Personality vs policy

During this present election campaign, it is my opinion that Australian politics has left behind those times when party policy was the main determining factor up for deep consideration, and instead has moved more to a focus on the personality of a party's leader, much as in the American style.

This is quite understandable because now we live in the era of image advertising where attitudes are shaped by presentation and brand. This means that very often, less thought is given to analysis of the full content or implication of what is on offer, not just for products, but also of choices about concepts - the 'quick fix want-it-now' mentality will often come to the fore..

This is particularly strong in news television coverage where the personality of the person speaking on behalf of a party can mould the overall national opinion about that group.

Despite the old adage "don't judge a book by its cover", or the logical caution not to form an opinion of people just on their appearance, a personality identified strongly with a political party can create an impact by that very appearance.

This can include things such as facial features including whether the face is lined, careworn, or smooth and healthy-looking, their hairstyle, chubbiness, eye shape and colour, any tendencies towards a shifty gaze, whether their voice sounds authoritative, knowledgeable, whining, or eloquent, and the general style of their clothing – whether it is passive, extroverted, fashionable, and also whether it truly suits the wearer (no pun intended)..

Much of this is really body language, which plays an important role in how a person's message is received. That has the overall effect of leading to how convincing that speaker may appear.

There is the factor of the credibility about a person's media image, for which Tony Abbott may be condemmned strongly during his numerous photo opportunities where he comes across strongly as 'The Great Pretender'.

One minute he is an assembly line production worker, the next a barista, then a fish processor, possibly a construction site worker complete with hard hat and flouro vest, or a truck driver.

All images which reinforce his lack of objective focus or dedication to any firm stance. He is a victim of the party's image manipulators (or possibly his own inadequacies?), but all of these give him a suitable platform for a short dogmatic verbal message.

Gillard was similar, tending to involve closely in pretentious 'photo ops'.

In truth, photo ops.bring strong overtones of falsity to any political candidate foolish enough to believe that such images will evoke symbiosis.

A "photo op." can be a risky propaganda element if it presents the candidate in anything other than their true lifestyle or does not reveal an attitude to various issues. It is not just a convenient tool for the manufactured message.

They try to create some form of bond between the poser and the viewer, but I suggest that this playacting does little more than create derision among those who witness it. It calls into question the sincerity and responsibility of those who seek our support and endorsement.

The current clash between the major parties vying for the next election is evidenced strongly by their televised personas in a medium which combines strongly the medium's powerful blending of sight and sound elements to create vast ranges of emotions and reactions in the viewer.

Some fairly typical examples are the rotund ranting of chubby Clive Palmer, the rural rabble rousing of Bob Katter (with hat), the sneaky shuffling of NSW Labor ex ministers slinking out of ICAC hearings, the lycra-clad look of Tony Big Ears, the Milky Bar Kid proclaiming an asylum seeker solution, the slightly shrill schoolmarm exhortation of the Green Girl, the leather-jacketed presence of Malcolm In The Middle.

The list could go on almost endlessly if it exampled the huge number of various state leaders and their minions.

What it shows is that we are less inclined to consider carefully the policy intention of varying parties, which is often heavy, turgid reading for time-poor voters. So we rely strongly on well presented impartial commentary from print and electronic journalists, as we have for ages, to supply as much relevant background information about party policies in a 'nutshell'.

Valuable reportage from someone other than the subject of interest. That's a lot of required reading and objective musing.

But it still comes down to the fact that the leaders of parties are normally the spokesmen (spokespersons?) and thus are the image, the brand, which we perceive. This makes it difficult to decide whether the person seems genuine, or is merely a skilled actor using their stagecraft to achieve a political outcome. Sometimes, the result is a combination of both, particularly if political spokespeople have undergone extensive media presentation training.

The political necessity for public speaking stands little chance of success if the competitors can hardly string three coherent paragraphs together. Unless they can speak eloquently, truthfully and credibly, they are better off to remain 'on message'

Marshall McLuhen, the Canadian philosopher of communication theory, said "the medium is the message". Unfortunately, in today's Australia, the 'doorstop' interview is often that message.