Experts: "Our candidates cannot speak in front of the camera"
Whom did Sannikau offend, and what kind of voters will never vote for Kastusyou?
A political scientist Iryna Buhrova and a publicity agent Julia Liashkevich have discussed the TV-speeches of Andrej Sannikau and Ryhor Kastusyou on air of ERB.
Iryna Buhrova, political scientist Julia Liashkevich, publicity agent
Mara Nalshanskaya: Let us start with a technical, external point - how did the candidates look?
Julia Liashkevich: We should pay attention to the picture, because we are speaking about advertising presentation, the picture made by BT itself, not on purpose I guess, but because they have poor skills in it. Usually, when a person is to speak for such a long time, the background should not be so flat. A person is usually seated in a studio where there is a feeling of depth, created with the help of interior, or the background maybe transparent with something moving behind it. A person does not look this flat in such presentation. It is difficult to look good on such a flat presentation, on a light-blue background, which does add much to the skin of a middle-aged man - they are not usually very well-cared in our country.
MN: What about the plan in which the candidate was reduced to cadre?
JL: It was really a close-up, an inconvenient and restricted one. I don't want to speak badly about men in our country, but few of them can wear suits decently. He does not look natural, the tie is too tight - all this makes people feel stiff. If we compare the two candidates, Sannikau looked much more tensed, he was sitting in a very uptight position. Kastusyou obviously felt more at ease, his gestures were better, he looked more natural in this respect.
MN: However, we have to admit it is difficult to use gestures in close-ups - all these gestures are beyond the cadre all the time.
JL: Definitely. I don't know if they considered this point, I mean, how far from the camera a candidate wanted to be. Apart from that, it would be good if they had water near them. Both of them obviously needed it. It was clearly seen their throats had run dry. Moreover, a classic black PR feature happened to Sannikau: saliva appeared on his lips. We know it's a part of being a human, that it's a natural thing, but it doesn't look good and makes people's attitude towards the speaker worse.
MN: Miss Iryna, did the candidates look real leaders?
Iryna Buhrova: I agree with Julia - the studio itself caused a sort of claustrophobia. I had a feeling the people were in an elevator which was about to move. This has a very negative effect on perception of candidates. I had an impression that they were obliged to read out some manuals. Even the TV caption provided by BT did not say it was a campaign of a great independent country which longs to be interesting and recognised by Europe. There was nothing like this, nothing to convince the citizens they faced the great choice.
MN: Well, these are conditions created for the candidates…
IB: As for the candidates themselves - all this lessens their chance to look like leaders. Moreover, the long absence of candidates, both current and previous ones, on TV also made its effect. Their stiffness does not let the spectator perceive the text properly. There is no confidence of a person who wants to lead the country, who declares the program, who is ready to form the government and take over responsibility. Although there were some interesting moments in the candidates' speeches, they were noticed only by the people who listened very attentively as they wanted to take something for themselves from the speeches.
MN: Such format strictly limits the speakers, but the candidates - or at least some of them - tried to make it more vivid somehow. How would you evaluate Kastusyou's decision to bring the white-red-white flag to the studio?
IB: Any movement on the screen which contributes to the text, any mimics or gestures make perception of the text better. This is known. So the fact that they showed the little flag or Filaret's photos...
JL However, it is worth mentioning that one of the photos was turned upside down!
IB: Yes, that's what I am trying to say. It's a good idea, but the fact that he showed the photo upside down ruined the attempt to turn the spectators' attention that there can be such associations with the white-red-white flag as well. I agree that any person is worried in front of the camera. Aliaksandr Ryhoravich still has water with him although he has a huge experience of speaking in front of the camera.
MN: Maybe, the candidates were scared when Us said he only could talk for 7 minutes because of that water. Ms. Julia, what would you say about the candidates' clothes? RyhorKastusyou has chosen clear symbols - a red tie with a white shirt, like the white-red-white flag. Andrej Sannikau has chosen a blue tie. As far as I understand, this was supposed to symbolize the colours of the "European Belarus" campaign?
JL: I would like to add about the flag. It is rather strange to speak about going under the white-red-white flag when a little flag is on the table in front of you. A certain dissonance occurs in people's heads. As for the light-blue tie, the people who are in the so-called opposition diaspora keep forgetting that others do not necessarily know about that. So if the tie was supposed to convey this very meaning, I'm afraid no one got that apart from those who knew it before.
