tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4120607605276079906.post6602656567112318357..comments2023-06-20T11:45:11.879+01:00Comments on Kebab time: Labour double speakUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4120607605276079906.post-61291467320761173992012-08-29T05:52:29.942+01:002012-08-29T05:52:29.942+01:00The life of an unremarkable news event now: betwee...The life of an unremarkable news event now: between one and two hours at most.<br /><br />The life of an unremarkable news event two decades ago: as long as two weeks.<br /><br />Why?<br /><br />Twitter, for a start. It reduces everything to pub conversations. Try and talk about the same subject in a pub for more than five minutes and people will look at you very oddly. Do it for any longer and they will start to walk away.<br /><br />Twenty years ago, we would get the news in the paper, already 24 hours old at least. Then those who wanted to comment would pick up a pen and compose a letter. Take it down to the post office and buy a stamp. The paper might get the letter the next day and, if they liked it, would publish it a day later still. Someone who was struck by your comment would pick up a pen...<br /><br />Is it better or worse now? Does it matter?<br /><br />I deliberately chose to say <i><b>unremarkable</b> news event</i> In which case the answers by definition must be <i>better</i> and <i>no</i> respectively.<br /><br />But what if the news event is important? In that case, the new media cannot deal with the situation properly as it does not have the depth. But consider this: most of our politicians don't have the depth any more. They only want to fix the latest Twitter storm.<br /><br />Hence Ed Miliband's response. Fix the symptoms. Bollocks to the cause!<br /><br />Sorry to have taken so long to say this :-)<br />Schrodingers_cathttp://schrodingers8cat.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.com