Hazel Blears wrote quite an interesting column for the liberal Guardian newspaper about how she believes Britain’s Labor Party can win next year’s elections. I call it ‘interesting’ because she shows the conservative opposities (the Tories) what Labor is likely to do in the coming months – how it will open the offensive, and how it will try to convince voters that it will ‘do better’ this time) - and because she touches on the need for politicians to knock on doors and to meet voters  in real life, rather than to focus completely on YouTube and other websites to reach out to them.

In this post, I’d only like to focus on the “New Media” criticism aired by Blears (mostly because I believe that this is the only good point she makes; the Tories have a major advantage and should be able to deliver Labor a crushing defeat no matter what tactics the party of bureaucrats uses):

People want to look their politicians in the eyes and get their anger off their chests. We need a ministerial “masochism strategy”, where ministers engage directly and hear the anger first-hand. I’m not against new media. YouTube if you want to. But it’s no substitute for knocking on doors or setting up a stall in the town centre.

It is fascinating to see that she says that she is “not against new media.” It is a bit strange that she felt the need to put that in there. “I’m not against new media.” What does that even mean? Can one be against ‘New Media?’ Well, yes. Especially elitist snobs are. Blears is probably one of them – which is why she feels the need to stress the point that she likes it, oh she loves it!, that ‘citizens’ can ‘join the conversation.’

Which she does not, of course. Anybody who feels the need to say “I’m not against this or that” when writing about a specific subject, often lies. Want an example? Fine: Huckleberry Finn, by Mark Twain. Read the first few pages. Huck tries to convince you the author is ’sincere,’ and ‘honest’ and that ‘everything happened’ the way it is written. Well, other ’social studies’ students will know that such statements are often a giveaway for the exact opposite. It means that the main characters and even the author himself should not be trusted.

Same goes for Blears. The moment I read that sentence I knew she meant the exact opposite: she does not like New Media. She probably even hates it.

Be that as it may, she is right when she says that politicians should not make the mistake to believe that YouTube replaces all personal contact. It does not. In fact, traveling to small towns, big cities, etc. is just as vital to winning elections today as it was 30 years ago. Citizens want to meet the people they vote for. They want to see that the politician is a real human being.

Politicians in the West are wise to keep that in mind. Use YouTube and the New Media as a whole to the fullest – for those who do not will not win either – but do not forget that it should not replace real life interaction. It has to be “and-and,” not “or-or.”