Televising the Supreme Court: one small step towards a giant leap?

Today's news that live footage from the Supreme Court can be seen on Sky News is a major step forward that's attracted less media attention than it deserves.

I've always been baffled by the fact that, although a crucial feature of our legal system is that court hearings should be open to the public, they're only open to the few who are able to get a seat in the public gallery.

The case for banning television from courts fell apart years ago
The prohibition on recording (whether audio or video) court hearings originates from the much older ban on taking still photographs in courts - which was originally introduced because indoor photography used to require the use of flash powder. In those early days, it was rightly feared that this would be a major distraction to the ongoing proceedings.

But the rules were never updated when photographic technology had developed to the point where fast film made it easy to take quality pictures in low light. Nor were they updated when television and video technology no longer needed elaborate and potentially distracting lighting systems.

So we're still lumbered with the situation of having to rely on journalists' inevitably partial reports of court proceedings, while being prevented from witnessing them ourselves (unless we happen to be able get there and find a seat).

A needless constraint on research
Leaving aside the general question of why the wider public has been needlessly excluded from court hearings for so long, the prohibition on recording court hearings has also seriously hindered the development of research into the workings of courtroom language in Britain. My own work on public speaking was originally a by-product of studies of verbal interaction in courts that were originally done at the Oxford Centre for Socio-Legal Studies more than 30 years ago - some of which was published a book I wrote with Paul Drew (Order in Court: the organization of verbal interaction in judicial settings, London: Macmillan Press, 1979).

At that time, the only tape-recordings we could get hold of came from American colleagues, who had no trouble at all in collecting huge amounts of such data and were generous in making them available to some of us in the UK.

As for our own courts, we might have been able to see a few transcripts now and then, but that was the best you could hope for, unless you could find a judge who was also willing to break the rules in the interests of science.

In fact, the main reason I started looking at political speeches in the first place was that it was so easy to collect recordings from radio and television (for more on which, see HERE) and audible signs of approval like clapping and cheering made it possible to identify what actually turned audiences on.

A new beginning?
So we should not only welcome the initiative announced today by Sky News, but hope that televising will not stop short at the Supreme Court and will soon be extended to lower courts as well. Until that happens, the claim that our courts are open to the public may be true in principle, but it remains rather far removed from reality in practice.

P.S.
After posting this, I heard via Twitter from Jamie Wood (@JFDWood), a Sky News executive producer, that this is indeed the first step in a campaign for the restrictions on cameras in our courts to be lifted, for more on which see HERE.

Compromise or betrayal: truth or rhetoric from Paddy Ashdown?

It's always good to see former pupils making use of powerful rhetorical devices like the contrast, whether in a speech or an interview (below).

Since last Thursday's collapse of the Lib Dem vote, I confess to having wondered why their former leader was being given so much air time. Yes, when he was leader, broadcasters were frustratingly reluctant to have any LibDem MPs other than Paddy Ashdown on their shows (HERE).

But twelve years and three leaders later, there he still is on our screens - pretty much regardless of which network you happen to be watching, as in this clip from Sky News:

Compromise or betrayal?


Truth or rhetoric?
As this is a 'non-aligned' blog, it's obviously up to readers to draw their own conclusions about whether this particular contrast between compromise and betrayal is an accurate assessment of the post-poll situation or 'mere rhetoric'.

A Lib Dem Dilemma?
Ashdown's recent ubiquity on the media also raises another question, namely how long should elder statesmen carry on in the front line? It occurred to me because his frequent appearances since last Thursday prompted, for what it's worth, quite a lot of negative comment on Twitter.

Does the regular participation of a former leader (from 12 years ago) give the impression that current leading party figures are in hiding and happy to let an old-timer take the flak? Does it imply that someone who isn't in the coalition government has rather more influence behind the scenes than we've been told. Or does it merely remind viewers that the party once had a charismatic leader who was blessed with what I've described elsewhere as the 'je ne sais quoi' factor, and implicitly invite them to make negative comparisons with the current leader?

