Both manifestos show an idea of what the candidates wish to achieve, but with little explanation of how, and also with a lack of knowledge about how the section already runs.
A key issue in this manifesto is the point around YouTube. It’s not a viable option for LSU Media output due to licencing, therefore more explanation on the use of YouTube is required. Furthermore, a point about more ‘student friendly content’ is key, but there’s no explanation of what the candidate proposes to put in place in order to make this happen. Huge amounts of work go into making shows such as Match Report, it’s a 30-person production process. A large focus goes on Hall Media. Suggesting that the hall media needs a revamp is a common occurrence in Media manifestos, but the issue lies deeper than just the marking system; the whole of Hall Media needs rethinking if it is to become more integrated with LSU Media.
Points are made but with no research into how they are viable or even necessary. Training isn’t broken, a peer mentoring scheme in place works well, so focussing one third of the manifesto on fixing it seems like a waste of the strict word count. With over 50 committee members a ‘series’ of handbooks could be a bit cumbersome, volunteers may not also welcome the idea of handbooks and this could end up being a lot of work for a short term endeavour. Recruitment and marketing is necessary, but for marketing to work you need to be producing high-quality content and this candidate fails to mention the most crucial element of media which is the creation of content.
A failure from both candidates to look at fundamental factors of media such as funding and volunteers is a crucial miss. With media having to bring in one quarter of the budget through sponsorship, memberships and corporate projects finance is totally missed out. Volunteers are required to make media work and then from there you can start to create content, but it’s a shame that these necessary elements to make media work have been overlooked.