MN: Let us proceed to the contents of the speeches. I had an impression that Andrej Sannikau kept saying "I, Andrej Sannikau" while Ryhor Kastusyou said "We, the BPF party" and sometimes "I, Ryhor Kastusyou". How effective are such approaches?
IB: I do not fully agree that Sannikau only stressed the "I" thing. He connected his own political destiny and civil career with the processes the State came through, thus underlining his aim audience - the people who also went through all these democratization processes, ups and downs, joys and disappointments. Thus, "I" is a good idea here. Moreover, he specified not just space, but the time period as well.
MN: But Mr. Sannikau did tell about himself - that he was a state official, that he refused to cooperate with this government, I am from the "European Belarus", my friends are this and that.
IB: But he did not outline it clearly!
JL: Exactly!
IB: The point is, how the contents of the text is conveyed. There were interesting moments but I noticed them only because I sat there listening very attentively, and because I knew who Sannikau was. He has spent too much time in the underground. It's time for him to remind people about himself.
MN: What about Kastusyou's move "We, the BPF party"? It surprised me a bit, as it's not the party who runs for President. I realise it is the first campaign when the BPF has its own candidate, but the party was mentioned much more times within these thirty minutes than "I, Ryhor Kastusyou, will do this and that".
IB: As far as I understand, it is not their goal. The main mission is promotion of the party. With this campaign, he makes a sort of memorial to the BPF - that this is a good party, standing on the principles of Christian morality etc. He is not interested in being recognised as Ryhor Kastusyou, a presidential candidate, he wants voters to recognise the BPF party.
MN: Mr. Kastusyou said "We".
JL: From time to time, but there was no interactive message. For example, I was surprised they spoke so badly about the BRYU. What is the BRYU? These are children who grew up during Lukashenka's reign. We were in Komsomol, and that did not make us obsessed Stalinists and Leninists. And when they tell about them with such contempt all the time... I mean, that's your people! These are yongsters who never saw anything else, they are taught like this at school. So it's not the best idea to despise them. Besides, what surprised me in Sannikau's speech, was that he read from the paper while speaking about personal things, about Zakharanka, about Biabenin... I mean, why reading when you talk about something personal? Only when he spoke about his wife, son and father-in-law he looked to the camera and sounded good and light-hearted. Kastusyou won over him in this regard.
MN: Whom did the candidates address to? Whom could they convince with such speeches?
JL: In fact, the audience was rather broad. However, they could only captivate a few people. The problem is, Kastusyou's speech, for example, was very split up. He spoke about transport and then proceeded to the EU. We understand that there were different potential audiences. But the information was not divided into blocks so that the addressees could react. As for Sannikau, he spoke too much about the man who speaks a lot about himself without Sannikau's help. I'm afraid this is most likely to raise negative reaction. People want to know what will be done.
IB: The worst thing I noticed was that, for example, I was not touched or excited or inspired or anything, having heard the candidates' speeches. I understood that nothing surprised me as a person who knew a lot about politics.
MN: It is noticeable that there are so-called "key words" in the candidates' speeches. These are "dictatorship, contract, investments" etc. But there are some differences. I would like to point them out. Mr. Sannikau underlined his gratitude to Russia and the Russian President. Let me quote, speaking about Biabenin's death, Andrej Sannikau said: "only the Russian journalists demonstrated human attitude".
IB: Moreover, he thanked Medvedev personally. This also hurt me as Sannikau intruded the Russian field and declared that it was the authorities' fault that Russia and Belarus were in conflict, exactly during the time when people were trying to identify what is the independent Belarus now. Such appeal to Russia makes me think the candidate is somehow connected with the Russian lobby.
MN: Ryhor Kastusyou, in his turn, clearly outlined the religious aspect in the very beginning of his speech, thus dividing the people on believers and atheists.
JL: If you ask me whom he really hurt, I would tell you - the KGB men, as he clearly told about their future. They will never vote for him. As for religion, there had been a bright moment in my life already - the speech of Mr. Rymasheuski about the spirit of Christ which should accompany us everywhere and all the time. Well, for such person as myself, it is difficult to understand that as my ancestors were Tatars-Muslims, the great-grandfather was a repressed priest, and my father is a physicist-atheist, who had never torn flags apart but worked in Khadyka's laboratory. The candidate has turned the audience of Muslims, Jewish community, atheists and people who believe in God but don't go to church against himself by saying that. And that's a bit strange.
