Commentary

The Other Amazing Race

I know I'm not the first to point out the sometimes amazing similarities between politics and reality TV, but as the election season (pre-election season?) drags on, that similarity becomes even more marked.

For example, look at the multitude of candidates for each party's nomination -- so many that the whole affair currently feels like the audition rounds of "American Idol" or maybe the opening rounds of "Survivor" or "Big Brother," with the obligatory "like-me" positioning of all involved; and the caution against too much back-biting that slips away as territory becomes marked out and threats emerge.

At this point, of course, everything is hidden behind the smiles for the cameras, the beautifully-honed sound-bite; the false jollity and baby-kissing that are all about creating well planned impressions rather than revealing the beast within -- kind of like reality TV after the editor and producer have been at it.

Soon we will leave the "Survivor" phase and move into what might be called the "Amazing Race" phase, where two pairs of candidates will be packaged for their voter- and lobby-friendliness (read viewer friendliness).  Much like "The Amazing Race" (one of the more palatable of the reality offerings on TV as it doesn't rely wholly on mans' baser instincts), this is where candidates will play together for the greater good, helping each other in times of need and trying to retain the moral high ground even though they'd like nothing more than for the opposition to fall flat on their collective face.

advertisement

advertisement

Of course it's easy to assume that after the election, the reality analogies go away, but I'm of the view that we could have done with a bit of Gordon Ramsey's delicate touch in the White House in recent years (but that's probably about as political as I should get here).

The interesting -- and somewhat sad -- thing about this sort of analogy fest is that the reality formats and modern political campaigning (I hesitate to call it discourse) is based in the same foundation: the world of the black-and-white, simplistic sound-bite that plays to emotions, self-interest and ignorance.

The media are as much to blame for this as the politicians who want to get their carefully crafted message across without fear of cross-examination or the introduction of doubt.  It's entirely understandable that politicians will dodge the bullet of a media interrogation if they can, but unless the news outlets see their role as providing political platforms rather than risk upsetting candidates by daring to ask pertinent questions (and thereby run the risk of not getting the names on the show), then they have an obligation to arbitrate the discussion of issues and play impartial commentator (optimistic and probably unrealistic I know, but there you have it).  Probably the best examples currently available to many of us are -- unsurprisingly -- Charlie Rose and BBC America.

While the success or failure of various reality shows may affect our culture in ways we find more or less disheartening, there is at least still a vast array of choice available to us. And we can even avoid these shows if we choose (though sometimes it's hard to remember that).

Reality politics, on the other hand, has deeper and more lasting consequences.  The remote control doesn't have an off button for governments or their policies.  We can't surf administrations and are very much stuck with what we get.

The famous quote has it that every society gets the government it deserves.  Unfortunately we also get the political coverage we deserve, which is often dumbed-down beyond belief.  And only a small percentage of the population will make the effort to find more information from a wider, more nuanced pool of sources so their own opinions -- and their vote -- can be better informed.

Next story loading loading..