What Do We Want? When Do We Want It? [WDWW] is a project born out of ignorance and curiosity, specifically my own. I came to realise that I had no real idea about the political arena other than having a vague understanding of the United Kingdom's 'First Past the Post' electoral system and a rough idea of the difference between 'Left' and 'Right' in the political sense. I was, however, aware of the relationship between politics and the media. I should be clear here that I am not completely naïve. I realise that the person who pays the piper calls the tune; I mean 'relationship' in a more McLuhan sense, in that the message, whatever that may be, is influenced and shaped by the mode of its delivery. Therefore, I conceived 'What Do We Want? When Do We Want It?' as an online investigation to examine what it is people currently want from politics and why, alongside an examination of how today's participatory web environment shapes those expectations.
WDWW is a participatory journalism project which aims to explore both what people want from politics and politicians, and how journalism and today's online media influence their expectations. It is my hope that this site, through investigation and user participation, will expose this relationship and encourage discussion about politics, journalism, and the digital media that connect them.
The real questions I wish to get to the bottom of are these: Am I correct in sensing an erosion in community bonding, with the loss of pubs, clubs, libraries, and other shared social spaces in the UK? And, is the rapid rise of social media and online platforms contributing to this? Perhaps I am mistaken, but how then do people understand and make sense of contradictory, and often divisive journalistic output produced across digital networks? There seems only one way to find out, and that is to ask. WDWW will ask, both in person and online, 'what do you think of these and other related questions?' As the editor, I envisage the site as a forum, where registered users are free to give feedback, take part in polls, and suggest ideas for further discussions by submitting articles of their own for publication. The pieces I have started the site off with represent only the initial stages of the investigation. They discuss the origins of the site before moving on to questions of journalistic integrity, the effects of platformisation on journalism, and the pressures exerted on reporters. Hopefully users will add more or at least comment and take part in the polls to shed light on how they feel about politics and contemporary media.
A bit about the site itself. I had envisioned building WDWW on a shoestring, but several things quickly became apparent. First and foremost, although I am a veteran of website development, I had not produced a site in many years and was struck by how much the process had progressed. Artificial intelligence made many technical aspects of site development substantially quicker and easier which allowed me to spend more time writing articles. Second, and equally pleasing, was how much functionality could be achieved at a very reasonable cost, peanuts in terms of professional web development. The integration of polls, forums and statistics, features which had previously caused me sleepless nights, proved, much to my surprise, remarkably seamless.
If previously I had any doubt that technological advancement could play a supportive role in independent journalism, it was swept aside by the realisation of how much of the publication process could now be delegated to technology. However, while this frees time for the creation of original content, as I discuss in ‘Journalistic authenticity and the trade for ubiquity’, it is a double-edged sword. True journalism, I suggest, requires direct knowledge and experience of events unfolding, alongside the ability to investigate and interpret them for the reader. But it also requires an artistry, a way with words that encourages the reader to continue beyond the headline. Journalism, I contend, is not merely the gathering of disparate content. I hope the pieces on this site manage to hold your attention until the end because that, after all, is the name of the game.
WDWW was deliberately conceived as a simple, text-led publication, its visual identity based on clarity and simplicity. Likewise, the fonts Merriweather and Merriweather Sans were chosen for their readability while retaining the authority associated with traditional news publications. The mostly monochrome colour scheme echoes legacy print journalism, while orange highlights, to match the logo and homepage, identify interactive elements, links, and crucially, the ‘submit content’ buttons, which are fundamental to the collaborative nature of the project. Initial feedback I received about the site, suggested it was was somewhat 'stark' and would benefit from the integration of more graphical content. In response, a subtle background based on 'journalistic' icons and the site logo was created and introduced to soften the overall appearance, along with supporting imagery in the homepage title-block. The mini poll graphics for the front page were also redesigned to have brighter colours and given clearly labelled axes to improve readability and better highlight the site's participatory elements.
It was and still is my intention that the site should provide a safe, non-partisan space. This is not only because I am no political expert, but also because I feel that all propositions should be given a fair hearing if they can be discussed in a civilised and reasonable manner. However, I realise that thousands of years of discussion and ideology are unlikely to reach a conclusion on WDWW. Therefore, the responses to all articles and other content will be reviewed and summarised in order that a meaningful outcome might be gleaned from them. So, if you do partake, please try to be civil and respectful; however, all boards and submissions are moderated, just to be sure.