Discussion
1. On discussing the things that generally don’t get discussed.
2. On bringing in nuance that gets squeezed out.
3. On having a conversation, not a debate, not a ‘panel’, not an interview.
4. On doing this while *in* power, not only in the lead up.
- - -
I’ve now listened to several episodes of Zack Polanski’s Bold Politics podcast and have been reflecting on what I’ve heard so far.
So far, it seems to me to be doing 1 to 3 above pretty well to varying degrees. Some thoughts…
…It varies from episode to episode but I like that Bold Politics seems fairly conversational and a bit less interviewy.
I especially like that it discusses the space that policies sit in but doesn’t focus heavily on actual policy.
Because that keeps things more open.
I contrast this with Ed Miliband’s Reasons to Be Cheerful podcast which was always quite policy centric.
What both Ed and Zack’s podcasts have in common is that they’re conducted while they’re *not in power*…
…I can quite imagine how the demands on time ramp up when someone is in power.
But I note that over 11 years from 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt gave 30 radio addresses while *in power* – his “Fireside chats”. They were between 11 and 44 minutes each: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fireside_chats
I’ve not listened to them, so I don’t want to speculate on their content. And I assume they were monologues.
I do wish contemporary leaders could create an inclusive and *conversational* space while *in power*…
…When every ministerial utterance is either reacting to events under media duresse or articulating policy along adversarial lines, that *closes down* imagination and understanding.
There’s an irony that as mass comms have proliferated since Roosevelt’s era, the scope of what can be discussed and invited in has become *narrower*.
Can we open things up again? Can we do it with the spirit of pluralistic conversation, not monologues or heavily asymmetric and choreographed interviews?
…We already have the formats that the media recursively regurgitates. They’re going to do that anyway.
Why can’t leaders be more imaginative, more expansive? And *lead*.
Are we destined to be stuck with imagination only when in opposition?
A @PortsmouthGreens candidate once astutely remarked to me that “words in opposition are cheap”.
How can we make words in power less expensive?
Install bonfire.cafe
Get the full app experience
