avoid the other’s agenda.
Thirdly, the life of journalists is greatly improved. They’re relieved of massive media scrums, shouting questions, elbowing photographers, hurried schedules, and loud, interfering noises from planes, trains and sometimes tractors.
Another advantage is for the politicians. With five minutes each day (and possibly more during question time) to reach an audience by television, candidates can control the message they want to give. There is no editing, and no reduction of the message to a 15-second sound clip.
Voters may find this format to their advantage as their local candidates gain more exposure, and debates may focus more attention on regional issues.
(Next week: the disadvantages.)
