Being nominated for a seat in the US Supreme Court is presumably the American lawyer's equivalent of an actor winning an Oscar. That at any rate was the impression given by Judge Sonia Sotomayor as she started to list all the family members on her thank you list (see below for an edited clip or HERE for further details of her family tree).
Like Kate Winslet at the Golden Globe awards, though in a more measured tone, she ignored Paul Hogan’s advice on speeches by winners: “.. it’s a good tip to remember the three Gs: be gracious, be grateful, get off.”
.
Obama’s nomination of Judge Sotomayor received five times more applause than ‘normal’
Soon after I started studying applause in political speeches, it emerged that there is a ‘normal’ burst of applause that lasts for about eight (plus or minus one) seconds (see Our Masters' Voices, 1984).
Less than this and it sounds half-hearted; more than this and it sounds more enthusiastic than usual – with the result that the media are more likely to select lines that get longer bursts for headlines in newspapers or sound bites on news programmes.
Nor is this norm only to be found in political speeches, but is also to be heard in award ceremonies, at conferences when speakers are introduced or when the identity of guests on television talk shows is revealed.
A few years ago, I went to a concert by Donovan, a pop star contemporary of the Beatles. In the first half, all his performances of familiar hits from the 1960s attracted 15-20 seconds of applause (i.e. considerably more than usual), whereas none of the applause for his numbers from his latest album in the second half fell outside the standard 7-9 second range – polite enough, but nowhere near as enthusiastic as the responses to songs that the audience had known for years.
If you want to check out what the difference sounds like for yourself, compare the following two clips from President Obama's introduction to his nominee for the vacancy on the Supreme Court. In the first one, Judge Sotomayor gets a 'standard' eight-second burst of applause after saying that she loves her family; in the second one, the applause for the President's introduction to her goes on for five times longer than that.
As such, it suggests that the audience was very well pleased with the announcement. But to find out it was a more enthusiastic response than usual, we’d have to compare it with some clips of presidents introducing previous nominations for the post of Supreme Court judge.
Less than this and it sounds half-hearted; more than this and it sounds more enthusiastic than usual – with the result that the media are more likely to select lines that get longer bursts for headlines in newspapers or sound bites on news programmes.
Nor is this norm only to be found in political speeches, but is also to be heard in award ceremonies, at conferences when speakers are introduced or when the identity of guests on television talk shows is revealed.
A few years ago, I went to a concert by Donovan, a pop star contemporary of the Beatles. In the first half, all his performances of familiar hits from the 1960s attracted 15-20 seconds of applause (i.e. considerably more than usual), whereas none of the applause for his numbers from his latest album in the second half fell outside the standard 7-9 second range – polite enough, but nowhere near as enthusiastic as the responses to songs that the audience had known for years.
If you want to check out what the difference sounds like for yourself, compare the following two clips from President Obama's introduction to his nominee for the vacancy on the Supreme Court. In the first one, Judge Sotomayor gets a 'standard' eight-second burst of applause after saying that she loves her family; in the second one, the applause for the President's introduction to her goes on for five times longer than that.
As such, it suggests that the audience was very well pleased with the announcement. But to find out it was a more enthusiastic response than usual, we’d have to compare it with some clips of presidents introducing previous nominations for the post of Supreme Court judge.
Two tips for David Cameron after today’s speech on political change
I suppose it’s of the nature of the Open University that they’re a bit short on decent lecture theatres for speeches like the one David Cameron gave there earlier today. But I did think they could have done a bit better than to position his lectern in front of a distracting and rather unattractive bookshelf – distracting, because anoraks like me start trying to see which books are waiting there to be picked up and read.
The need to check on furniture and fittings before you make a speech is something I’ve commented on before after Prince William had to hover at the bottom of some stairs trying to hold his script in one hand and a microphone in the other.
The OU did a bit better than that, but if I'd been Mr Cameron or one of his aides, I’d have done my best to arrange for a rather more suitable backdrop than a few bookshelves.
One other thing he should be doing something about is that he’s still spending far too much time looking towards one side of the audience before looking in the other direction. On this occasion, it wasn’t quite as marked as it was in the video that can be seen HERE, but his gaze was quite often fixed in one direction for 11-19 seconds (i.e. too long) before being redirected towards the other half of the audience.
Given that his delivery is much better than the average currently prevailing among British politicians, it’s a pity he doesn’t do something about such a simple error that’s so easy to correct.
The need to check on furniture and fittings before you make a speech is something I’ve commented on before after Prince William had to hover at the bottom of some stairs trying to hold his script in one hand and a microphone in the other.
The OU did a bit better than that, but if I'd been Mr Cameron or one of his aides, I’d have done my best to arrange for a rather more suitable backdrop than a few bookshelves.
One other thing he should be doing something about is that he’s still spending far too much time looking towards one side of the audience before looking in the other direction. On this occasion, it wasn’t quite as marked as it was in the video that can be seen HERE, but his gaze was quite often fixed in one direction for 11-19 seconds (i.e. too long) before being redirected towards the other half of the audience.
Given that his delivery is much better than the average currently prevailing among British politicians, it’s a pity he doesn’t do something about such a simple error that’s so easy to correct.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)