Personality vs policy

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.