Larvatus Prodeo

As Kim observed in a recent post, the big story on Kevin Rudd’s recent BBC appearance as far as the Australian media was concerned was why he wanted to sit next to UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband rather than the Chinese ambassador. The substance of Rudd’s comments, as far as I can see (and I’m open to correction), wasn’t reported at all. It’s interesting to read Tony Blair’s former advisor and spinmeister Alastair Campbell writing in Crikey today on why Rudd created a bit of a buzz in London.

I think Kevin Rudd’s success on Sunday came from being rooted in a culture in which, though politicians will always be wary of media and vice versa, he is still able to see an interview as a place to make a series of big strategic points, not as a dull contest in which to secure a no-score draw is viewed as something close to triumph by the politicians, failure by the broadcasters, and plain dull by the public.

Let’s come back to that one.

I think Campbell has put his finger on something here:

…the gentle but firm pushing back on Marr’s opening question, which allowed Rudd to take control of the interview pretty much from then on in; and the explanation that just because the London Summit would not achieve everything did not mean it should be dismissed for achieving nothing.

Part of Rudd’s success as a communicator does, I think, come from delivering a modest and realistic message which runs counter to the normal all or nothing media perspective.

But while I have a fair degree of respect for Campbell, after reading his Diaries, I’m not at all sure the broader assessment of a contrast between political and media styles between us and the UK is accurate. Campbell’s perspective may be coloured by his own distaste for the UK tabloids and his particular beef with the Beeb. But there is no doubt that Kevin Rudd is an excellent political communicator, and it would be worthwhile in my view if analysis of his skills in this arena went beyond the observation that he knows how to repeat a soundbite.