Is the TV debate ban on applause holding firm because we're obsessed with following rules?

Two debates on and, to my amazement, none of the leaders has managed to break through the ban on applause. Gordon Brown came closest when he got a laugh by accusing the other two of squabbling like his two boys at bath time - as audience laughter often leads into a burst of applause.

So I'd love to know what dire threats about Rule 40 are being issued to the audiences during the pre-debate briefings.

Or is it just that we Brits are so obsessed with following rules that no one would dream of getting their hands apart having just been told not to do so?

After all, one of the reasons we get so irritated by some of the sillier rules coming out of Brussels is that we, unlike the citizens of certain other EC countries (e.g. France), feel obliged to follow them all to the letter.

Will the first leader to break down the 'ban' on applause be declared the night's winner?

OK, I give in: to those of you who seem to think you might have missed something on Newsnight last night - which is quite likely, as there was only 24 seconds of it - here my rather predictable comment to Michael Crick.

By way of background, I was astonished by the fact that the audience in the first debate conformed to rule 40 of the 76 rules of engagement: 'In order to maximise the time available for viewers to hear the leaders discussion election issues with each other, the studio audience will be asked not to applaud during the debate.'

Note that it's a request rather than a straight ban on applause. And similar bans have failed to hold in US presidential debates - for more on which, see HERE.

As for how to maximise the chances of triggering applause in political speeches, of course, all is revealed in the books at the top of this page.

Silent speeches by party leaders: the wallpaper of television news coverage

Last night's Newsnight on BBC2 featured a couple of spectacular illustrations of one of my repeated complaints about the way media coverage of politics in the UK has been going for at least a decade.

After one of the US presidential elections, I wrote on Mediated speeches: whom do we really want to hear?

I began the new year with a post asking the question Will the 2010 UK general election be the first one to leave us speechless?

At the start of the election, I posted a video clip under the heading Blair speaks and the BBC tells you what he said.

All three made the point that British television news programmes have increasingly given up on allowing viewers see and hear politicians making speeches - unless, of course they're staged events in their own studios, like the three leaders' debates - and prefer to have their reporters telling us what the speakers are saying.

Oratorical wallpaper

This reached a high (or low?) point on Newsnight last night, when Nick Clegg and David Cameron were shown making speeches in total and complete silence.

Not only that, but the commentary from political editor Michael Crick didn't even give us any hints about what either of the party leaders had actually been saying in their speeches, concentrating in stead on a preview of tonight's leaders' debate.

So far, it's the most extreme example of speeches being treated as wallpaper that I've seen - and I'd be interested to hear from anyone who spots any similar examples between now and polling day.

I'd be even more interested to hear if anyone has actually seen or heard any news programmes featuring any excerpts from any proper speeches since the campaign began.

The UK general election of 2010: a play in three acts

A few days ago, Iain Dale, one of our most high profile and prolific bloggers, complained that he was finding the election so boring that he'd got writer's block. I'm having a similar problem - even though I've been following elections more closely than average since I first started to collect recordings from them back in 1979.

As regular readers will know, I've been concerned for some time by the way that British media coverage of politics, aided and abetted by the politicians themselves, has more or less given up on filming proper speeches at proper rallies in favour of interviews, pointless photo opportunities and exegesis of the gospels according to the opinion pollsters.

It's a trend that's now culminated with three 90 minute television programmes.

Tragedy, comedy or farce?
As a result, election coverage - and you could say the whole election - is rapidly boiling down to a narrow and obsessive focus on a three 'act' play, with each 'act' preceded and followed by endless literary criticism in the form of commentary and analysis by reporters, pundits and pollsters about who did how well, which one should do what in order to do better in the next one and what effect they might be having on the opinion polls.

Meanwhile, the politicians seem to be just as preoccupied with the play, both on screen and behind the scenes as they rehearse for the next performance.

Last night, I tried, yet again, to find some semblance of excitement and/or enthusiasm on the television news programmes, but had to endure yet more footage of politicians walking around high streets, with a word or two to a reporter here and there - plus lots of authoritative sounding stuff from journalists about what (according to them) is actually going on out there - illustrated, of course, by ever more flashy PowerPoint style slides showing each party's progress in the polls.

Thankfully, I haven't time to go on about it - because you really do have to get your priorities right. And my most pressing one at the moment is to do a bit of preparation to pose as a drama critic for a media piece on Act II tomorrow night...

How did Sky News become the LibDems of the TV debate broadcasters?

If it was a major victory for the Liberal Democrats to be granted equal rights in the rules of engagement in the TV leaders' debates (see previous post), the same can surely be said of Sky News being granted equal debate broadcasting rights with the BBC and ITV.

BARB statistics suggest that Sky News has an audience of about two million - but whether that includes all the people watching it in hotel rooms abroad isn't clear.

Unless something happens in the second debate on Sky News this Thursday to turn the third one on BBC into an exciting final knockout round, two advantages make it look as though ITV will be the winner in the ratings battle. They had the luck to draw the straw to make history by broadcasting the first ever televised debate in a UK general election. And, by scheduling it immediately after Coronation Street, they had a captive mass audience of soap opera fans ready and waiting as history was about to be made.

But the Sky News debate on Thursday will come on after - er - Sky News.

So as big a question as how the LibDems managed to get equal rights for their leader in the debates is how the Murdoch media group managed to elbow other worthy candidates like Channel 4 News into touch to put Sky News on an equal footing with the BBC and ITV?

ANSWER:

Since posting this and putting a link to it on Twitter, I'd like to thank Tom Rayner (@Tom_Rayner), Home Affairs Producer for Sky News, for tweeting the following helpful answer to my question "Sky News led the campaign for the leaders' debates - and were key players in the negotiations" http://bit.ly/1d51YU