Kill the worm
October 9th, 2008 at 10:00 am by David FarrarSteven Price has an excellent piece on why TV3 should not have a worm:
We no longer need to listen to the debates and think about what we’re hearing for ourselves. We have an electronic scorecard. An infallibly scientific one. A fascinating, beguiling one. Instead of thinking to ourselves, “Now, is Helen Clark making any sense?” we think, “How is that going down? Is she winning the game?”
It’s politics as pure sport. We are mere spectators. The worm relieves us of the burden of having to work out for ourselves who’s ahead.
But hang on. The worm is simply the electronically summed gut reactions of a bunch of undecided voters twiddling some knobs in a room somewhere. Why take any notice of them? You won’t be told who they are, but you can make some safe assumptions.
First, the great majority of them will not share your political views.
Second, you would find some of them to be complete tossers.
Third, you have no idea what they are reacting to. You’re watching their reactions to the leaders’ ideas – mostly before the leaders have finished expressing them. Some of them are thinking, “Yeah, I’ve been following National’s Treaty of Waitangi policy and it makes good sense to me.” Some are thinking, “Ooh, I like his tie.” Some are thinking, “Damn, I forgot to remind Trish to pick up the sausages.”
So true.
When the worm was first used in 1996, Pam Corkery reckoned it simply went up when the live studio audience applauded. Wellington businessman Michael Gibson observed that the worm dipped whenever Paul Holmes appeared onscreen, no matter who was talking.
Heh.
There was also lots of coverage about how the worm adored Helen Clark. The commentators examined her “empathetic nodding,” her “softer, modulated voice,” her “pained sincerity,” her “ability to project an authoritative presence.” They didn’t examine her policies much.
And that’s why I hate the worm. It’s yet another thing pushing us toward image analysis and horse-race politics, and away from talking about how we’ve been affected by the government’s decisions in the last three years, what the alternatives might have been, and what policies are best for the future. The worm finds this stuff too boring. It doesn’t like long explanations. Nor does it like taxes (though it does like improvements in health and education). It doesn’t like uncomfortable truths being mentioned.
It turns a debate into a game show. No serious broadcaster would use one.
Tags: debate, Steven Price, The Worm
October 9th, 2008 at 10:19 am
I believe the worm also gave us Peter Dunne.
It should be like subtitles, then the viewer could choose to display it or not.
Vote:October 9th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Interesting comment from an American friend of mine. He noticed a clear difference in campaigning between the US – where not many people vote, and you pitch to the people who are interested in and understand politics, v’s over here, where a lot of what goes on is lowest common denominator stuff because most people vote, and many of them don’t care about politics.
Vote:October 9th, 2008 at 10:24 am
The biggest thing pushing us towards horse race politics is the arrogance of the two major party leaders in resisting any debates with the minors.
I’ve got nothing against the worm though, as long as people realise it is far more suitable as the subject for a drinking game than political discussion.
Vote:October 9th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Hear hear.
There is also a question who gets to pick the ‘undecided’ voters and how undecided they really are.
There is cetainly evidence from overseas use of worms that the reference group can turn out to have quite strong preferences, expressing an opinion on one leader or another before they even begin to speak.
It is a gimmick, pure and simple.
Vote:October 9th, 2008 at 10:52 am
If the worm goes, how will I know who to vote for? =\
Vote:October 9th, 2008 at 10:53 am
I thought the debates were a Game Show, with winner take all! A bit like “The weakest link”.
Vote:October 9th, 2008 at 10:58 am
“It turns a debate into a game show. No serious broadcaster would use one.”
So we will see it used extensively on all News Channels here in NZ then this election camapign.
Vote:October 9th, 2008 at 11:01 am
@Brian – excellent call.
Vote:October 9th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Wouldn’t it be dangerous if the few people watching who aren’t already political junkies thought for themselves?
Vote:October 9th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Hear hear. Particularly liked the comment about it not liking uncomfortable truths.
Vote:October 9th, 2008 at 11:09 am
I thought Paul Holmes’ view of the undecided voter this morning was spot on.
Effectively what he said was there is no such thing as an undecided voter – there are morons who are not interested in or don’t understand politics.
How else can you not have an opinion one way or another.
Vote:October 9th, 2008 at 11:35 am
“No serious broadcaster would use one.”
