The ‘worm’ on the leaders’ debates may be good TV but it’s bad for democracy

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/13/worm-leaders-debates-good-tv-but-bad-for-democracy

Version 0 of 1.

Last year, the House of Lords select committee on communication recommended that the coverage of televised election debates should not include the “worm” graph that plots the reactions of a small group of undecided voters. It is disappointing that the BBC has chosen to ignore this recommendation. Its chief political adviser, Ric Bailey, has claimed that the single-line format of the worm used in the BBC’s coverage of the leaders’ debate earlier this month (Editorial, 4 April) would not “have any untoward influence on the voters”.

However, this worm is very similar in style to one we used in an experiment that we conducted during the final debate of the 2010 general election. Our results, published in the journal PLoS One, showed that the worm has a powerful influence both on voters’ opinions of who won the debate, and on their voting intentions. An unrepresentative worm poll, based on responses from only 20 to 50 people, has the potential to exert a strong influence on millions of viewers.

The worm may be good entertainment, but it is not good for democracy. We call on broadcasters to refrain from including a worm in their coverage of the next leaders’ debate. If they refuse to do so voluntarily, parliament should legislate to outlaw the worm.Professor Colin DavisProfessor Jeffrey BowersUniversity of Bristol

• Your article on the notes Ed Miliband left in his dressing room for the leaders’ debate (Report, 6 April) states that President Obama used the phrase “happy warrior” to describe vice-president Biden. Perhaps so. But the phrase “happy warrior” is famous in American politics for Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s use of the words from Wordsworth to nominate Al Smith for president at the Democratic national convention in 1924.Antony RyanNew York, USA