Many people acknowledge that President Obama is a good public speaker. At the same time, many note a significant difference in the quality of President Obama’s speech between those occasions when he uses a Teleprompter and those when he speaks extemporaneously.
They assert that his oratorical gifts are actually not as great as they seem because when he speaks without a teleprompter he says “er and uhm” like the average oratorical duffer, and often pauses awkwardly once he starts a sentence, as he seems to re-think how to arrange the thought into words that will not play against him.
While I’ve noticed a certain partisan tone when this distinction is made, I too feel concerned about the use of TelePrompters. They seem to make public speech more dead than alive. But would we prefer that our leaders step to the lectern and reach inside their breast pocket to withdraw a written speech?
Barbara Tuchman, the great American historian, had a few radical thoughts on this subject. She suspected that Teleprompters would bring down our democracy.
She said, in an interview with Bill Moyers, that the devices were “the most devastating tool that technology’s invented…” Our public men, “don’t speak spontaneously. You don’t hear them meet a situation out of their own minds. They read this thing that’s going along there in front of them. Words that have been created for them by PR men or by advertisers or whatever. And this is not the real man that we see. And it allows an inadequate, minor individual to appear to be a statesman, because he’s got very good speechwriters. Mr. Reagan! Boy! And to read the stuff off, because he reads it very well. He’s an actor, I guess, a trained actor. … you never know what he’s reading. Nor do you really know this with any of them. They learn it very fast…the teleprompter–is a really, in my opinion, it’s a terrible tool, because what we have is an artificial result.”
Then Bill Moyers says, “And yet George Washington had Alexander Hamilton as a speechwriter. The Farewell Address, his final major statement as he exited the Presidency, was largely penned by Alexander Hamilton. Is there a correlation?”
And by the way, Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address had help from William Seward, his Secretary of State.
Then Tuchman says, “No, because the teleprompter shows the person in a situation which is not real, and which is phony, and which is deceptive. The thing is, you see, that we’re a public that is brought up on deception, through advertising. From the moment we are children, we learn that some kind of cereal is going to make us strong and win races and one thing and another, and the next thing you know, if you use a particular kind of toothpaste, you’re going to marry Gary Cooper, or at least have a glamorous romance somewhere; all that is deception.”
She raises some questions.
1. Are teleprompters a form of deception?
2. What’s the difference between a teleprompter and a piece of paper with the speech written on it?
3. Do we want our Presidents to speak without benefit of speech writers, teleprompters, or written notes?
4. How important is it that our President be a good “communicator”–meaning a strong advocate for his ideas and for our country.
5. What are the skills, attributes, and behaviors of a good communicator?
These are questions that are worth answering well, and ones that we at Sims Wyeth explore.
Oh! One more question! What about PowerPoint? Don’t most of us use it as a teleprompter to remind us what to say?