Twitter and recruitment - an interesting observation

***

From HR.com's Geoff Newman:

Many companies - particularly those involved in the media - are putting a premium on candidates with strong social media footprints when it comes to the recruitment of new staff.

The case has been highlighted by the recent poaching of the BBC's popular chief political correspondent - and avid Twitterer - Laura Kuenssberg by ITV. Kuenssberg has a 60,000-strong army of loyal Twitter followers, and executives at ITV said that it had been a noted "additional benefit" when they were looking at recruiting her.  

Bosses at the commercial broadcaster said that her strong harnessing of Twitter as a means of engaging with her viewers was an excellent example of how they were trying to get their correspondents to engage with social media.

Very interesting.

....

In which I find agreement with the Guardian!

I’m pretty sure that, if it has not already happened, some blogger or other is winding up the words, spewing a diatribe of despair at the fact that a performing dog got a bigger audience than the collective genius of Cameron, Brown and Clegg! Surely this says everything you need to know about our politics – the public really don’t care, they really don’t!

So let me be the first to say: “whoopee!!!” Well done Britain for getting your priorities right, for realising that a fine piece of low-brow entertainment (in this case a dancing dog) is far more worthy of our time and attention than three politicians pitching for votes. We can see politicians preening and pontificating every day of the year but we know that the auditions for “Britain’s Got Talent” are the only place where we can see tap-dancing leprechauns, cutely singing kiddies and, of course, that performing dog.

And it does seem that others share my view! In the Guardian for heaven’s sake!

....

Why the arguments for "the great leaders debate" are wrong and dangerous

***

I gave ten reasons why the “great leaders debate” is a bad idea some while back – non-one has challenged any of those reasons. All I get is the ‘bestseller syndrome’ – “other democracies have them so must we”. This is a ridiculous approach and a truly crass argument.

However, it seems we are to have these debates so what to make of them...

Argument One: Only Gordon and Dave should debate as they are the only “candidates for prime minister” says Charlotte Vere, Tory Candidate for Brighton Pavilion (who I guess doesn’t want the Green Party leader in on the debates either). Sorry Charlotte, much though I want you to win, you have to find better arguments – we aren’t electing a prime minister. In your case the voters of Brighton are electing an MP – hopefully you.

Argument Two: This is a bad idea because we’re ahead/behind in the polls. The cynics approach to politics – we’ll agree to something because it’s to our political advantage not because it’s right. So a big fail to Tim Montgomerie for his “Christmas comes early..” post.

Argument Three: It will rejuvenate politics by getting the otherwise unengaged involved again through the goggle box. Well I’m with Constantly Furious on this – it ain’t gonna happen guys. Those good idiots, my neighbours won’t be watching so long as there’s something else to watch – and there will be for sure. Only the already interested will watch and it will be accompanied by a ghastly, frothing, ignorant and self-serving barrage of political point-scoring, name-calling and bigotry. I really can’t wait!

Argument Four: Every body else has one so we should – or as Dave put it: “I think it's a step forward for our democracy and I think it's something that, in such a bad year for politics and Parliament, we can proudly celebrate. We've joined the 21st century, when every other democracy seems to have leader's debates, we're now going to have them right here in Britain and I think that's a very good thing.” So places with party-run pseudo-democracies have leader debates – and this advances democracy? I don’t think so – in fact it’s a backward step. What about the smaller and regional parties – Scots Nats, Plaid Cymru, UKIP, BNP, Greens? Or the independent candidates? Are they to be crushed by the Westminster steamroller? How exactly does that enhance democracy?

All the political anoraks out there will look forward to the debates – not because they make democracy better but because it’s more of what we like on the telly. Just as the football fan applauds more football and the music fan more music, the politics fan wants more politics. Hiding behind “enhancing democracy” simply doesn’t wash – debates are a retrograde, anti-democratic, controlling, demagogic innovation that will not get a fairer election, a better government or an improved turnout. It would be better to have no election coverage at all and make candidates go out on the doorsteps and into the high street to make the case rather than merely regurgitating the party line that trots out in these debates.

...