A quick point on a very odd tactic used, badly, by the BBC and Sky News this afternoon. Prime Minister's Questions happened to coincide with Muammar Gaddafi's latest address in Tripoli. Even though Gaddafi's ranting is ridiculous and usually hard to listen to anyway because of the translation, both networks seemed reluctant to leave their live broadcast of it. Solution? Split screen. On the left, silent, was Gaddafi and his crowd. On the right, David Cameron and Ed Miliband battling it out on PMQs.
The effect was strange and generally terrible. Split screens usually imply that one has something to do with the other. We were watching Sky, and the screen didn't even try to explain why both were up there. The result was that it looked as if the crowds listening to Gaddafi were reacting to Dave's jibes - one man looked particularly uncomfortable when Cameron took a shot at Nottingham Council. When Gaddafi was on screen, you couldn't help but somehow look for comparisons with whoever was speaking on the right - not exactly the effect they were hoping for, I'm sure.
What were they thinking? And why did it continue for the duration of PMQs?
Having not seen the footage I feel like it would have offered rather strong imagery which, if anything, should have served to reinforce democratic ideals: on one hand a crazy dictator whose tyranny has launched his country into civil war and on the other, the very functioning of democracy at work...
ReplyDelete