Why a few ‘fireside chats’ could help us like the PM
|
Hands up if you feel you know the prime minister and where she wants to lead the nation? When I recently put this question to a handful of friends, few could say they knew what Julia Gillard stood for, or why. None felt that they knew her as a person. This struck me as odd given the regular media coverage of the PM’s activities, speeches and decisions. Surely, no other Australian public figure commands as many daily headlines and sound bites as the Prime Minister? Since deposing Kevin Rudd and taking high office, Gillard’s popularity has plummeted in tandem with her government’s slide in the opinion polls. The answer could be right on the tip of her tongue. In 1933, US President Franklin D Roosevelt began radio broadcasting the first of his 33 “fireside chats” to the American people during the midst of an economic depression that saw one in three people out of a job. Roosevelt continued to address the nation throughout his long presidency (1933-45), using the nascent power of radio to share his hopes and plans for the country, as Americans endured the unprecedented hardships of the depression and World War II. Significantly, Roosevelt used these radio addresses to garner support and authority to execute his “new deal for the American people” — a massive spending and reform program covering social security, agriculture, banking, transportation and migration. Historians point to these radio broadcasts as being seminal to the affection and trust American’s placed in FDR — the only leader to be elected more than twice to the US presidency. In 1982, another great communicator, President Ronald Reagan, reinstated the practice of delivering a weekly radio broadcast — a practice continued by all his successors, including Barack Obama, the first president to deliver his weekly address via the internet and YouTube. Giving a weekly speech to the nation wouldn’t be a panacea for the malaise affecting Gillard’s popularity. In the end, it’s leaders’ achievements that count most. But Gillard has a perception problem, and a weekly YouTube speech would be a unique way for her to speak simply and directly to us about her plans and hopes for Australia. Critically, it would be an unprecedented way for the PM to manage our expectations of what can and cannot be achieved by her government, including many of the complex, long-running issues that are bedevilling the government, such as asylum seeker policy, the carbon tax on big polluters, and the budget deficit. A weekly address to the nation has distinct advantages. First, it circumvents the editorial framing that is part and parcel of the way news is created, packaged and delivered by the mass media. Journalists, editors and producers no longer simply report the news and allow us to make up our minds. Instead, we are now told what to think. Indeed, news media is now fractured and politicised to the extent that we can choose channels that deliver the news we want to hear — stories that confirm our political and social biases. A second benefit of addressing the nation (a practice leaders seem to reserve only for elections or catastrophic events) is that it would let the PM to set her own agenda and build a cohesive story about her vision for the nation — and about what can be achieved, and how. This is crucial. Gillard’s licence to lead her party and govern the nation is at risk because media commentators and the PM’s political opponents are framing our expectations of what should and can be achieved on key policy issues. Like it or not, the expectations and perceptions of others govern one’s reputation. And while Gillard cannot silence her critics, she could protect and enhance her reputation by using her advocacy skills to explain and argue the government’s case, clearly and consistently via the new broadcasting power of the internet. No leader is perfect. But a leader who can tell us a story about what they want for the nation, and why they’ll do all in their power to achieve it, invites understanding, trust and respect. *Dan Gaffney is a former contributing journalist for News Limited and ABC Radio. He has worked in PR and media relations for two decades. |
|
|
|
17 Comments
I have fowarded your very sensible article to the PM.
It is a great idea, but probably wont happen. It seems to me that politicians in Australia are generally terrified of the media. They are terrified that what they say over (say) 15 minutes of “fire side chatting” will be reduced to a juicy 10 second sound bite, and it will be the most sensational or most controversial 10 seconds of the whole 15 minutes. And sadly… that DOES happen! Why would she trust the media? It is giving them amunition to shoot at her with!
If people watched the whole 15 mins, then that problem would be allievated. But how do we guarantee that? Most would not watch it, most would get a 10 second summary from the popular channels, and most would continue to think she is an idiot.
Why would then not watch the whole thing? Some would. But hey: it might conflict with my watching of …. (fill in your favourite program)… and so what gives? The Farmer wants a wife? The Big Bang Theory? 2 and a half me? or the Prime Ministers talk on the ABC?
Maybe if it went live to air on all stations at the same time….. but hey…. now it will be called “propaganda” by the conservatives. And then the major popular media wont go with it unless they are paid, probably, and so then is it advertising?
I do like the idea, but I just cant see it floating in the modern Australian we live in…
I hope I am wrong.
sorry about my spelling mistakes.
Why would “they” (not then) not watch the whole thing?
and:
2 and a half “men” (not 2 and a half “me”).
and probably some others!