MN: Especially in the very beginning of the speech.
JL: Exactly, this reminded me Kazulin's speech at first, but no candidate managed to give such a bright sentence as "Where's the money, Sasha?", which later became so popular with the people. Candidates speak about the same things, and that's a problem.
But wait! There was an attempt to joke! Sannikau probably likes this joke so much he keeps repeating it - about a woman who asked where she could find a husband. Well, what else can a woman do in the civil and political life in our country.
MN: Besides, there was one more thing in Sannikau's speech which offended me personally, when he said it was necessary to go to the Square as all the bravest men and the most beautiful women would be there.
JL: You are not the only one who got offended by that! Especially because it was first published at the Charter'97 web-site. I think that this joke was written by a woman who is convinced she is the only smart lady and all the rest just wander around looking for husbands. But that's my personal opinion.
This contradiction - bravest men and most beautiful women - clearly demonstrates which role they give to a woman. However, women think about the future of the country, and they bring up future citizens much more than men do.
Bad joke.
MN: Alongside with that, Mr. Sannikau stressed that he was married, that his wife was a famous journalist Iryna Khalip, that he had a child. Ryhor Kastusyou also underlined these values and said he had three children. Does Belarusian society require such stress on family values? Will it play for the candidates?
IB: Of course this is important. Candidates struggle, but people live. They live their daily lives. Even if we define their lives as a non-stop struggle, it is the struggle of another type, without squares.
IB: They did not focus on it in their messages.
MN: Finally, I would like to speak about the positive moments of each speech, to add some pluses to the minuses which we already discussed, to achieve equilibrium.
JL: Sannikau has a good voice, he clearly explained what is need to be done for people with limited abilities. Mr. Kastusyou looked rather natural in front of the camera, did not read from the paper all the time. I had a feeling that his language is good and impressional, he has a potential of an easy-to-understand speaker.
IB: I would like to wish the candidates to communicate with the audience. Try to get to the people, as a person is alone in front of the screen. It's not necessary to touch so many topics. Touch just two, but important ones.
A political scientist Iryna Buhrova and a publicity agent Julia Liashkevich have discussed the TV-speeches of Andrej Sannikau and Ryhor Kastusyou on air of ERB.
Iryna Buhrova, political scientist Julia Liashkevich, publicity agent
Mara Nalshanskaya: Let us start with a technical, external point - how did the candidates look?
Julia Liashkevich: We should pay attention to the picture, because we are speaking about advertising presentation, the picture made by BT itself, not on purpose I guess, but because they have poor skills in it. Usually, when a person is to speak for such a long time, the background should not be so flat. A person is usually seated in a studio where there is a feeling of depth, created with the help of interior, or the background maybe transparent with something moving behind it. A person does not look this flat in such presentation. It is difficult to look good on such a flat presentation, on a light-blue background, which does add much to the skin of a middle-aged man - they are not usually very well-cared in our country.
MN: What about the plan in which the candidate was reduced to cadre?
JL: It was really a close-up, an inconvenient and restricted one. I don't want to speak badly about men in our country, but few of them can wear suits decently. He does not look natural, the tie is too tight - all this makes people feel stiff. If we compare the two candidates, Sannikau looked much more tensed, he was sitting in a very uptight position. Kastusyou obviously felt more at ease, his gestures were better, he looked more natural in this respect.
MN: However, we have to admit it is difficult to use gestures in close-ups - all these gestures are beyond the cadre all the time.
JL: Definitely. I don't know if they considered this point, I mean, how far from the camera a candidate wanted to be. Apart from that, it would be good if they had water near them. Both of them obviously needed it. It was clearly seen their throats had run dry. Moreover, a classic black PR feature happened to Sannikau: saliva appeared on his lips. We know it's a part of being a human, that it's a natural thing, but it doesn't look good and makes people's attitude towards the speaker worse.
MN: Miss Iryna, did the candidates look real leaders?
Iryna Buhrova: I agree with Julia - the studio itself caused a sort of claustrophobia. I had a feeling the people were in an elevator which was about to move. This has a very negative effect on perception of candidates. I had an impression that they were obliged to read out some manuals. Even the TV caption provided by BT did not say it was a campaign of a great independent country which longs to be interesting and recognised by Europe. There was nothing like this, nothing to convince the citizens they faced the great choice.
