Surely communication should be judged more on substance and lasting weight, rather than temporary pillars that end up supporting a temple of contradiction, about turns and betrayal of one's own people? ('Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg named Communicator of the Year at PRWeek Awards', prweek.com/uk, 20 October.)
No doubt Clegg is a superb orator, but his rhetoric did little to change voting for his party. In fact, his number of seats shrank ...
My premise as to why this award is laughable is simply that one cannot place the measurement of communication on 'how' it is said at the cost of forgetting 'what' was said, and how this pertains to the reality of the given situation.
- Clegg communicated better than his rivals ...
Chris Dawson is correct that substance is more important than style in making judgements although, in presentation, the latter is also vital.
The award is for 'Communicator of the Year'.
The unavoidable fact is that Clegg managed to communicate his ideas, which affected how people voted in free and fair elections, better than the other two party leaders at a time when it was most important and effective.
... but comms skills had little impact on election
The general election result proved that while Clegg may have communicated his ideas effectively during the run-in, they had little result on the electorate on polling day.