Worth trying. 3 minutes would be plenty. She really would have to speed it up. Right now her delivery - “speak to them reallllly sloooowly, they’ve all got the IQ of a 5 year old” - is an instant and complete turn off.
Mate she could hand out $1000 bills & Mr Average will still pelt her with cabbage.
But the only thing she prattles about are lies about refugees.
There Is a Youtube channel that often carries videos of her, and Margaret Kerr has it exactly right, a style of speaking that may work well for large crowds where acoustics play a part, doesn’t work for this kind of video. She needs to be more engaging, fluid and open.
Why would ‘they’ not watch the whole thing? Simple - the attention span of the average Aussie is a bit less than that of a three month old .. oooh, a squeaky toy….. boxer pup. Been to the movies lately? Seen how many adults are unable to sit for 15 minutes maximum without getting up and going outside? The lack of any sort of attention span is why we get TV ad breaks every 5 minutes. The Prime Minister would need to come up with a series of 1 minute sound bites, any longer and the audience would wander off.
Back to sleep marilyn….
If she ever starts the chats, make it about my bedtime, it would be a great sleep inducer
Most of the people I know who have a problem with Julia Gillard start by complaining about how annoying they find her voice. A YouTube address isn’t going to win them over, unfortunately.
I know it seems shallow, but that’s what young Australians are like!
Sauron
Maybe she should pretend to have bronchitis and get Cate Blanchett to do a voice over.
I really don’t know why I’m not a highly paid political adviser …
“Maybe if it went live to air on all stations at the same time….. but hey…. now it will be called “propaganda”
I don’t know…..if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck…..
Julia by fire side? Please, spare me, just draft some coherent policies and stick to them. That will do your image far more good than any weekly state of the nation report.
only if you can make her not sound like a robot lawyer and delete all buzzwords and jargon… which doesn;t leave much left actually
‘Fireside chats’ might be a great idea, if the putative chatterer had warm tones and a communicative gift, like some Roosevelt or a Reagan. Given that she manifestly lacks these frequency-modulation skills, and seems quite unwilling or unable to change her presentation after many months in the top job, this is a baffling suggestion, coming as it does from a media/PR expert! ‘Please explain’.
Erk…
Personally I find those twee fireside Norman Rockwell postcardy chats really creepy. It attempts to give an illusion that the US President - the Most Powerful Man on the Entire Planet - is just like your Frank and Maureen next door, popping in uninvited of a Sunday for a chat and a cuppa tea and a few iced vo-vos. Yanks lap this saccharin guff up in buckets apparently. I suspect Australians are far too busy, far too cynical, far too clever to cop such an obviously patent load of pap. I hope so.
The real shift must actually be in the public discourse and in the persona. It will not be solved with 5 minutes of paid TV time once a week.
It will be solved by Julia doing precisely what she did last week to significant public acclaim…. “Tony Abbott saying no to something … who would have guessed?” With her laugh. Home run! She should dismiss him as a failed candidate for the top job.
He is not, as the meeja keep frothing, the “alternative Prime Minister”, His “policies” have no interest no significance and no effect. He is the bloke who cost the coalition a chance of doing a deal with the independents. He cost them government - and he did it personally. His failure to negotiate was a vote of no confidence and a lack of trust in Abbott from those who knew him well.
And now he is stuck in a groove like a scratched vinyl record… perpetual opposition…. howling from the sidelines. Demanding a new election and trying to topple the government and create an atmosphere if not the reality of crisis and instability. All the while saying nothing and only promising to undo what is being done should he ever win government - or more accurately should Labor lose it to him.
Yet Gillard, the government and certainly the meeja see Abbott as someone to be taken seriously - more seriously than the people actually making decisions and running the country. The difficult and complex policies and issues the government is grappling with are simply too hard for Abbott and the meeja in the Press Gallery, far far easier to foretell the future, to speculate on his or her leadership ambitions, on the significance of a slice of cake or a gift of a plate.
The best thing that Gillard can do is to rise above him - to treat him dismissively and not - NOT - to rise to the bait and argue with him. Leave that to Albo and anyone else who enjoys a bit of biff. But from a lady it sounds shrill; and aggressive. More statesmanly, more dignified, more Big Picture - the vision thing. More mother of the nation than nagging scold.
Talk to us - don’t take to Abbott. Talk to us - not the meeja. When they ask a question turn and look into the camera and speak to us…not to the airheaded entrail readers of the Gallery. And do it for keeps…. not once a week.
Far far more effective - more home grown and much more acceptable than some Normal Rockwell folksy advertising.
But her only ‘vision” has been to try and flog off refugees and have more kill themselves than any other PM ever.