2 of 27

Yes

Write now Article Tools

As social creatures with many sensory abilities, humans, whether journalists or citizens, gather much information from another's unguarded gestures, mannerisms, facial expressions, and body language, fueled by our natural desire to know the real person.

We're not even conscious of the gathering or how it integrates into our overall impressions. But all these primal nonverbals enter into the mix of deciding "what do you think of her?", and voters very much need to experience them in order to make an informed choice. Journalists also need nonverbals in order to report more deeply than a sound bite. Candidates need to be seen in real-life, unscripted situations, like press conferences, and to be asked off-the-cuff questions for their true character and intentions to rise to the surface of our awareness.

In fact, a candidate's nonverbals in spontaneous situations may speak more loudly than their words. Richard Nixon lost the extremely close 1960 election because of the sweat beading unattractively on his glistening upper lip during a debate with John F. Kennedy, who appeared suave and cool in comparison. In truth, Nixon had the flu, but his appearance was interpreted as nerves, and that may have been at least partially the case.

Michael Dukakis was ahead in the polls for much of the 1988 election. Many think his fate was negatively sealed, however, when he poked his head out of a tank wearing a gunner's cap at a rakish angle with a goofy smile on his face, and when, by contrast, he answered a press conference question about the hypothetical rape and murder of his wife with a mechanical delivery and without emotion. This kind of information is not forthcoming from boring political ads, practiced speeches and calculated appearances before carefully preselected audiences.

Unfortunately, in this day and age candidates also need to be required to actually answer the questions they're asked, rather than be allowed to dance around the perimeters or to answer with whatever talking point they choose, which may be radically different from the original subject. This is especially important when the questioner is a voter, and therefore a potential constituent, but also necessary when a journalist actually does their job and poses a pointed query. Questions need to be asked, and then answered fully and respectfully as a matter of course.

The idea of assuming that every candidate for public office is under oath when answering questions has been floated as a means of increasing the veracity and the information quotient of their responses. Since candidates are offering themselves as "servants of the public", this theoretically should not be a problem, as it's their desired duty. If this assumption is made obvious and publicly, and maybe even made into law, it just might work. It would be interesting to see the results of a test drive of the concept.

The electorate of the 21st century, ever younger and more hip, is seismically different from the voters in the 1970's. Especially with the changes wrought in elections since the year 2000, the country is saturated with more information and more desire to understand that information, and less gullibility for smarmy candidates to exploit. While the media has been compromised in their investigative activities in the last several years, the public has not. Perhaps they can lead the way to instill a new ethic of openness and curiosity about candidates in our public elections, which can only strengthen our democracy and our country.

Learn more about this author, Dianne Lobes.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Should government candidates be required to hold press conferences and answer questions from the media and the public??
We want to hear your view. Write now!