Book Review: Politicians Under The Microscope

Contemporary politics is mass-communication politics. Politicians are not only seen and heard, they are seen and heard in close-up: in speeches, interviews and parliamentary debates – both on television and on social media. In this book, the authors analyse ways in which politicians communicate with each other, the media and the electorate; they also discuss the implications for democracy as we know it.

This research was conducted through what is termed microanalysis, the detailed examination primarily from video of both speech and nonverbal communication. In politics, what matters is not just what is said but how it is said – demeanour, tone of voice, facial expression and body movement all contribute to how politicians are perceived by the public.

In the context of political interviews, politicians are typically berated for their apparent evasiveness. Microanalytic research can shed light on the means of sidestepping questions as well as the motivations for doing so.

Throughout this book, detailed attention is given as to how and why politicians seek to present themselves in the best possible light. The analysis of equivocation, interruptions and personal antagonism can give valuable insights into both the effectiveness of individual interviewers and the communicative style of individual politicians, who are often typecast as people who “never answer a question”.

Research, however, shows that they do answer some questions: although – and somewhat supportive of the negative stereotype – reply rates rarely exceed 40%.

Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) – the weekly showdown between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition (LO) – was also the focus of this research. In this parliamentary setting, the levels of evasion tend to be far more prevalent. In their responses to questions from the LO, the reply rate of one recent Prime Minister was 21%, another was just 11%. Analysis of the LO-PM exchanges also includes personal attacks – a notorious feature of PMQs discourse. The book reveals who, among party leaders since the late 1970s (from the premierships of Thatcher through to Johnson), are the most personally disrespectful and those inclined to be more polite. It also highlights the circumstances when mutual antagonism is typically curtailed. PMQs is often branded as Punch & Judy politics – but, as one of our studies shows, this adversarial discourse has the potential to affect notable changes in policy and beyond.

Research on equivocation in both PMQs and political interviews has to date identified 43 ways of not answering questions: attacking the question, ignoring the question, acknowledging the question without answering it, to name but a few. One subtle and somewhat covert way of not answering a question is to modify it and answer a slightly different question. Making such an equivocal response was shown to be a go-to technique of a recent Prime Minister. A less subtle way is to direct their response personally at the questioner, a technique which has the potential to be effective and is favoured by certain politicians. Indeed, one former senior politician appeared to use a distinct form of personalised response to discompose interviewers and thereby gain greater control of the interview agenda.



This research on interviews and parliamentary debates is based primarily on UK politics, however, the analysis of political speeches is not only UK-based but also includes the USA as well as some European and East Asian nations. Particular consideration is given not only to how speakers invite audience responses but also to how different audiences respond. As well as applause, audiences may laugh, cheer, chant, and in some contexts they even boo.

Notably, there are clear cultural variations in the behaviour of audiences. Applause is the commonest form of response in the UK, cheering much more common in the USA, chanting a salient feature in South Korea. And whereas booing is quite common in response to American presidential speeches, in other countries its general absence supports the notion of it being socially taboo. As for political speakers, they use a limited range of rhetorical devices – both implicitly and explicitly – to prompt audiences to show their appreciation. Research also shows how US presidential candidates can use deliberate strategies not only to whip up widespread booing of their opponents but on occasions to be the subject of audience disapproval themselves.

The final contextual basis for research reported in this book is that of political journalism. Here, one main focus is how politicians are challenged when being questioned and how this may vary, not only across cultures but also to the level of the individual posing the questions. The other main focus is on television news and how editing techniques – namely, interpretive journalism – can affect the politicians’ comments as seen by the viewing public.

Overall, political discourse is examined in a range of contexts to generate awareness about the means of communication and to enhance transparency as to what may lie behind the spoken words. The authors have aimed to provide a valuable resource for students and academics in the areas of psychology, politics, communication, sociology, linguistics and other related disciplines. Furthermore, this work has major relevance to practitioners in both politics and political journalism.