MN: Well, these are conditions created for the candidates…
IB: As for the candidates themselves - all this lessens their chance to look like leaders. Moreover, the long absence of candidates, both current and previous ones, on TV also made its effect. Their stiffness does not let the spectator perceive the text properly. There is no confidence of a person who wants to lead the country, who declares the program, who is ready to form the government and take over responsibility. Although there were some interesting moments in the candidates' speeches, they were noticed only by the people who listened very attentively as they wanted to take something for themselves from the speeches.
MN: Such format strictly limits the speakers, but the candidates - or at least some of them - tried to make it more vivid somehow. How would you evaluate Kastusyou's decision to bring the white-red-white flag to the studio?
IB: Any movement on the screen which contributes to the text, any mimics or gestures make perception of the text better. This is known. So the fact that they showed the little flag or Filaret's photos...
JL However, it is worth mentioning that one of the photos was turned upside down!
IB: Yes, that's what I am trying to say. It's a good idea, but the fact that he showed the photo upside down ruined the attempt to turn the spectators' attention that there can be such associations with the white-red-white flag as well. I agree that any person is worried in front of the camera. Aliaksandr Ryhoravich still has water with him although he has a huge experience of speaking in front of the camera.
MN: Maybe, the candidates were scared when Us said he only could talk for 7 minutes because of that water. Ms. Julia, what would you say about the candidates' clothes? RyhorKastusyou has chosen clear symbols - a red tie with a white shirt, like the white-red-white flag. Andrej Sannikau has chosen a blue tie. As far as I understand, this was supposed to symbolize the colours of the "European Belarus" campaign?
JL: I would like to add about the flag. It is rather strange to speak about going under the white-red-white flag when a little flag is on the table in front of you. A certain dissonance occurs in people's heads. As for the light-blue tie, the people who are in the so-called opposition diaspora keep forgetting that others do not necessarily know about that. So if the tie was supposed to convey this very meaning, I'm afraid no one got that apart from those who knew it before.
MN: Let us proceed to the contents of the speeches. I had an impression that Andrej Sannikau kept saying "I, Andrej Sannikau" while Ryhor Kastusyou said "We, the BPF party" and sometimes "I, Ryhor Kastusyou". How effective are such approaches?
IB: I do not fully agree that Sannikau only stressed the "I" thing. He connected his own political destiny and civil career with the processes the State came through, thus underlining his aim audience - the people who also went through all these democratization processes, ups and downs, joys and disappointments. Thus, "I" is a good idea here. Moreover, he specified not just space, but the time period as well.
MN: But Mr. Sannikau did tell about himself - that he was a state official, that he refused to cooperate with this government, I am from the "European Belarus", my friends are this and that.
IB: But he did not outline it clearly!
JL: Exactly!
IB: The point is, how the contents of the text is conveyed. There were interesting moments but I noticed them only because I sat there listening very attentively, and because I knew who Sannikau was. He has spent too much time in the underground. It's time for him to remind people about himself.
MN: What about Kastusyou's move "We, the BPF party"? It surprised me a bit, as it's not the party who runs for President. I realise it is the first campaign when the BPF has its own candidate, but the party was mentioned much more times within these thirty minutes than "I, Ryhor Kastusyou, will do this and that".
IB: As far as I understand, it is not their goal. The main mission is promotion of the party. With this campaign, he makes a sort of memorial to the BPF - that this is a good party, standing on the principles of Christian morality etc. He is not interested in being recognised as Ryhor Kastusyou, a presidential candidate, he wants voters to recognise the BPF party.
MN: Mr. Kastusyou said "We".
JL: From time to time, but there was no interactive message. For example, I was surprised they spoke so badly about the BRYU. What is the BRYU? These are children who grew up during Lukashenka's reign. We were in Komsomol, and that did not make us obsessed Stalinists and Leninists. And when they tell about them with such contempt all the time... I mean, that's your people! These are yongsters who never saw anything else, they are taught like this at school. So it's not the best idea to despise them. Besides, what surprised me in Sannikau's speech, was that he read from the paper while speaking about personal things, about Zakharanka, about Biabenin... I mean, why reading when you talk about something personal? Only when he spoke about his wife, son and father-in-law he looked to the camera and sounded good and light-hearted. Kastusyou won over him in this regard.
MN: Whom did the candidates address to? Whom could they convince with such speeches?
