The presence of cameras, and to a lesser degree: microphones, damages the idea, because speakers are aware of their presence and thus make sure their appearance, the content of their speech and how they deliver it is well-designed to please their share of the crowd outside that is watching/listening. It distortes the debate. Ex-chancelllor Helmut Schmidt for the same reason opposed the idea of allowing cameras and mikes in the Bundestag, and labels it as one of the big misfortunes today'S democarcy is suffering from. I think he is right: just look at how far it has come with public politicians craving for media attentition in game shows and stupid TV appearances, talk rounds and the like. So this is another example for that you never can have only one side of a medal, but that all things come at a price that is printed on the other side of the coin: you raise public awareness and "control" of what is going on in parliament - and by that you make sure it becomes more theatralic, shallow, and matching the criterias for a successful TV reality show. And if you leave out cameras and mikes, you will not know what the hell they are spending their time with when dissappearing behind the doors of the parliamentary building.But no matter how the house of commons or the Bundestag is functioning - I do not have the impression that they form wise decisions. Exactly the contrary.
|