Welcome to the Jungle

How magazine format television assisted in reducing politics to a crude cartoon

You can’t help but feel sorry for them, can you?

I mean, imagine finding yourself in an unfamiliar place, away from family, dark and scared…..covered in….in……Matt Hancock!

And he’s not even a ‘celebrity’ is he?

As an unpaid cockroach extra in the show that profits from your exploitation, you’d at least expect to be crawling on Kerry Katona’s tits or going insania down Peter André’s Y-fronts, wouldn’t you?

But in an age when politicians pride themselves on being showmen, expect a circus.

So…..how did we get to a point where an ex Health Secretary thinks degrading himself by eating all sorts of nasties on low grade telly will boost his public profile? 

Furthermore, that many will help him do this by lining his already bulging pockets?

It’s a story of the marrying of two genres - current affairs and entertainment.

How did they end up merging to the point where they are often indistinguishable….and why?

I’m a Gen-X’er, so let’s ‘cut a long story short’ and pick it up in the early ‘80’s.

When we were kids, it was rare to see a politician crack a smile, let alone a tinny open by a campfire.  But…..you knew were you stood. With the exception of ‘Spitting Image’ (which wasn’t really them), we knew exactly where to find the grey suited dullards and twin-set wearing battleaxes.

They were either on the news or shows about politics. Their main day was ‘Sunday’ and they were interviewed by clever sounding folk like Robin Day who asked them about budgets, bills to be passed, diplomatic relations ……. you know, politiciany stuff.  Whilst even back then, much of it was probably scripted, it was arguably less contrived. It was an age of flying flecks of phlegm, sweat patches and wobbling jowls….

Even when political figures were disliked - and no-one was more hated than Thatcher - they were at least taken seriously.

Often…..they were even….*whisper*……respected.

Somewhere along the line we swapped substance for sound bites and policy for personality.

As with many successful marriages,  it all started with things getting rather cosy on the sofa.

Let me explain.

Once TV was firmly established as weapon of mass instruction, it made perfect sense to muddy the waters of factual and fun.

Why?

Because an audience fed on rationality and reasoned argument is not so easily controlled as one consumed by emotion.

When we watch a show that is billed as factual, we approach it with a certain mindset. We want to be challenged, informed. We listen with analytical ears expecting debate.

We want to know something.

Contrast this with the way we consume light hearted material.  We do so with a different expectation - to be entertained. We want to go on a journey, share in someone’s pain, joy or laughter.

We want to feel something.

When we are absorbing content in this way, we are generally more relaxed, our mind is in a more malleable state.

Hmm….

If only those with agendas to plant, ideas to sell, votes to win could reach their target audience when they were in this state…..

If only they could have people considering politics and news with their hearts instead of their heads…..

Hmm…..

Enter the “Sofa news” format.

Whilst shows like ‘That’s Life’ had shown that blending serious and comedic content could be successful, it was the advent of Breakfast TV that truly capitalised upon it.

Desks became couches. Current affairs items were spliced between lighter topics such as keep-fit and cookery. The choppy magazine format and accessible time slot appealed to audiences traditionally alienated from news and politics.

It became achievable to please both school run mums hankering after the L-shaped sofa that looked like the one in Habitat, and city slickers fannying about with Filofaxes before the daily commute. It was possible to slip Dow Jones next to Howard Jones, Mad Lizzie next to Mad Cow Disease.

With this large and diverse audience now captured, came the chance to roll out some psychology - an opportunity to drip feed information on to an emotionally manipulated viewer. The quick-change style meant that not only were people given little time to digest complex topics, but often they were still ‘warm’ from the emotive content that preceded it.

The familiar hosts - so unlike stony-faced news and politics presenters - became like friends. The fuzzy sweaters, coffee mugs, banter …..Frank Bough, Anne Diamond, Nick Owen, Selina Scott…..whichever channel you tuned into, the camera zoomed in to twinkly eyes, they leaned across and touched each other’s knees…..

That’s right, you began to TRUST THEM. Who better to show you who to like? What to think? To ask the ‘right’ things?

By association we started to believe those who appeared with them too.

In the early days, politicians were snobbish about these shows but soon came to see that Breakfast TV was the new front doorstep battleground. As we moved into the nineties, no-one understood this more than Blair who shamelessly courted them, massively maxing out his mum appeal.

Fast forward to today.

Not only are there more of these ‘pick n mix’ programmes than ever, but they are punctuated by ever more distracting pop ups from sponsors and frequent commercial breaks.  We watch so-called ‘news items’ satisfied we have caught up with world events …..whilst wondering where Holly Willoughby got her polka dot dress.

And all the time our boundaries are being toyed with. The lines between celebrity and professional, blurred.

Why go to your own GP when Dr Hilary told Lorraine your suspected side effect is completely normal?

Why seek independent financial advice when Martin Lewis looks directly into the camera telling you what you ‘need’ to do?

Informality has brought with it a mass dumbing down.  The culture of being constantly interrupted by texts and emails  has also contributed to both poor concentration and low expectation with regard to the way we consume media. Often we are patronised with ‘before the break we saw…’ segments, reinforcing the idea that we can’t retain information.

And so we arrive at the point we reach today.

What’s a little ‘ole Z-lister granny-killer to do when the Beeb has supposedly become so ‘left wing’ and new channels like GB news, so allegedly ‘right wing’? 

Why put time in carving out serious credentials when you can rumble in the jungle with Ant n Dec for a quick buck?

Not only that, many of your constituents won’t just ‘ave it, they’ll be scrimping on the heating so they can phone in to ‘save you’ to make sure you face the bushtucker trial you ‘deserve’?

Except, it’s not what he deserves is it?

What he deserves is a criminal trial, as do all of those complicit in the Convid debacle.

The joke’s not on Matt Hancock. With a guaranteed £400k, follow up deals to boot and public attention distracted away from Midazolam, he’s a happy chappy.

The joke is not on the WEF agenda pushers either. They have got you to the point where not only can they promote their ‘eco friendly’ ideals of bug eating and endurance via predictive programming, but you willingly pay for the privilege.

No - The joke is well and truly on the British public. Your television is in tatters, your cash is being squandered, your future plotted and your politicians reduced to humiliating themselves to get attention.

Say what you want about Thatcher.

She may have kissed Reagan’s arse but even she’d have drawn the line at eating Kangaroo cock.