A while back we hosted a conference to promote the work of colleagues at Bournemouth University on emotions and journalism. In the afternoon there was a session with Derek Draper which I followed via Martin Moore and posted here.
Outgoing Dart Center boss Mark Brayne took issue with me, and in the interests of fairness I thought I would post our exchange below:
Hi Adrian.
Noticed your blog with great interest — but forgive me for saying so, I do think you got seriously the wrong end of the stick. If that’s what you — and John L — think emotional intelligence in journalism is about, then I and we and Dart and Gavin have failed miserably in explaining our agenda.
You/one may not like Draper — although as a rather non-political animal, I don’t have a view myself. But what he said about the psychology of society and how media and politics are received is quite simply psychological mainstream.
I have to say, sadly, and again forgive me for saying so, that I’m rather disappointed how both you and John Lloyd responded to this. Journalism has got to get the plot on emotions. If it doesn’t, it’s going to become ultimately meaningless and irrelevant entertainment. With the challenges now brewing, humanity can’t AFFORD a journalism or media that don’t get this.
Read Antonio Damasio or Daniel Goleman or almost anyone on the leading edge of brain research and how human beings function in the real world. Draper is right.
Feel free to quote me on your blog, if you like … this is an important debate.
I wrote back:
Hi MarkI was just going to say perhaps it’s a case of right message, wrong preacher.
Hard not to divorce Draper’s views from his time selling favours to big business.
I think there are increasingly places for more thoughtful and engaging interactions with politicians, though — the late Anthony Clare led the way.
Mark has the final word:
The unfortunate thing as I see it, Adrian, is that people will confuse your criticisms of Draper (which I find to be unfair, whatever his previous incarnation) with a rubbishing of his ideas. Not helpful, I’m afraid, to the cause of helping the ordinary punter to understand the dynamics of politics and leadership and responsibility.You – and John – are usually and rightly ferociously critical of point-scoring, un-thought-through tabloid hype, mean fun-poking and superficiality. Your blog is guilty in my book of the same sins, and frankly, I’m disappointed. What a pity. But agreed, Anthony Clare was good. Really good. There’s a need for someone to fill that space.
And your thoughts?
Politicians are adept — and trained — in presenting their “true characters” in such a way that helps then connect with their audience. Giving them more opportunities to present emotion rather than the issues will just make scrutiny yet more difficult.
It’s a shame they felt the need to extend the remit of the conference so wide — some of the arguments about interviewing trauma victims and similar seemed absolutely sensible.
It’s probably a sign of emotional imbalance to point this out, but: isn’t funny that whenever psychotherapists offer advice to any given profession, their proposed course of action invariably involves training or counselling by psychotherapists?