Commenting on Christopher Luxon’s inability to express himself clearly and honestly, Stuff columnist Janet Wilson, a former National Party communications adviser, opined recently that the prime minister errs by concentrating on “talking points” – “learning by rote to a point where he is nothing but a talking robot” – and struggling to “meaningfully engage in conversation”.
But who’s at fault here? I suspect the reason politicians like Luxon get into trouble is that they rely far too much on media coaches. They are schooled to stick to pre-determined “talking points” which quickly become clichés and jargon that voters see straight through.
Luxon is hardly the first politician to fall into this trap. And though she’s harsh in her criticism of him, I believe people like Wilson (who runs her own media training firm) are part of the problem.
Communications advisers are a relatively recent phenomenon that has contaminated the political process by getting in between politicians and the public and blurring their message. They are obsessively risk-averse and wield altogether too much influence. Some politicians, and I suspect Luxon is one, become far too dependent on them and afraid to trust their own judgment and instincts (assuming they have any).
Previous generations of politicians didn’t have this problem; they spoke directly, said what they thought and were generally respected for it, even if people didn’t agree. Their message wasn’t filtered through layers of obfuscatory flim-flam.
Some politicians still operate that way. Winston Peters is an example and so is David Seymour. Chris Hipkins too gives the impression that he gives genuine and spontaneous responses to questions, though he’s politically far more astute than Luxon and much more nimble.
Of course there remains the possibility that the reason Luxon sounds shallow, unconvincing and unsure of himself is that he’s shallow, unconvincing and unsure of himself. Even so, he could hardly do any worse if he ignored whatever media advice he’s getting.