I don't have a clear answer to any of these questions, but I do think that they should give the Lib Dem communications strategists some food for thought...

Masterful mood changes in Obama's latest masterpieces on Trump and Bin Laden

Within two days, President Obama has delivered two remarkable speeches, demonstrating beyond doubt that he's still very much at the top of the oratorical game - with the ability to capture two completely different moods in talking about two completely different types of opponent.

When giving his stand-up comedy routine about Donald Trump the other day (video 1 below), he obviously knew that he'd just authorised American special forces to undertake a highly risky attack on Osama Bin Laden - and that it wouldn't be long before he'd have to appear before the world as the bearer, depending on the outcome, of good or bad news.

Luck turned out to be on his side. But what was so impressive bout these two latest speeches was how effectively he succeeded in communicating two completely different moods, both of which were arguably just right for each occasion - and both of which are gems worthy of closer scrutiny by any serious student of rhetoric...

VIDEO 1: On Trump




VIDEO 2: On Bin Laden



Full script of the Bin Laden statement:
"Good evening. Tonight, I can report to the American people and to the world that the United States has conducted an operation that killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of Al-Qaeda, and a terrorist who's responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent men, women, and children.

"It was nearly 10 years ago that a bright September day was darkened by the worst attack on the American people in our history. The images of 9/11 are seared into our national memory - hijacked planes cutting through a cloudless September sky; the Twin Towers collapsing to the ground; black smoke billowing up from the Pentagon; the wreckage of Flight 93 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, where the actions of heroic citizens saved even more heartbreak and destruction.

"And yet we know that the worst images are those that were unseen to the world. The empty seat at the dinner table. Children who were forced to grow up without their mother or their father. Parents who would never know the feeling of their child's embrace. Nearly 3,000 citizens taken from us, leaving a gaping hole in our hearts.

"On September 11, 2001, in our time of grief, the American people came together. We offered our neighbours a hand, and we offered the wounded our blood. We reaffirmed our ties to each other, and our love of community and country. On that day, no matter where we came from, what God we prayed to, or what race or ethnicity we were, we were united as one American family.

"We were also united in our resolve to protect our nation and to bring those who committed this vicious attack to justice. We quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by Al-Qaeda - an organisation headed by Osama bin Laden, which had openly declared war on the United States and was committed to killing innocents in our country and around the globe. And so we went to war against Al-Qaeda to protect our citizens, our friends, and our allies.

"Over the last 10 years, thanks to the tireless and heroic work of our military and our counterterrorism professionals, we've made great strides in that effort. We've disrupted terrorist attacks and strengthened our homeland defence. In Afghanistan, we removed the Taliban government, which had given bin Laden and Al-Qaeda safe haven and support. And around the globe, we worked with our friends and allies to capture or kill scores of Al-Qaeda terrorists, including several who were a part of the 9/11 plot.

"Yet Osama bin Laden avoided capture and escaped across the Afghan border into Pakistan. Meanwhile, Al-Qaeda continued to operate from along that border and operate through its affiliates across the world.

"And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against Al-Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network.

"Then, last August, after years of painstaking work by our intelligence community, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground. I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan. And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice.

"Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability. No Americans were harmed. They took care to avoid civilian casualties. After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body.

"For over two decades, bin Laden has been Al-Qaeda's leader and symbol, and has continued to plot attacks against our country and our friends and allies. The death of bin Laden marks the most significant achievement to date in our nation's effort to defeat Al-Qaeda.

"Yet his death does not mark the end of our effort. There's no doubt that Al-Qaeda will continue to pursue attacks against us. We must - and we will - remain vigilant at home and abroad.

"As we do, we must also reaffirm that the United States is not - and never will be - at war with Islam. I've made clear, just as President Bush did shortly after 9/11, that our war is not against Islam. Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader; he was a mass murderer of Muslims. Indeed, Al-Qaeda has slaughtered scores of Muslims in many countries, including our own. So his demise should be welcomed by all who believe in peace and human dignity.

