Beingthereia
By Dan O'Connor April 16th, 2007
In Networking · Politics · Stories
Marina Hyde in Saturday’s Guardian offered a interesting dissection of the Labour Party’s foray onto youtube:
….the exercise is nothing more than down-with-the-kids gesture politics. If a million people can march against the Iraq war and be ignored, does anyone believe that commenting on Caroline Flint’s smoking ban video is going to make the blindest bit of difference?”
Other commentators have suggested that Labour’s youtube channel (named, as though it were a 1960s Gerry Anderson TV show, “Labourvision”) has all the hallmarks of that bane of web2.0, astroturfing: the fauxstablishment of online communities. I’m not entirely sure I agree with that; there’s no fakery here: it’s politicians delivering messages they (presumably) believe in. It’s not as if Labour have paid a bunch of actors to upload videos to youtube talking about how thrilled they are that Britain is renewing Trident.
No, what Labour have done is symptomatic of another web2.0 malaise…Beingthereia
Beingthereia is a malaise most commonly found in politicians. The classic symptom of beingthereia is a belief on the part of the sufferer that, when it comes to online communities, it is enough merely to “be there”. There’s no need to actually do anything once you’ve established a SecondLife HQ or created your campaign blog. It’s enough merely to “be there” so that you can tick the “has got an online strategy” box on your list of ways to look like you are connected to the people. The sign is there, as Derrida probably wouldn’t have said, but there’s nothign for it to signify. The Labour Party has a youtube channel and that’s it. Beingthereia sufferers invariably make the classic mistake of assuming that web2.0 apps are ends in themselves, as though the act of merely having a blog was the point. The point, surely, is to use web2.0 apps to talk to enter into conversations with people? Not just to find yet another wya of talking at them?
Full disclosure: the writer is a paid-up member of the Labour Party and occasionally recieves emails from Tony Blair which he is sure are personally written to him…
1 Mat Morrison // Apr 17, 2007 at 9:04 am
Part of me agrees with you about this; there’s nothing more distressing than seeing the old world try and cram itself into the new. It must have been the same back at the end of the Cretacious, when all the saurians were calling their agencies desperate for a re-brand:
On the other hand, it’s worth noticing that Labourvision isn’t as bad as all that. They actively seek questions with videos titled “Got a question for Tony Blair?” and “Ask Ed Balls a Question“.
Because it’s YouTube, users can post video responses, too — so there’s quite a lot of same-channel feedback.
This looks pretty open to me - even if some of the questions are a little predictable:
The trouble is - for many of us in the industry - these initiatives always smack of beingtheria. And yet we have to believe that - even if they seem merely cosmetic at this stage, or even beneath our notice - like mice running between dinosaurs’ feet - enough small changes may become the onset of a new and different way of doing things.
“In the garden, growth has it seasons. First comes spring and summer, but then we have fall and winter. And then we get spring and summer again.” (Being There, 1979)
2 Dan O'Connor // Apr 17, 2007 at 9:48 am
Thing is - and I say this as a member of the party who remembers “The Big Conversation” initiative from a few years back - there’s little in the party’s history to suggest that they will act upon any questions asked. Sure you can “ask Ed Balls a question” (like will he be the next Chancellor?) but will his answers have any bearing on policy? If they do, then great, but I’m not holding my breath.