Welll mateys there’s the rub. “Serious broadcasters” are as easy to find as rocking horse shit.
Vote:October 9th, 2008 at 11:58 am
It’s not only unserious maybe voters twirling a knob for free drinks but unserious politicians playing up to the thing.
That’s why 8 pollies debating together is a nonsense.
JC
Vote:October 9th, 2008 at 11:58 am
The worm was specifically designed to appeal to the viewer who didn’t have the nouse or ability to make his/her own judgement on the worth of what was being said.
Sheep following sheep.
Vote:October 9th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Undecided is an interesting concept in an MMP world. I might be undecided who to vote for – I’m picking between National and ACT. Or I might be undecided between Labour and Green. I guess my reactions on a worm might be a bit different depending on which.
And, really, what is the worm telling us. That a bunch of morons liked the trite generalisations and sound bites that were popped out? Hell, that’s a great way to decide who should run the country – the person who is best at making trite comments sound insightful. Thanks but no thanks.
Vote:October 9th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
I’d prefer a system where you text or email 100 character limit comments that are broadcast while the addressee is talking.
Vote:October 9th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Why do we need to think for ourselves anymore?
We’ve got the Axis to do that for us now…
The average kiwi Joe just needs to know where to pick up his benefit, where the local takeaways, tinny house, liquor & lotto stores are, and he’s all set!
Vote:October 9th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
siobhan suggests:
I was about to write a “hear, hear” comment when I remembered that my own parents would be classed as undecided (if they were ever asked which, despite pushing 90 and having had a listed telephone number for over half that time, they never have. Funny, that).
They read the newspaper, watch TV, listen to talkback and it was their spirited discussions around the dinner table that got me interested first in journalism and then politics.
But they simply don’t have a clue what to do come election day. No one inspires their confidence enough to trust them with their vote and for the first time in their adult lives they’re thinking of staying home on election day.
While I’ve no doubt Holmes’ comment applies to many undecideds I do wish the pollsters would differentiate between the “I only watch the sports part of the news” mob and the “I’ve had a gutsful of every last useless lying sack of crap politician” mob when they quantify the category.
Vote:October 9th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
I hate the worm, the people who promote it, the people who authorise it and the people who get to use it.
The whole set-up is corrupt and an insult to one’s intelligence. There is no way known to vet people who say that they are undecided voters. Undecided voters do not affect election results. There is no good reason to persevere with a practice that gives a minority of the electorate the chance to show their anonymous bias.
Vote:October 9th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
the worm doesnt make the debate a game show it just reminds you that the debate is a game show.
Vote:But the real idiot is not the person who twists a dialup when helen winks at them, it is the moron who changes their vote when they see the worm move.
October 9th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
As mentioned before, the worm gave Peter Dunne a political career – and is enough for me to despise it.
Vote:October 10th, 2008 at 11:47 am
I watched a part of the second US presidential debate on CNN which had a worm.
I have no major objection to it so long as people see it as what it is: a gimmick.
It added no information on policy and simply seemed a measure of how populist the last statement was.
If you think the worm actually changes how popular a candidate/party is, then don’t be surprised by odd voting behaviour. If you don’t think it has an effect on voter behaviour then clearly it is irrelevant.
If a candidate tailors his/her comments to influence the worm then it will be clear that he/she is a populist not necessarily with any substance. There will always be an element of that in politicians – law and order and immigration being two popular footballs to kick.
I agree with GNZ. If you are influenced by the worm then you are a moron. And you can’t legislate for that (effectively anyway).
Vote:October 12th, 2008 at 1:03 am
What made the worm particularly bad is how the people were asked to score the speakers. In previous years the settings were based on how “interesting” the undecided voters found the speech. Now as we all know the finer details of how someone will enact policy are, while very important, often rather boring. Thus the worm tends to respond positively to vague statements and assorted sophistry about a great future, with no explanation on how to get there; and very negatively if someone tries to spell out the details of their policy, particularly the sacrifices that will be needed to get there.
Similarly dare I say that any live audience that boos or cheers during the debate is also a gimmick. After all the cheers/boos fill the same role as the worm climbing or diving. An ideal debate would have none of these things: Just the speakers, the adjudicator, and hard questions both the country’s direction and the policy they would use to get us there.
Vote: