Leaving aside the merits of the amnesty discussion, I want to look at Atkinson's performance as a public speaker. He was clearly frustrated. His interviewer (Lars) was a long time supporter now grown hostile, or at least adversarial. Atkinson seemed to feel Lars wasn't hearing him; Lars seemed to feel Atkinson was playing word games.
Atkinson sounded whiny. I hate to say it because it sounds rude, but I'm being honest. Atkinson's voice went high and his tone grew plaintive. He felt beat up and abandoned and wasn't afraid to say it; yet he said it in a self-pitying way that wasn't appealing.
This is tough ground. Being at odds with your interviewer can make you seem unpleasant and argumentative. Standing your ground can make you seem stubborn. Yielding makes you look weak. Gentleness can seem wimpy and assertiveness can seem rude.
In this case, Atkinson ended up sounding whiny.
There are some techniques one can use to handle this a little better, but they are tough to do and require a lot of experience and practice. (These are techniques, not tricks. They only work if you're honest.)
One is, restate your interviewer's position, and then touch first on the points where you agree. Don't do it to camouflage the areas of disagreement, but rather to break up the negative back-and-forth rhythm of arguing, and to find at least a little common ground:
"Lars, your position seems to be that tomatos are not a fruit and therefore should not be treated as a fruit for tax purposes. Have I got that right? And I want you to know that I agree with you that it's wrong to take anything that isn't a fruit, and apply a fruit tax to it. It's wrong. Now here is where we disagree: to my understanding, a fruit is defined as the edible flesh surrounding a seed or seeds. By that definition, a tomato is a fruit and must be taxed as one."
In this fictional example, I've stated my position and stood my ground without making myself disagreeable. I've also found something to agree on, and made it clear that I've heard the other side.
Another is the "retrenchment" or slight retreat to a more defensible position.
"Lars, maybe I'm wrong on the tomato. I'm not a botanist. I'm always happy to learn more. But I'm quite certain that I oppose dishonest taxes."
There are others. The point is, a skilled and experienced speaker can manage a tough interview while still sounding statesmanlike.
Unfortunately, Atkinson didn't manage to sound statesmanlike. At least not this time. Fortunately, few elections hinge on a single interview - most campaigns are a marathon not a sprint. He can still shake this off and return to the fray with a renewed focus on calm, poise, and dignity.
No comments:
Post a Comment