Political Conventions - Lordly Body Language

8/3/2019 Political Conventions - Lordly Body Language

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/political-conventions-lordly-body-language 1/5

http://allanbonner.com/book-political_conventions.php



LORDLY BODY L ANGUAGE 29

Lordly Body LanguageConrad, Lord Black of Crossharbour, is endlessly fascinating.

His careers as a journalist, entrepreneur, academic writer,

biographer, political commentator and press baron all

make equally good stories. I recommend his several books.

As luck would have it, I met Lord Black during the dark

days before his trial.We exchanged emails as I told him of

writing up our encounter and my perspective on his trial for Lawyers’ Weekly.

The lesson for politicians in committees and elsewhere is

that non-verbal communication is as important, and can

be as precise, as Oxford Dictionary definitions.

One juror in the Conrad Black trial explained the guilty verdict very

simply—he was “arrogant, I would say would be the main word I

would come up with ... arrogant.” The juror also said that she had

no sympathy for the defendant.The explanation makes perfect sense. We make quick decisions on

little information. The classic tale is that the flying public assumes that

the airline with the cleanest lunch tray is also the safest. Clean trays

have little to do with safety. But then again, what other criteria would

a lay passenger use to judge the safety of an airline? We all use the

information available to us.

But this quote is curious on another level. Conrad Black said a grand

total of absolutely nothing during his lengthy trial. So how could a juror come to the conclusion that Black is arrogant?

This is explainable by reference to any good non-verbal dictionary.

Regrettably, these don’t exist, and one must rely on academic literature

or psychology books to piece together the non-verbal clues a witness

or defendant might give off to transmit arrogance—or better yet,

contrition, expertise or likeability.

Even the legal journals and articles on witness preparation mainly

speak of the need to exhibit “positive” body language without defining what that means.

In fact, in the legal literature on witness preparation, there’s a further

dilemma about body language and demeanor. Child witnesses and the

victims of sexual assault and rape can lower their credibility if they

appear too comfortable and composed, even if they’re testifying years



after the incident. Such victims are supposed to be rattled, and juries

expect them to show the signs of trauma.

But that special case aside, how can someone like Conrad Black help

his case just by walking in and out of the courtroom, sitting in a chair

and saying nothing?

The social-science literature is pretty clear about what is positive

in non-verbal communication. First, in Western culture, one of the

most commonly understood gestures is arms outstretched, elbows

at 90 degrees, forearms rotated so that the inner arm is showing with

the palms at an angle of 45 degrees. This is commonly understood to

mean such things as: “I’m here ... I’m with you ... I’m open, have noth-

ing to hide, am communicative and have no weapon.”

Another very commonly understood non-verbal signal is leaning forward a couple of degrees off the perpendicular. Imagine standing

around a house party trying to strike up a conversation with someone

standing ramrod straight, or worse, leaning back imperiously. You’d

warm much more to a person who leaned forward a little but not so

much as to invade your space.

Stay with the house-party analogy and you’ll agree that about 50 to

75 percent of your impact as a person is non-verbal and about 50 to

75 percent of that is eye contact. If the person you’re speaking withis looking over your shoulder for someone more interesting, you will

probably not think well of that person.

So how does this translate in court? How to walk in is a strategic deci-

sion. The accused should act purposeful and deliberate. This means

walking directly to his chair without sweeping the room with his eyes.

Arms should be at the side of the body with a gentle swing matching

the gait, but they should not cross in front of the body. Any briefcase

or papers should be put on the table purposefully without noise.

A neutral or slightly positive facial expression is best.

At the table, the accused can approximate positive body language by

sitting forward in his chair, feet flat on the floor, back straight and

tilted forward. Arms can rest gently on the desk, shoulder-width apart,

with the palms rotated so as to be visible. Taking notes shows interest

and respect, so long as it doesn’t look as if you’re making a transcript

to check up on those speaking.

Occasional looks at the judge, a witness, counsel who are speaking and

the jury can show interest and respect for the process. But the looksmust not be challenging, and the eyes should not dart around. The

gaze should linger and be purposeful.

Paradoxically, in person Conrad Black can be charming, even flattering.

30 LORDLY BODY L ANGUAGE



When I last encountered him, I told the media baron how much I had

enjoyed his autobiography, A Life in Progress . I told him how I would

read it in bed at night and elbow my wife regularly and read passages

to her aloud. He misunderstood my meaning and leaned toward me

in genuine interest and asked something to this effect:“And the verdict?”

I responded by enthusing that I had thought the book was first-rate.

Lord Black seemed genuinely pleased. That egged me on. I began

quoting liberally from the book, which I’d read about eight years

before. Many of the best lines were parenthetical. He’d interject some-

thing such as, “For those who thought I was trying to whip up nostalgia

for feudal times...” and then make a more substantial point with no

more reference to whom he was speaking about or feudal times. He’ddrop in the term “rented meatballs” to describe members of the private

security service he had briefly owned and spoke of having to wade

through snow in his driveway while creeping past the sleeping security

guard in the car—a cutting comment all the more powerful because

of his light touch.

Conrad Black listened intently while I told him his own stories from his

own book, often adding lines or finishing off narrative threads.

But then I provided free editorial services. I reminded him that it wasPhil Graham of The Washington Post , not his wife Katharine (who took

over on Phil’s death), who defined journalism as “a first rough draft of

history.” Trivia buffs will remember how John Mitchell (Nixon’s attorney

general and CREEP director) referred to Ms. Graham and the dangers

of getting too close to a wringer washing machine, but I digress.

The second I challenged Lord Black’s citation, I could see his agile

mind working overtime. His eyes glanced furtively around. Despite this

step-up in activity, he maintained his rate of speech and vocal tone. He

immediately riffed on the name Phil Graham, as a jazz musician woulduse a note to fly off on a musical trip. Who he was, his business deal-

ings and other aspects of his career were the subjects.

“Yes, but it was he, not Katharine, who defined journalism as a first

rough draft of history.” I had a feeling that not many people have ever

had the semantic or factual upper hand with Lord Black, so I thought

I should emphasize my position. I knew that Lord Black, also a military

buff, would appreciate my Blitzkrieg.

The exchange ended with Lord Black stringing together disclaimerssuch as “it may be ... I’ll have to check that ... a chilling quote regard-

less...” until our chat broke off.

Later, I went home, photocopied the appropriate page from David

Halberstam’s book The Powers That Be , which attributes the quote

LORDLY BODY L ANGUAGE 31



to Phil, and wrote a nice supportive letter to Lord Black, appending

the citation.

A few days later, my assistant told me I’d received a reply from Conrad

Black and “the whole letter is one long sentence that took up a whole

page.” It wasn’t anything of the kind, but to a young person who wasused to sentences such as “What up?” and “Awesome,” I guess it looked

that way.

Lord Black had written me a gracious note, saying he was in a “phony

war” and had a plan to prevail. He made no reference to Graham, the

quote or the Halberstam citation.

32 LORDLY BODY L ANGUAGE

Political Conventions - Lordly Body Language

Documents