"Over the years, I've repeatedly made clear that we would take action within Pakistan if we knew where bin Laden was. That is what we've done. But it's important to note that our counterterrorism cooperation with Pakistan helped lead us to bin Laden and the compound where he was hiding. Indeed, bin Laden had declared war against Pakistan as well, and ordered attacks against the Pakistani people.

"Tonight, I called President Zardari, and my team has also spoken with their Pakistani counterparts. They agree that this is a good and historic day for both of our nations. And going forward, it is essential that Pakistan continue to join us in the fight against al Qaeda and its affiliates.

"The American people did not choose this fight. It came to our shores, and started with the senseless slaughter of our citizens. After nearly 10 years of service, struggle, and sacrifice, we know well the costs of war. These efforts weigh on me every time I, as Commander-in-Chief, have to sign a letter to a family that has lost a loved one, or look into the eyes of a service member who's been gravely wounded.

"So Americans understand the costs of war. Yet as a country, we will never tolerate our security being threatened, nor stand idly by when our people have been killed. We will be relentless in defence of our citizens and our friends and allies. We will be true to the values that make us who we are. And on nights like this one, we can say to those families who have lost loved ones to Al-Qaeda's terror: Justice has been done.

"Tonight, we give thanks to the countless intelligence and counterterrorism professionals who've worked tirelessly to achieve this outcome. The American people do not see their work, nor know their names. But tonight, they feel the satisfaction of their work and the result of their pursuit of justice.

"We give thanks for the men who carried out this operation, for they exemplify the professionalism, patriotism, and unparalleled courage of those who serve our country. And they are part of a generation that has borne the heaviest share of the burden since that September day.

"Finally, let me say to the families who lost loved ones on 9/11 that we have never forgotten your loss, nor wavered in our commitment to see that we do whatever it takes to prevent another attack on our shores.

"And tonight, let us think back to the sense of unity that prevailed on 9/11. I know that it has, at times, frayed. Yet today's achievement is a testament to the greatness of our country and the determination of the American people.

"The cause of securing our country is not complete. But tonight, we are once again reminded that America can do whatever we set our mind to. That is the story of our history, whether it's the pursuit of prosperity for our people, or the struggle for equality for all our citizens; our commitment to stand up for our values abroad, and our sacrifices to make the world a safer place.

"Let us remember that we can do these things not just because of wealth or power, but because of who we are: one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

"Thank you. May God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America."

Standing ovation for a 15 year old: education, education, education revisited?

Now that it's no longer possible to embed video clips from the Sky News website, it's becoming increasingly difficult to feature interesting speeches on this blog without directing readers elsewhere.

So if you want watch Joe Cotton, the 15 year old who won a standing ovation yesterday at the National Union of Teachers conference, you'll have to go HERE to the BBC website.

Or you can read, mark, inwardly digest and learn from the full script of his technically excellent speech below:

Can I just say thanks very much for having me.

I think it’s fantastic that students are getting opportunities like this to be heard.

My name’s Joe, I’m 15, I’m from Mytholmroyd and I go to Calder High School, the oldest comprehensive in Yorkshire.

Like many other young people, recent events have made me really aware of the effects that political decisions can have on my life.

At the moment, education as we know it is under threat.

Despite pledges and promises, tuition fees are trebling and vital schemes like SureStart and the Educational Maintenance Allowance are being axed.

Today, I'd like to stress how important it is that EMA at least is protected.

As I’m sure you all know; EMA is a small weekly payment to students from lower income families and it helps them to afford further education.

In the words of Nadine, one of the six-hundred-and-fifty-thousand college students who currently receive this allowance:

“EMA means I can go to college. Without it I just couldn’t manage.”

And it’s that simple.

Whether this money is spent on transport, books or food at lunchtime, it helps students to cope with the costs of college.

