Our president does not suck, part 2
I’ve asked someone who knows a lot more than me about the subject. And this is what she had to say:
Qs
1) Was Marcelo pushed to Belém thanks to his TV ratings? And if so, what dangers lie ahead, since television shows us jack and ties and we can’t see really through all the lies?
2) Was Marcelo a case study in Portugal, closer to the Brazilian or British models, of a ‘warmer’ relationship between politicians and citizens?
3) Do you think the ‘political pundit’ format is effective? And convertible to new formats like twitter, tik-tok and youtube?
As
1) It’s more complicated than that and there are a lot of factors to consider that, altogether, help to explain the election results. However, I would be forced to agree that the relationship built with the ‘electorate’, throughout all the seasons of the TV political show, was crucial to the end result.
Your second part of the question: the perception citizens gather from politicians is determined by many newsworthy and personal variables. There are many upon which the decisions are based and we cannot establish a direct connection between being on TV and being elected.
2) He is surely a case study thanks to his touch with both the media and the ordinary citizen.
3) I would rephrase: “For whom?”. For them [the pundits] it seems so. One only has to check the quantity of politicians with interests in political ‘shows’. It’s true that this format can be capitalized through many ways (through more obvious and less evident forms). A lot of youtube influencers, for instance, follow the personal or individual comment model. But let us not confuse the two things, an influencer is not a pundit.
Many thanks to:
PhD in Communication Studies from the UCP — Catholic University of Portugal. Lectures Political Communication and Sociology of Communication on the B.A.
Find more on her book about Marcelo right here:
And know more about Marcelo right there:
