The second of the debates confirmed they are here to stay and that they have changed forever old-style political campaigning.  Although all three are stomping  the country, wives in hand (Brown and Cameron), speaking in this photogenic ward, or school or factory, the impact of these staged news events is diminished. 

Newspapers are finding it hard to cope with this marginalising of their role. Their forte has been the ‘forensic’ dissection of the prepared speeches, reporting, and embellishing, to  the whim of their editors/publishers. Assessments of debates that we have all seen, and judged already, can make them look stupid. Take these two headlines on Friday morning.

It is not just political bias that is the issue.  It is the nature of these live debates and the way we the viewers are responding to them.  The papers are devoting acres of newsprint to tell us their views on how the candidates did. Who said precisely what on this, that or the other policy. Who said it right. Who said it wrong.

 The trouble is we have already decided who won and we are not deciding on who said what and on the content in isolation.

If we were responding to the words on their own  Cameron could well be winning.  And on radio Brown, who has a reassuring warm tone, could be ahead. (As was Nixon against Kennedy). Unfortunately for both it is Clegg  who “by force of his televisual appeal is making political realignment a genuine possibility.”(Times) 

 However hard they try Cameron and Brown cannot as Clegg does “look directly into the camera and connect viscerally to people’s desires.” (MOS)

Instead, what they both do is talk at rather than talk to the voters. Not so appealing!

Many, including me, tipped Nick Clegg to win the debate. After all, as the ousider with less to lose and the fresher face he had everything going for him. None however anticipated the scale of his victory which was down to performance not policies.

There are many things he got right in front of the cameras  but two in particular stand out and are pointers to all who pitch or interview. 

1.Be charming

All three no doubt can be charming company but only Clegg charmed on air. He resisted the temptation to say too much under pressure of the clock, he did not rush to answer as if in a race, he paused to think, he listened-and was seen to listen- to questioners whose names he remembered.

He, more than his rivals, realised that in this debate viewers would not find it easy to take in, let alone evaluate, the content. So less worried about what to say, he made certain that we liked the way he said it. His relaxed body language and his easy eye contact with the camera/viewer set him apart.

” Nonchalantly hands in his pockets and with his humanity beautifully rehearsed and turned up to the max”. This is how the MoS summed it up.

2. A great opening.

Clegg  made that old adage work for him, ‘You never get a second chance to make a first impression.’   He knew that a strong opening not only gets the audience on side it makes you feel good, boosting your confidence from word go. It worked and put the others on the back foot.

A cleverly worded opener, which he wrote himself, positioned him as if above his squabbling rivals. “Don’t let anyone tell you that the only choice is the old politics.  We can do something different this time.”

From the start his words and his manner, calm, fresh and engaging meant he came across as different and better. Not a bad outcome which must have pleased John Starkey his campaign director. When at Saatchi his mantra for assessing communication was how is it different, how is it better?

 This is the tenth and final lesson for our plucky contestants as they face up to the three-part reality show series starting on Thursday.  It may be stating the obvious but being yourself can easily get lost in the deluge of  ‘debate-prep’,  the  dry-run rehearsals and the  gaggle of Obama consultants.

Imagine absorbing advice from someone who:

“Showed Obama how to look smart without looking smug, how to look compassionate without being condescending, how to shed the appearance of being self-involved and arrogant and how to knit his brows and look as if he was concentrating intently as a  question was asked before changing his facial expression and relaxing the slight frown into a smile as he came up with the answer”.

Then imagine endless rehearsals in front of cameras with, for example Alistair Cambell  playing the part of David Cameron or a Jeremy Hunt, rumoured to be better than the real thing, playing the part of Nick Clegg.

Then imagine the ‘relentless revision’ on argument, counter argument and rebuff all against the research-led concept of not merely having to perform well against your rivals but  having to perform against expectations. Cameron apparently will be judged by a higher standard than his fellow debators.

Then throw in the nerves that will be jangling, even for these well prepared and seasoned tv performers, as they  meet in open combat for the first time and where one slip-up can lead to the fatal thumbs down from the baying viewers.  Now try being yourself.

Yet this is what will count. Not the words but the ease and the naturalness of the body language.  As veteran American broadcaster Jim Lehrer said in the Observer:

 ”A person is a person is a person.  You are who you are and that comes out in debates.”

The dry-run of the also-rans, Ask the Chancellors, took place last week. As anticipated it was dull and dreary. The equivalent of the ‘procurement police’ saw to that with a strictly observed 76-point code, answers time-limited,  and the audience banned from clapping or jeering, not that there was much to provoke either.

AA Gill, in typically ascerbic mode, said that “In the end it was all about the tie.  As much time will have gone in getting the look right as the content.  The look is as important as anything they have to say. They know the voters won’t be able to differentiate between them”.

Our three  PM reality show contenders know this.  They are well aware of the Nixon factor and are preparing accordingly with numerous coaches and advisers focusing in on look, style and tone of performance.

In one guise or another they each have a “saatchi” (see last post) to stiffen up their attitude. They each have wives, all of whom would be more attractive performers in this male-dominated show, to advise on how to make the emotional connection.

Certainly two have called in people who did it for Obama. One gives lessons on “how to sit, how to stand, how to gesture, how to pause”.  Another, helping  intonation, gets his pupil to say a seven word sentence seven times, each time emphasising a different word. Imagine Gordon practising …..

All this effort may seem faintly ridiculous as a way of deciding our future but the fact is most close pitch decisions, political or business, come down to “A sort of gut instinct. A  feeling. It’s not what you say, it’s what you look like saying it”. 

Who will chose the ties? After the negative reactions to Sam’s dressed down Dave and Sarah’s casual Gordie, it will probably be the focus groups.