FuturePAF
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
- Messages
- 10,546
- Reaction score
- 24
- Country
- Location
He shouldn't have held this interview with an American news channel.
Seeing the way it went, I would agree, but had he had better PR sound bites prepared , CNN is the best to spread the message worldwide.
1. On the source of his accusations he should have said, in a clear and concise (to the post manner) he has unnamed sources that informed him of the possibility and he is willing to laid it out to a investigative agency without ties to those he has accused.
2. He should have hammered home the message that he is fighting a democratic struggle, and that democracy itself is under attack by the forces of autocracy in Pakistan. This is the current language of the global Cold War, and he should have used this to his advantage. Buzzwords sell in western interviews.
3. Western audiences don’t like long stories, they have 5-15 second attention spans, two sentence sound bites need to be prepared for the kind of questions he expects to be given.
4. Generalization of a group of people don’t sell in the west, they want names and a face and specific crimes. People want to feel it is a problem that can be solved in a relatively short period of time.
5. The west needs to feel you are on their side, so he ought to have said his opponent are for the status quo and IK is for a “new relationship” with the US and will work two wards the mutual benefit of both nations.
CNN is a “WOKE” channel but still functional (unlike MSNBC which is more woke), so they would want an optimistic outlook for the west if IK wins. Think of all the optimism of the “Arab spring”, but the leaders that emerged weren’t as “pro-western”. IK will have to make his rhetoric more diplomatic in matters of foreign affairs. Not deflect, because that is seen as even worse, but a solution that the west begrudgingly is willing to live with, like something Erdogan would do.
Last edited: