Enter the Bulldogs, by Wole Olaoye

Enter the Bulldogs. Each party has at least three prominent ones. Some have fancy titles that suit their plastic egos, while others are content to be described as ‘chieftains’ of their respective parties. Their job is to play on the public’s intelligence, insult the interviewer, blackmail him and insist on a monologue, not an interview. They generate so much heat but little light.

As political campaigns for the 2023 presidential election gather pace, the various parties have begun to reveal their agendas. They promise to take Nigerians to the moon and back. You have to give it to Nigerian politicians – they know how to repeat the same thing others have said in the past and yet make it look different. This time, however, the electorate demands “how?” The parties and their operatives do not find this funny. So they dug deep and devised tricks to avoid answering difficult questions.

Enter the Bulldogs. Each party has at least three prominent ones. Some have fancy titles that suit their plastic egos, while others are content to be described as ‘chieftains’ of their respective parties. Their job is to play on the public’s intelligence, insult the interviewer, blackmail him and insist on a monologue, not an interview. They generate so much heat but little light.

I have noticed that some of the journalists who have fallen victim to the insults of these seekers are too dumb to pay them back with their own coins. I appreciate the decorum that many journalists, especially those in the electronic media, have applied to politicians, but nothing in the principles of the trade says you have to allow yourself to be someone’s whipping dog.

Even columnists and comment members are generally considered biased if they criticize any candidate or party. Politicians do not believe in dialogue. They only love the sound of their own voices. They prefer to be the interviewer and the interviewee in one. They love the tube spotlight or the front pages, but hate questions that require them to tell the truth.

One veteran politician, whose record includes a “tour” of at least four political parties before returning to eat his vomit from where he started, reacted sharply when asked about the national reach of his presidential candidate, replying: ” When were you born ? Look, journalists say all kinds of crap when they’re given money by political opponents. I know you are not one of those journalists. That’s why your question surprises me. As you know, my candidate is the man to beat…”

Another responded to a question about his candidate’s alleged drug dealing by lashing out at the journalist. He went so far as to tell the journalist to get paper and pen for a lecture. It was all ego and bragging. So much gas. No content.

Another, known for his public displays of bad manners, prefers to use the opportunity afforded him to vilify the candidates of other parties, reserving his bitterest adjectives for a particular spokesperson of one of the rival political parties. A pig by any other name, I’ll wallow in the swamps again.

Hello! Public speaking is an art that can be learned. Like any field of human endeavor, it has its own tools and tricks that are at the disposal of anyone who wishes to succeed at the task. Every speaker should be trained on how to handle interviews and achieve the best possible results.

The average public speaker I’ve been researching for the past few weeks is more interested in reassuring the public, even in areas where he is unsure. It is not a crime to acknowledge people’s fears about a candidate or his policies. The expectation is that, having acknowledged what everyone else is talking about, the speaker can now proceed to sell his candidate’s point of view.

It is more forgivable for party candidates to make interview mistakes than their spokespersons. To begin with, the spokesperson must have some level of experience and exposure in working with the media. The problem I see is that our politicians can’t tell the difference between an influencer, a speaker trained in the art of messaging, and a rabid supporter who is ready to get into a fistfight when something negative is said about their candidate.

It is counterproductive to cast a spokesperson for the media to “go and expose it.” As the voice of the candidate, the spokesperson must first be involved in designing and developing key messages. Where expertise is required, he/she should have such a resource to answer technical questions clearly.

A speaker should never enter a media interview without a purpose. Just because the other party was on the air yesterday doesn’t mean you have to go on the air today, even when you’re unprepared. You must have a message to deliver.

The average public speaker I’ve been researching for the past few weeks is more interested in reassuring the public, even in areas where he is unsure. It is not a crime to acknowledge people’s fears about a candidate or his policies. The expectation is that, having acknowledged what everyone else is talking about, the speaker can now proceed to sell his candidate’s point of view.

Once the public perceives a speaker as untrustworthy, sending him to represent a candidate or party is a wasted opportunity. A good turn of the tongue in speaking Royal English can only be an asset when it is built on expressing competence and experience, honesty and candor.

What accounts for some of the friction in some of the interviews I studied is the fact that some speakers want to answer questions that are outside of their area of ​​expertise. There is nothing wrong with saying, “Only my director or party chairman can answer this question.” However, the spokesperson may offer to follow up on questions and other issues that cannot be addressed immediately.

There are speakers that the public has already identified as dirty bulldogs. They cannot add any value to any candidate’s campaign because in them the public’s perception is completely bewildered by the ambassador; so even though it appears regularly on the air, its message is lost.

I know journalists can be very curious sometimes. However, it is not the order of the speaker to be belligerent towards the interviewer. The viewing public of a television interview, for example, distrusts people who look as if they have come to fight rather than share their own point of view. Having said that, the speaker should not allow the interviewer to put words in his mouth. If necessary, paraphrase a leading question and then proceed to answer it. If the answer requires you to repeat something you said earlier, please do so without being rude.

What we are defending is not nanoscience. And no one should think they’re too old to benefit from the kind of confidence and quick wit that comes with being well-prepared for a presidential debate. What will ultimately win the day may not even be your manifesto, but a quick turn of phrase in the face of competitive questions.

Stay tuned for follow-up questions. The “meat” of many interviews is in the follow-up. Don’t fight when the interviewer interrupts. He has a set of questions to ask in a short period of time. The whole program is not just for you. This should be common sense. If you are asked a double-ended or triple-ended question, first break the questions into their constituent parts before answering in short, clear sentences. Your goal is to shine a light on the areas affected by the issues and hopefully win more supporters for your candidate or party.

Some candidates appear to be avoiding the usual presidential debates, preferring to hold their own town hall meetings where they preach to the converted. What every unbiased strategist wants to see now is candidates undergoing professional cooking to be able to hold their own in front of any panel. Apart from the personal questions, which can be uniquely designed for each candidate, most of the other questions will focus on HOW each candidate wants to build all those beautiful castles in their manifesto. Any candidate who wants to be taken seriously must have been trained by now.

Throwing insults at opponents, as a certain presidential candidate routinely does, is no substitute for reasoned argument. It’s also not advisable to pour scorn on your opponent’s use of stats. What to do? Enter your own details if you have them!

Debates turn the tide of victory. I remember in our university days the speech night was not to be missed. We look back on those years with fondness and gratitude for having been raised in an environment that demanded the best in ideas and communication.

What we are defending is not nanoscience. And no one should think they’re too old to benefit from the kind of confidence and quick wit that comes with being well-prepared for a presidential debate. What will ultimately win the day may not even be your manifesto, but a quick turn of phrase in the face of competitive questions.

Remember the case of Ronald Reagan, who was asked during the 1984 US presidential debate if, at 73, he was too old to be president?

“I’m not going to make age an issue in this campaign. I will not use the youth and inexperience of my opponent for political purposes.”

Reagan, the retired actor, until now considered inconsistent and unreliable with facts and figures, won in a landslide.

Am I communicating?

Wole Olaoye is a public relations consultant and veteran journalist. He can be contacted via wole.olaoye@gmail.com. Twitter: @wole_olaoye; Instagram: woleola2021.