Tag Archives: Michael Parker

The TV debate.(6) Pause for thought

As the debates draw ever closer, the Political WAGs are rolling up their sleeves for the SamCam(!) versus Sarah(my hero Gordon) show with only Mrs Clegg having the good grace to spare us more Jordan style intimacy.

jordan-and-sam-cam-pic-swns-getty-326575773

Unfortunately for ‘Dave’ and Gordon they have to stand on their own feet  in front of the cameras,  presumably well rehearsed and probably bolstered by their experience of handling the cut and thrust of Prime Minister’s question time. Easy compared to the over-regulated  debate?

Perhaps not. In trying to prove themselves with their grasp of policy and desparate to score points over their rivals in front of the viewing millions they run the risk of being seen to try too hard, being too clever and too rushed.

What can be seen as witty and wounding in Question time will be seen as less than likeable  in this civilised debate. It will also look less than confident.

In any pitch, when adrenaline is high, one of the things that undermines the appearance of confidence is rushing  to get started, to move from one point to the next, to reply to a question.

coca-cola_art_pause2

The solution is simple.                Pause.                  Pause.                   Pause and you will look confident.                Pause             for               thought.

Recent television appearances indicate that Clegg who has naturally easy body language  has the confidence to pause and to look like a leader.  Still my tip for winner in the debates.

Leave a reply

The TV debate.(5) Where looks can kill.

if_looks_could_kill1

We now know that the  debates will take place in three English cities, upsetting the Welsh and Scots, and that they will be termed “Prime Ministerial”, pleasing Nick Clegg. We also know that some 76 protocols are in place to ensure no-one gets an unfair advantage.

As Dominic Lawson put it, “the effect is to ensure that the entire affair will be characterised by a depressing combination of rigidity and superficiality”. The approach is lifted from America where even Obama in his clash with McCain was “rendered soporifically dull by the rigid entirely unspontaneous format.”

What will this mean for our three contestants? Well rehearsed and prepared, as they each will be, to deliver their prepared statements, debate  for a minute or so, and reply to planted questions, the chances of any competitive advantage from what they say, the policy content, are zero.

So, we will be left with judgement based almost entirely on looks. “Do we like this person?”

 All the non-verbal clues will be in play. Tone of voice, gestures, facial expression, genuine warmth, natural smile, ease of body language, eye contact, all the normal signals of a confident personality but all under threat from the  television camera.

caught-on-camera1

David Cameron has the toughest job. Once  the ‘charismatic telegenic’ performer his aura is diminished along with the Incredible Shrinking Man (Gerald Scarfe cartoon) polling figures.  As the still just-favourite he has most to lose and the temptation will be to try too hard. He needs the confidence to relax and take cues from Bill Clinton at his charming best.

As the least exposed and with no real form, Nick Clegg should go in with confidence high, certain that his freshness will give him an edge. We have little idea of what he stands for so anything he says will seem original. He can, and should come across as the one enjoying himself, so we might enjoy him.

Gordon Brown as ever is unpredictable. Recently his public preparation is the best. The Piers Morgan show and then 4 hours of Iraq enquiry will have fuelled confidence in his newly found ‘nice Gordon’ persona. If he can combine the nice with the formidable authority, lacking in both his fresh-faced, ‘inexperienced’ opponents,  the debates will favour him.

 However, for all the protocols and the preparation it would be unfortunate, as Lawson said,” if a close British general election were to be decided by a single cleverly worded put down or an unfortunate behavioral twitch on camera.”  But it could be.

Leave a reply

The TV debate. (4) Lessons from Obama?

It has just been reported that both Cameron and Brown are hiring consultants who helped Obama to help them as they face  the TV debates, potentially more vital as the gap narrows. Help!

 Their ‘joint’ decisions influenced presumably by the fact that America has done more of it for longer and by the power of ‘brand’ Obama.  But are they both right?

state-of-the-union-obama-speaking

Taking Obama first. His truly great performances have been as orator, calling for very different skills to those of the live debate. No one is challenging, the audience is ‘out there’ ready to be captivated by virtuoso performance, two teleprompters his best friends.