But the Government are scrapping it.

Why?

The official line, summarised by a government spokesperson is:

“In these tough economic times we simply do not have the luxury of being able to spend hundreds of millions on a programme that doesn’t see results in return for the majority of the money spent.”

So the Government believes that EMA is a wasteful luxury.

I don’t agree, and neither do 10 of the UK’s leading economists who in an open letter in the Guardian, they urged the chancellor to reconsider his proposal to scrap EMA.

They argue that students who receive EMA are more likely to go into higher paid jobs than they would have done without the scheme; and therefore pay more in taxes, claim less in benefits and contribute more to the economy and society.

In this way, EMA pays for itself.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies came to the same conclusion, and after thorough analysis of the scheme stated that “the cost of EMA is completely offset by its benefits”.

And yet the Government is scrapping it, and setting up a replacement scheme which will cut the money available by four hundred million pounds.

They claim that it will be better targeted.

Well, I don’t know how nifty Michael Gove thinks he can be with a loaf and some fishes, or even a bus pass and some textbooks, but he’d need nothing short of a miracle to replicate the benefits of EMA with that budget.

I’d just like to return to the words of that Government spokesperson, who says that EMA is a luxury.

Is it a luxury to ensure that all young people – regardless of the amount their parents earn - have access to education after the age of 16?

Is it not a duty, a responsibility, a principle that students from poorer families should be entitled to the same educational opportunities as richer students?

I believe that if even one student is unable to continue education based on their families income and not their ability, then the Government has failed in its responsibility to uphold basic rights to education.

Politicians always seem to talk about how much they value education, how it’s a priority, how it’s safe in their hands.

Well from where I'm standing it doesn’t look very safe at all.

How is cancelling EMA safeguarding education for 16 to 18 year olds?

And how is trebling university fees ensuring access to higher education?

It’s not.

This is why so many of us have taken to the streets in protest to stand up for our right to Education.

So please NUT, do all you can to help keep education accessible and affordable for my generation – and I promise that I’ll go home and start my GCSE revision.

Thank you.


'Inward clutter' in the Archbishop of Canterbury's Easter sermon

I recently posted the whole of the controversial lecture by the Archbishop of Canterbury on Sharia law, noting that it featured one of the longest spoken sentences (147 words) I've ever come across (HERE).

Thinking I may have been a little unfair in raising the question of whether it was the most boring and incomprehensible lecture ever, I thought that maybe he'd say something a little more intelligible in his Easter Day sermon today. Interestingly, however, his own website only posts the text of the sermon (HERE), thereby preventing the masses from watching the not very great communicator in action on video.

But there is a short clip on the Daily Telegraph website, to which I've added - for clarity, you understand - a transcript of his latest words of wisdom. Having watched it several times, I still haven't a clue about what he's talking about - but maybe it makes more sense to you:



... for many of us, most of us, like the disciples at Easter, it takes something of a shock to open us up to joy, some experience that pushes its way through the inward clutter by sheer force and novelty. So perhaps part of the message of Easter is very simply, 'Be ready to be surprised; try clearing out some of the anxiety and vanity and resentment so as to allow the possibility of a new world to find room in you.'

But this means in turn that rather than battling all the time to lay hold of a happiness that we have planned according to our fantasies, we should concentrate on challenging the things that make us anxious.

Gordon Brown: teaching, charity work or the adrenalin of power?

After losing the general election, Gordon Brown made some rather altruistic noises about his plans for the future, as was widely reported in the media at the time, including this from The Independent on 10th May 2010:

'In recent weeks, he has suggested that he might look for work in education or charity after leaving office.

'But many observers believe he will find it difficult to wean himself off the adrenalin of power and the intellectual challenge of high-level decision-making and may seek a role in an international institution.'

Less than a year later, with news that he's angling to become managing director of the IMF, the 'many observers' cited by The Independent turn out to have been rather closer to the mark than the worthy-sounding plans that Mr Brown already seems to have forgotten about.