JL: In fact, the audience was rather broad. However, they could only captivate a few people. The problem is, Kastusyou's speech, for example, was very split up. He spoke about transport and then proceeded to the EU. We understand that there were different potential audiences. But the information was not divided into blocks so that the addressees could react. As for Sannikau, he spoke too much about the man who speaks a lot about himself without Sannikau's help. I'm afraid this is most likely to raise negative reaction. People want to know what will be done.
IB: The worst thing I noticed was that, for example, I was not touched or excited or inspired or anything, having heard the candidates' speeches. I understood that nothing surprised me as a person who knew a lot about politics.
MN: It is noticeable that there are so-called "key words" in the candidates' speeches. These are "dictatorship, contract, investments" etc. But there are some differences. I would like to point them out. Mr. Sannikau underlined his gratitude to Russia and the Russian President. Let me quote, speaking about Biabenin's death, Andrej Sannikau said: "only the Russian journalists demonstrated human attitude".
IB: Moreover, he thanked Medvedev personally. This also hurt me as Sannikau intruded the Russian field and declared that it was the authorities' fault that Russia and Belarus were in conflict, exactly during the time when people were trying to identify what is the independent Belarus now. Such appeal to Russia makes me think the candidate is somehow connected with the Russian lobby.
MN: Ryhor Kastusyou, in his turn, clearly outlined the religious aspect in the very beginning of his speech, thus dividing the people on believers and atheists.
JL: If you ask me whom he really hurt, I would tell you - the KGB men, as he clearly told about their future. They will never vote for him. As for religion, there had been a bright moment in my life already - the speech of Mr. Rymasheuski about the spirit of Christ which should accompany us everywhere and all the time. Well, for such person as myself, it is difficult to understand that as my ancestors were Tatars-Muslims, the great-grandfather was a repressed priest, and my father is a physicist-atheist, who had never torn flags apart but worked in Khadyka's laboratory. The candidate has turned the audience of Muslims, Jewish community, atheists and people who believe in God but don't go to church against himself by saying that. And that's a bit strange.
MN: Especially in the very beginning of the speech.
JL: Exactly, this reminded me Kazulin's speech at first, but no candidate managed to give such a bright sentence as "Where's the money, Sasha?", which later became so popular with the people. Candidates speak about the same things, and that's a problem.
But wait! There was an attempt to joke! Sannikau probably likes this joke so much he keeps repeating it - about a woman who asked where she could find a husband. Well, what else can a woman do in the civil and political life in our country.
MN: Besides, there was one more thing in Sannikau's speech which offended me personally, when he said it was necessary to go to the Square as all the bravest men and the most beautiful women would be there.
JL: You are not the only one who got offended by that! Especially because it was first published at the Charter'97 web-site. I think that this joke was written by a woman who is convinced she is the only smart lady and all the rest just wander around looking for husbands. But that's my personal opinion.
This contradiction - bravest men and most beautiful women - clearly demonstrates which role they give to a woman. However, women think about the future of the country, and they bring up future citizens much more than men do.
Bad joke.
MN: Alongside with that, Mr. Sannikau stressed that he was married, that his wife was a famous journalist Iryna Khalip, that he had a child. Ryhor Kastusyou also underlined these values and said he had three children. Does Belarusian society require such stress on family values? Will it play for the candidates?
IB: Of course this is important. Candidates struggle, but people live. They live their daily lives. Even if we define their lives as a non-stop struggle, it is the struggle of another type, without squares.
As for jokes, I would like them to joke more, to be more natural, not angry as the current President, but family-like, close to the people. As family values and love are very important, maybe they are even the fundament for survival and living of Belarus today.
MN: Although each of them mentioned his family, you think they failed to get closer to the people?
MN: Although each of them mentioned his family, you think they failed to get closer to the people?
IB: They did not focus on it in their messages.
MN: Finally, I would like to speak about the positive moments of each speech, to add some pluses to the minuses which we already discussed, to achieve equilibrium.
JL: Sannikau has a good voice, he clearly explained what is need to be done for people with limited abilities. Mr. Kastusyou looked rather natural in front of the camera, did not read from the paper all the time. I had a feeling that his language is good and impressional, he has a potential of an easy-to-understand speaker.
IB: I would like to wish the candidates to communicate with the audience. Try to get to the people, as a person is alone in front of the screen. It's not necessary to touch so many topics. Touch just two, but important ones.
