[ad_1]
Berge is an expert in the art of speaking convincingly, and Vedum is wrestling with that in a TV 2 interview Thursday about cross-border trading, the rhetoric professor believes.
The function states that the Center Party will reduce taxes to provide new jobs in Norway.
The party leader receives several questions about how to handle this without reducing alcohol taxes.
When asked if alcohol is one of the biggest reasons people cross the border, Vedum notes that Pepsi Max is one of the biggest reasons, before getting a new question.
– Systembolaget in Strømstad has a turnover of 2 billion kroner a year, don’t you agree that alcohol is one of the most important reasons why people cross the border?
– We in the Center Party believe that it is more important to have lower taxes on sausages and pizza than on pjolter and lager, Vedum responds, before laughing at the camera.
“You understand he came out crooked from the jump,” he tried to roll, to put it that way, says Berge.
– What is he doing here?
– No, I don’t know what to call it, me. I think he is rude, does not answer questions and tries to laugh and joke, what is it? I have not seen anything like it, I, at least not in Norway, says the professor of rhetoric.
Weaken credibility
To be convincing in the answer to why people actually buy in Sweden, there is no point in pointing to Pepsi Max, he says.
– This is not how you should respond as a politician. These are important questions, cross-border trade costs society large sums. There are a lot of jobs we’re talking about, and he can’t shy away from such important questions in a trashy and joking way, it’s just plain silly.
-But with this laugh, doesn’t he become more popular, so that there is less distance between him and the voters?
– Yes, in small doses, perhaps, but not as a rhetorical movement, it does not work. Laughter and humor can dampen conflict, but what we know from research is that laughter can have a negative effect and weaken the credibility of the politician in question.
It becomes a syllabus in teaching rhetoric.
Berges recommends the Center Party communication department to hold a round with the party leader on how to speak in Norwegian politics.
– You must answer properly and honestly even the complicated questions that come from the journalist here. I don’t think this is experienced in the party as a particularly good rhetorical statement by Slagsvold Vedum, I doubt it.
– Should I muffle your laughter?
– Yes, he can be himself and relax, it is not true, but he cannot laugh at the questions, it does not work.
But Berge also sees use value in the interview:
– I laugh to death, I have to include that element when we have political rhetoric this spring, he concludes.
Neither Trygve Slagsvold Vedum nor the Center Party communications chief wanted to be interviewed in this case.
