I'm a huge fan of the BBC's technology business reporter Rory Cellan-Jones - or @ruskin147 as he's known on Twitter. I first appreciated his expertise and enthusiasm after reading his book about the dot com boom and bust, Dot Bomb.
But my heart sank when I heard that Rory had been given a temporary role as the BBC's digital election correspondent. Not because I don't think social media will play a role in the imminent British general election. No, my concern is that the move appears to confirm the fears of the BBC critics who think the corporation is obsessed with Twitter and - to a lesser extent - Facebook. More significantly, it suggests a preoccupation with the medium rather than the message.
Don't get me wrong. I love social media. I've been blogging since 2005, and have embraced Twitter and Facebook with a passion. But Rory's new (temporary) beat suggests the BBC is desperate to be seen as cool and in touch. His blogpost about the budget confirms my fear. As he says, the Facebook election page has just 1,000 fans active and 12 contributors. I sense that Rory is desperate to find a new digital angle to the election, rather than judge possible stories on their newsworthiness. That's a great shame for such a talented journalist.
The political social media enthusiasts constantly point to Barack Obama's 2008 campaign as the model for future engagement of voters through social media. But America is, as they say, another world. Obama was engaging in a great debate with Democratic party rivals, followed by the actual race for the White House. The idea of change was compelling after eight years of George W Bush. Britain is very different. British political parties seem to have transferred Punch and Judy politics to Twitter and Facebook. (The Tories' Cash Gordon stunt was pitiful.) We're hardly likely to be impressed. If they're going to succeed, they must remember that social media is about transparency and authenticity, not control and yah-boo insults. Individual MPs, such as Labour's Kerry McCarthy and Eric Joyce, often rise above this in their blogs, and provide a compelling insight into the role of the MP. (Though interestingly Kerry appears to talk more to the converted on Twitter. Does 140 characters lead politicians to be more partisan?)
My view is that the televised leaders' debates will have more of an impact on the 2010 election than the political parties' social media efforts. The real impact of Twitter and Facebook will be from voters commenting on the debates and developments in the campaign, not the parties' own efforts on social media sites. But Kerry and Eric are great role models for other candidates.
Comments