Friday, 16 November 2007

Would a Green Leader be done in by the media?

One argument that the NO campaign have been making quite a bit in these last weeks of the referendum campaign is that they think that a good argument for not having a leader is that is that the media will FOCUS and pick on a leader like they would not pick on 'principal speakers'. This would concern their past conduct, current weaknesses, and if there any signs of inconsistency between what they say and how they actually conduct their life, etc. NO activists think that this would be more detrimental to the general situation than any bit of extra attention we would receive.
Now I think three things about this argument:

1) It is simply false. Yes, the media would focus in on our leader, and look for problems; but given that they wouldn't FIND so many problems (Caroline e.g. would never have a Lexus drive behind her as she cycles!), we will PROFIT out of this extra scrutiny.
2) Even those who suffer from intense media scrutiny (e.g. Cameron) also profit by it. Look how Cameron has transformed the Tories' prospects.
3) EVEN if for some reason you don't accept points 1 & 2, then this NO argument is still very weak. It basically says that we should be afraid and cower because of what the media might do to us. We in YES say: we should boldly step up to the plate, and take the calculated risk of getting ourselves a Leader. Because, at present, we are very small players indeed, nationwide.

Wouldn't it be something if our Party's fortunes were transformed, and we suddenly have a chance, the way that the Tories now do and the LibDems soon may?

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

1. 2. 3. Rupert's Read: Would a Green Leader be done in by the media? 4. 12. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 23. 24.

25. 26. Would a Green Leader be done in by the media? 27. 28.

29.
One argument that the NO campaign have been making quite a bit in these last weeks of the referendum campaign is that they think that a good argument for not having a leader is that is that the media will FOCUS and pick on a leader like they would not pick on 'principal speakers'. This would concern their past conduct, current weaknesses, and if there any signs of inconsistency between what they say and how they actually conduct their life, etc. NO activists think that this would be more detrimental to the general situation than any bit of extra attention we would receive.
Now I think three things about this argument:

1) It is simply false. Yes, the media would focus in on our leader, and look for problems; but given that they wouldn't FIND so many problems (Caroline e.g. would never have a Lexus drive behind her as she cycles!), we will PROFIT out of this extra scrutiny.
2) Even those who suffer from intense media scrutiny (e.g. Cameron) also profit by it. Look how Cameron has transformed the Tories' prospects.
3) EVEN if for some reason you don't accept points 1 & 2, then this NO argument is still very weak. It basically says that we should be afraid and cower because of what the media might do to us. We in YES say: we should boldly step up to the plate, and take the calculated risk of getting ourselves a Leader. Because, at present, we are very small players indeed, nationwide.

Wouldn't it be something if our Party's fortunes were transformed, and we suddenly have a chance, the way that the Tories now do and the LibDems soon may?
30. 31. 32.