matty wrote on Feb 6
th, 2014 at 2:11pm:
Look, Karnal, some of what you say is valid, but you seriously never thought that Gillard was patronising, and spoke like a primary school teacher at times? Many people think this, not just me. Both critics and supporters of hers thought this.
Not on Q&A, which I always watch.
Some of her early performances as PM, I think, were a struggle: "the real Julia". Some of her pre-recorded messages to camera I recall being very patronizing, but I can't remember now what they were about.
Rudd, by contrast, was an automaton. His media coaching was obvious in his erratic hand gestures. He wasn't bad in the pre-recorded talking head stuff though. He did quite well with a script.
Gillard was the reverse. She was brilliant on the fly - she was on top of her briefs, gave detailed responses, and demonstrated a deep awareness of the issues - particularly economic issues.
What let her performance down, however, was her monotone delivery. She didn't change speed or pitch when she talked - it all came out in one long line - paced, polished.
With Gillard, we saw very little thinking. Gillard had an answer for everything - she was never ruffled. In the media, she was always polite. Compare this to Abbott, who thinks, stops, starts, and thinks again. This is not necessarily a weakness in Abbott's thinking style, but it's a weakness in his speaking style.
Likewise with Gillard - her performance did not demonstrate an ability to make better decisions, but it was an incredible skill. It did make her appear rather controlled, but they're all controlled. Gillard was an intelligent, organized and commanding personality. She was a brilliant communicator. She may well make a good academic. The writing and columns I've read of Gillard's were also good, although I'm not sure whether staffers wrote them.
Although Gillard never showed an interest in discussing theory as PM, she clearly knows it, particularly on International Relations and the economy. She knew leaders can't appear to be smarty-pants - that people want leaders to be straight on their level.
This is Abbott's challenge. He likes grappling with ideas, but can't be seen to be fleshing them out - which is exactly what he does. People expect leaders to have all the answers, which is most unfair. Look at Hockey - he does well at looking human and falible. It's one reason we like him.
But he'll never make PM.
I do understand your point and agree with much of what you say, but let's not pretend that Gillard was completely infallible when talking with others. She was patronising when that lady in a Brisbane shopping centre asked her why she broke her word. At first she was okay, but as the 'interview' went on, she did begin to become a bit patronising, and for some strange reason was touching the lady on the shoulder. I do agree that she both Rudd and Abbott can become a bit more flustered than she does, but Abbott has never really patronised anyone, he just fumbles more. As I daod, I wouldn't really rate any of the three as great communicators with the public, they all had their respective strengths and weaknesses. I do completely agree about Hockey.
My personal picks for communicating with the public would be Bishop, Turnbull, Pyne, Albanese and Wong. Strangely enough, even Brown was good. Many people who would never even consider voting Green would listen to him. Milne is the complete opposite.
Forum
Pages: 
Q & A/ABC back to its usual biased self. (Read 20919 times)
