Last night Dagens Næringsliv, (the Norwegian equivalent of the Financial Times) got in touch to ask me about Better Togethers advert. Thought Id share the raw interview as it might be hard to track down some Norwegian print over the next week. -------- What was your reaction to the ad? It was pretty visceral – my gut reaction was “this is not me”. The advert was clearly meant to be a mirror for busy Scottish mothers; something that reflected their lifestyle, domestic obstacles and thought processes, with a succinct, neatly packaged political message that would be easy to assimilate and regurgitate at the polls. I am exactly the demographic it was aimed at, but couldn’t have identified less with the woman in the broadcast. Who is this woman pontificating her second-hand political opinions over a cup of tea, and making a knee-jerk reaction to the most important decision in Scotland’s history? Despite Better Together’s crass attempt at sentimentality, their effort came off looking like a ventriloquist dummy housewife, spouting the views of a group of men who ‘know what’s best’ for us. It bears absolutely no resemblance to any woman I’ve encountered in a modern Scotland. What role has the ad played in the referendum debate? This is the week Better Together went dancing on land mines - and this ad was one of them. Not only have they revealed that their hand only contains bunch of cringe-worthy stereotypes, they’ve only given Yes more ammunition. They’ve also woefully set themselves up as victims of one of Yes’s most powerful tools – their sense of humour – and they do not miss a trick. And what does the whole affair say about the role of social media in the debate? There’s a huge chasm between the quality of the debate in the British media and that which is happening on social media and beyond. The newspapers would have you believe that it’s a handful of men in suits pursuing a personal vendetta against the other; but this parochial digest does the issue a huge disservice, by giving little acknowledgement to the flourishing grassroots activism sweeping the country. Social media – Twitter particularly – provides an insight into what’s really happening. It puts an unfiltered debate at our fingertips, allows us to reach the greatest thinkers, writers, policy makers, activists etc of our time, and witness their reactions and insight without media dilution. Also, the constraints of the media means individuals have to be pity in their output, which forces a clarification of ideas – very handy if you’re put off by long articles and woolly language. What do the reactions say about Scottish voters? It would have been very easy to take the advert personally, and while there have been a multitude of eloquent appraisals in the wake of the ad, the majority of the reaction has been humorous smackdowns from ordinary folks who see right through the advert. With each consecutive clanger BT drop, their campaign is becoming more and more like a pantomime; it would be easy to infer that they view us as a nation of easily shepherded simpletons. A quick glance at the reactions will demonstrate that we are a savvy, talented and articulate electorate, devoid of any sort of corny patriotism, who are exceptionally endowed to make reasonable decisions. Can humour play a part in generating involvement and engagement? I’d go so far as to say that humour is essential. Not only does it bind us in celebration or sorrow, it quells the acidity of life’s less palatable moments. Politics and comedy are and always have been inextricably linked. If you make someone laugh, you’re evoking a vestigial response – you’re making them react positively. When you react positively to something, you engage with it more, and in the digital age, humour is currency.
Posted on: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 08:39:50 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015