The Less Great Debate: Is The Worm of Any Use?

Let me preface this by saying I did not watch the political debate (nor did I watch the Masterchef finale, which apparently scored higher ratings), but I've heard enough to justify what I knew before it started: the whole thing wasn't a train wreck, but was about as exciting as watching footage of a train pulling into a station without incident. However, there was one thing that everyone loves to talk about in some form or another both before and after a political debate: the worm.

The worm is supposed to give us an indication of viewers reactions to the political debate in real time. But, ignoring the fact that Nine's worm apparently seemed to die at one point and become unresponsive, was it of any use?

No.

Judging from the analysis being performed this morning and throughout the day, the worm told us two things about the debate: that women prefer Gillard and that Abbott was less popular overall. The thing is, though, that these aren't knew concepts. They've been reflected in the opinion polls released before the debate.

We all knew beforehand what the polls were saying: Gillard's ahead of Abbot. When the opinion polls started breaking down the vote based on gender like the way the worm was broken down, the gender gap became apparent. Hell, even Tony Abbott said himself that the worm wasn't going to favour him.

So why have the worm if it's essentially useless? Because the sad fact about political debates is that people don't watch them for the debate anymore, they watch them for the worm. If the debate was the important thing, then the majority of the talk would be on what was said. But as usual, the worm always manages to seep in to the conversation and eventually take it over as a major talking point.

The only other thing that we could conclude from the debate is what I concluded at the start: that it was a borefest.

And we didn't need the worm to tell us that.