Everybody's talking about it. Media trainers will replace the infamous
Paxman v Michael Howard interview of 15 years ago with it.
Watching Treasury Minister, Chloe Smith, being brtutally sliced and
diced by Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight last night (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=or4Nq6fah1k)
offers the viewer two key lessons in handling media interviews:
1.
Proof that it is your content/ words, not the tone of voice or visual expression,
that determines how the audience trusts your communication. Those trainers who
say that communication is 93% tone and expression and only 7% the words
fundamentally misunderstand Albert Mehrabian's 1960s study and they should go
look at it before promulgating such nonsense. Chloe
Smith by-and-large maintains her composure during the interview (aside from a
couple of suspicious stressful coughing fits!). But it is her completely
unconvincing replies - which Paxman repeatedly drills into - that undermines
her performance and leaves the audience disbelieving.
2. Honesty is the best policy - address the question and
don't go for slippery spin. She clearly had nothing to do with the decision
because she was too junior and clearly it was one taken in response to a
growing political argument. As a former Special Adviser, I can confirm that
Ministers of whatever rank hate to admit they were out of the loop because they
fear the media will belittle their power and responsibilities; governments hate
to seen to make U-turns because they fear it will be perceived by the
electorate as weakness.
But I wonder whether she would rather now have answered - or been
allowed to answer by her bosses - something more along the lines "Yes,
this was one of those few occasions when a decision was taken by people above
my paygrade - the Chancellor and Prime Minister. It was made following a review
of how we could pay for this without adding to the deficit when it became clear
that this was how we could best help the hard working families struggling to
pay motoring bills. This is good for families and business and reinforces that
this is a listening government."
If Paxman rejoins with a weakness argument, then you respond with
"No, this shows how confident we are that we can reconsider our position,
how successful we have been in reducing the deficit so we can make this kind of
carefully considered decision and let's not forget the key thing here - it is a
measure that will assist British businesses and families."
Andrew Caesar-Gordon
