Keith Lolman®

Greetings, welcome to my page.

Latest topic - the demonisation and demonstration of political leaders in the static and dynamic media.

I remember when George W Bush was still president in the states, it was a popular thing to do to disparage him. Of course there were many legitimate reasons for doing so - Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, his biased reforms, his unwavering support of the death penalty, his faith-based ideals.

But here's the thing, ask someone on the street, or down the pub why he was such a terrible president and although they may mention Iraq, you can bet your life that it is more his manner, his communication skills, that fall under scrutiny. The media spent much of its time simply mocking his innability to pronounce words, or the many faux-pas during interviews or speeches. Bush came across badly, and it is these (in my opinion) irrelivencies that stick in folks minds, rather than the actual legitimate reasons themselves - the war, the human-rights violations, the flagrant self interest, the religious zeal.

And then we had Gordon Brown, the former punch-bag for not only the media, but for anybody at all who feels angry about anything happening they don't like, it would seem. Like Bush, Gordon Brown was an extremely poor orator - he made some dreadful faux pas, and struggled with the kind of media relationship his predecessor was so adept at. Tony was all smiles and empassioned rhetoric; Gordon wasn't that at all.

But here's the thing about Gordon Brown: whatever his public image - his peceived dour persona - the legitimate reasons for disparaging him simply weren't there in the same way they were for bush. Let's be honest - they weren't there in the same way they were for Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair... these people were criminals, and yet they enjoyed the kind of support George could have only of dreamed of.