Incidentally, Cameron’s own best so far performance was his famous, leadership winning, ‘no notes’ speech at Blackpool. But the debate calls for something different and although Obama won his against McCain, the competition was not up to much.  Since then his more intimate television interviews have not impressed.

America and Britain being divided by a common language is another reason to treat with caution the Obama victory-claiming consultants. And we still do not know the format for the debates as all sides seek to negotiate the least risky formula.

gordon-brown-david-camero-001

Given these caveats what should our three reality show contestants be seeking from their learned consultants? Basically, how to be both relaxed and confident enough to be themselves, allowing us the viewers to feel we have met them.

This may well be easier for Nick Clegg. He needs to inject an element of surprise but he  comes across naturally and more conversationally than his rivals.

 For David Cameron it has become more difficult as his constant exposure has left the impression of  someone whose only communication mode is one of  ‘finger wagging’ over-emphasis, where charm and the art of conversation come second.

Gordon Brown has survived the bullying barrage and if anything the polls suggest he has benefitted, perhaps because of a glimpse of the real person, however many warts.  As ever when he is bad, he is very very bad, but when he is good then the others should look out.

Perhaps he would do better with Piers Morgan as his consultant.

Leave a reply

Tiger burning without fire

Last week saw Tiger Woods making the toughest pitch of his life. Tougher than any pitch onto the 18th green to win a major championship! How did he do?

Opinion, and there was lots of it all around the world, was surprisingly divided with generally the golfing press being more forgiving than the rest.

He undoubtedly achieved objective number one to put Brand Tiger back on the map ensuring that when he does return he will be as popular as ever. After all, as the world’s best golfer his spitting and swearing have not alienated his followers. So why should a little sex?

100219_tiger_apology1

The performance itself was stage managed to the nth degree.  He dressed down to provoke sympathy, and read a carefully crafted speech as if coached by Tony Blair.  As sports journalist Mat Syed wrote, “It had it all, regrets, tears, apologies, dramatic pauses, stern words about privacy even religion”.

Despite all this, for most it was his tone that betrayed him. Although apparently emotional he never lost control.  He lacked ‘any tangible sense of authenticity’. Or, as Kevin Garside put it in the Telegraph, “he spoke with the sincerity of a double glazing salesman”.

Given that he is a perfectionist to whom practice (and presumably rehearsal) is second nature, how did he fail to make any emotional connection with so many viewers? Perhaps it was, that like Blair in the Iraq enquiry,  he was not the least bit interested in ‘us’, the public.

Like Blair, the only audience he was there to appease was corporate America. Not fellow golfers, not the media and not us.

Lorraine Kelly in the Sun caught the feelings of many.  “Then we have the daddy of them all, the shamed and disgraced Eldrick Woods, (previously known as Tiger), who was badgered into saying sorry for being an arrogant, philandering, smug sleazy git”.

Leave a reply

The TV debate. (3) How to get emotional

Over this past week many tears have been publicly shed. All, no doubt, reflected genuine private grief. But all with political gain in mind.

tears

 The belligerent Alastair Campbell shed his over harsh words aimed at  Tony Blair, hoping one assumes to dilute criticism at the Iraq enquiry. Jacques Rogge’s tears at the opening ceremony were followed by assigning all blame to the athlete who died and none to the Canadian organisers (who later did make the run safer).

Then, we had an interview with David Cameron getting his tears out just ahead of the week’s  main cri de coeur with Gordon Brown talking to Piers Morgan. Genuine expressions of emotion, but in response to questions publicly orchestrated.

As the live TV debate looms, both appreciate that it is not their policies which will determine the viewers’ response. It is their personalities, or rather their public personae that will strike an emotional chord, or not.

brown_cameron_clegg

Of the three  contestants Nick Clegg has more natural empathy and nothing to lose so will probably perform best.  Cameron is the polished communicator but  has never reached the heights of his leadership winning speech in Backpool. He needs to offset his ‘slick salesmen’ image (56% agree) with  real warmth.

Brown until now has not attempted to let his more human side interfere with getting his convictions across. In the three way debate, with the benefit of the warm-up with Piers, it will be interesting to see  if he lets his emotions show.

If any of them sheds a tear then, as a woman interviewee on the One Show said about men who cry, “…. sweet, it brings out the mothering instincts!”

Leave a reply