Politics 101: The inside story that shows why “looks” count in TV election debates
At some point, during the demolition of the original Channel Seven TV station in Dianella, a small wooden box must have been scooped up and thrown into a skip bin, and now it rests in peace in a landfill somewhere. (For those of you who don’t know, around 2015, I believe, Seven moved its operations from its original studios built in 1959 to WA Newspapers HQ in Osborne Park. The Dianella site became a housing estate.)
The pending election campaign here in WA, on top of the pending Federal poll, have had me thinking a lot about that box.
While many people will see it as further evidence of my decline into old age and irrelevance, that box symbolises to me an enduring truism of how much PR hacks (like me) can play their part in trying to shape the perception of voters in the lead up to polling day.
It all goes back to February 1993, if my memory serves me correctly, when I was an assistant producer of a live television election debate between then Labor Premier Carmen Lawrence and Liberal Opposition leader Richard Court.
Political parties worldwide take live election debates very seriously, with behind-the-scenes wrangling between the respective advisers and the TV broadcasters sometimes taking on the semblance of negotiations to reach agreement on a ceasefire in a long-running military conflict.
The media and political advisers will literally spend days putting their respective leaders through rigorous preparation for the debate, fine-tuning their messaging, their delivery, vocal and visual presentation and even what they wear. If you want to know just how seriously party advisers take political debates, it is worth watching an episode of Season Four of the acclaimed TV series The West Wing, in which there is enormous angst over the tie to be worn by the President.
Back here in the backwaters of WA and the ’93 election campaign, things weren’t quite as intense…but the political hacks weren’t taking any chances either.
I can clearly remember the day before the big event, a posse of advisors from both the Labor and Liberal Parties descended on Studio One at Channel Seven to inspect the staging and thrash out the final details of how the debate would be moderated.
It was at this point that our little box came onto the scene. Viewing the set construction, including the two lecterns behind which the two leaders would stand, the Labor Party leaders became quite animated about an element of design that had not even crossed our minds. Then Premier Lawrence and Opposition Leader Court are both very decent and highly intelligent people, but outside of their political views, one factor that sets them apart is their relative height. Richard Court is a moderately tall man, and while I never regarded Carmen Lawrence as “short”, the Labor Party advisers pointed out concerns that on a wider shot of the two lecterns, she would come across as decidedly lower in stature.
This, of course, goes to the key issue in any election campaign: visual perception and the great sensitivity that political parties place around almost any factor that might contribute to a positive or negative view of their leader. Which is why we often see newly elected political leaders suddenly undergoing significant visual makeovers: new hairstyles (for those with hair), new glasses, dress styles, and even shoes, all come into the sharp focus of the image makers.
Anyway, back to the height issue at the 1993 election debate. After much discussion about potential solutions, one of the Channel Seven set department carpenters was summoned and instructed to make measurements to construct a small wooden box. This was then to be placed behind the lectern used by Premier Lawrence to ensure that during the broadcast, the two leaders could quite literally see eye-to-eye and that, to viewers sitting in the loungerooms at home, they would appear to be exactly the same height.
To be fair, had I been a Labor Party minder back then, I would probably have done the same thing.
The point is that while it is incredibly depressing, on television, visual appearance does matter. I can recall the number of times in my days of producing Channel Seven News when I would pick up the phone and prepare myself for a verbal tirade from a viewer angry about the “obvious bias” in a political story. Instead, I had a very earnest inquiry about where Susannah Carr had bought “that beautiful” blouse or jacket she was wearing that night or where Rick Ardon had purchased the tie he was wearing that night. Sigh.
On the one hand, all of this highlights just how much I yearn for a world in which political debate is based solely on policy and leadership credentials rather than visual perception. On the other, I suspect it is sadly just a reflection of the human condition and why little wooden boxes will continue to have their place in our democracy. For better or worse.
For more insights and ramblings on strategic business communications and marketing from JLCA Director John Le Cras, visit the JLCA Journal page.