Ronald Reagan at 100 by one of his speechwriters

On returning from a few days skiing, I was greeted by an email from Clark Judge, MD of the White House Writers' Group and former Reagan speechwriter, linking to a fascinating article marking the centenary of the late president's birth.

As regular readers will know, I'm quite a fan of the great communicator's technical skills and the fact that, had I been an American, I probably wouldn't have voted for him is of no significance whatsoever. In fact, I always find it vaguely irritating that so many people seem to be incapable of leaving their own political views on one side when it comes to analysing and learning from speakers with whom they happen to disagree.

But he's a right winger!
Many years ago, I found myself being denounced in the the bowels of Broadcasting House by a BBC technician who was supposed to be helping in the production of Radio 4 programme I was involved in. My sins, according to him, were that I (a) asked him to find a copy of Reagan's television address on the Challenger disaster in 1986 and (b) referred to it as 'the most impressive American speech I'd heard since Martin Luther King's I have a dream'.

After a few moments trying to explain that you'd never get very far in understanding how effective communication works by confining your observations to people you agreed with, I quickly realised that there was no point in wasting any more time arguing, pulled rank (as a guest on the programme) and insisted that he came up with the clip I wanted to use.

Under-estimated by the British?
The case of Ronald Reagan is an interesting one, because his appeal never seemed to go down as well on British ears as it did on those of his fellow Americans. Whether this was because his presidency coincided with the success of ITV's satirical puppet show Spitting Image, in which the then president was regularly featured as being a bit short in the brain department, I do not know.

But what I do know is that the writers and producers of Spitting Image were not alone among British audiences and commentators in underestimating Reagan's achievements, both as a communicator and as a politician.

That's why I've always been fascinated by him and by talking to and reading articles by people who actually knew him - and is also why I'd recommend speechwriters and anyone else with a serious interest in communication the read Clark Judge's article on Ronald Reagan at 100.

Meanwhile, and by way of a taster, here are a few extracts from the article likely to be of special interest to speechwriters:

Analyse the audience
Former Reagan aide and speechwriter, now California congressman, Dana Rohrabacher, tells of a campaign stop involving a grade school class of blind children. After reporters had left for their bus, Reagan stayed behind and asked the teacher if the children would like to feel his face. The teacher said they would be thrilled. So for a few minutes, without publicity, the children got to “see” him in the only way they could.

Storytelling
Reagan’s storytelling was part of his public persona. In speeches, he used humor and anecdotes to make points. But in small gatherings, what might be called an economy of the story (that is, an exchange of value) was often at play. White House aides would become exasperated in meetings with outsiders as the president told tales they had sat through frequently before. They never considered the dynamics of those meetings. The president heard whatever the visitors had come to say. He absorbed their information, opinions, or requests (the value he derived from the meeting). Meanwhile, his stories left his guests feeling responded to and confided in (the value they derived). He did this without saying anything that might surprise or embarrass him if it appeared in the press, or that committed him to policies he might think better of later. Both sides gained. He risked nothing.

Preparation
Reagan had numerous devices for controlling risk. These included the famous staff-prepared talking points for even trivial events and the tape on each stage floor telling him where to stand. He expected staff to think through every detail of an appearance.

It was widely known that the formal White House staffing system put the president last in line to see most speech drafts. Few knew that he put himself first for reviewing the most sensitive addresses, especially ones dealing with the Soviet Union. This was true of at least one of the Soviet-specific speeches I drafted. It was true of Peter Robinson’s 1987 “Tear Down This Wall” draft. Only after the president had seen them were the texts distributed, when, for Soviet speeches in particular, furious fights often developed. With others carrying the battle, the president would remain politically untouched. But he had already set the boundaries for an acceptable outcome. In the case of “Tear Down This Wall,” the chief and deputy chief of staff, communications director, and speechwriters knew he had marked as untouchable the call for dismantling the Berlin Wall—but only they knew.'