Shropshire Star

Political column – September 18

Strictly's back!

Published

And with it arises one of the most vexed questions of our age. Should television be a mirror? Or should television be a glitterball?

I was listening to a chat on the radio this week about representation, i.e. lack of, on television. Thinking about it, I have never seen or heard anyone on television I feel represents me, and it would actually be impossible.

The only person who could represent me would be myself, and even then I would not do a very good job of it because being in front of a camera is not my natural habitat.

Of course the premise of the debate was that people are not just individuals, but are all part of groups, and it is the groups which should be represented, as distinct groups within society.

So if you are an older woman you are in the older woman group – this was the particular issue under the microscope in the discussion I heard, that women on television or in film have, unlike their male counterparts, a "shelf life."

Similarly, if you are disabled, you are in the disabled group, ethnic minorities are sub-divided into their ethnic minority groups, people with mental health issues are all part of a distinct mental health group, and so on.

But the "mirror" or "glitterball" question is founded in whether what we see on the box is art, and the people who appear are artistes – that is, the jesters and clowns who take a stage to entertain the rest of us – or whether what we see on television is intended to be a reflection of the real lives experienced by the people watching, and indeed whether viewers actually want it to reflect their real lives, or whether they want it to be an environment of escapist fantasy.