'Pre-delicate hitches' from Brown as he avoids answering a question about the Queen

I’ve already posted some observations about ‘pre-delicate hitches’ coming out of the mouths of Gordon Brown and Hillary Clinton.

The general point is that such ‘hitches’ (e.g. ums, ers, pauses, restarted words, etc.) tend to happen when a speaker is about to say something that he or she knows is likely to come across as ‘delicate’ to their listeners.

And they came thick and fast on Sunday morning as Mr Brown tried to deal with Andrew Marr’s challenging question about why the Queen hadn’t been invited to attend the D-Day commemorations in Normandy.

Needless to say, he didn’t make any attempt to answer the question, but the number and frequency of 'hitches' suggest that he might actually have been finding his own evasiveness more uncomfortable than he usually does.

MARR: It’s a disgrace, is it not, that the Queen is not going to be representing us at D-Day at those commemoration services in France. How did that come about?

BROWN: I-I think-uh-eh you have to uh-ask-uh th-the palace to get their statements uh-u- on this.

Uh I have simply done what is my duty as a – as a Prime Minister – I’ve-uh accepted the u-personal invitation of Mr- Mr Sarkozy.

I think you know that Mr Harper, the Canadian prime minister, i- is going, and I think in these circumstances, this particular event uh-was-uh this one of the events was –was –was one that the president wanted to be for prime ministers and presidents, but if the Queen wanted to attend these- these- these events, or if any member of the Royal family wanted to attend these events, I would make that possible."


The end of the beginning

Given the continuing mystery about whether the Queen will or won't be at the D Day commemorations later this week, it was good to see that so many of you had look at the speech made at Pointe du Hoc by Ronald Reagan on the 40th anniversary of D day back in 1984.

But I wasn’t really surprised, because it confirmed something I’ve believed for quite some time, namely that there's a greater public demand for watching and listening to speeches than the current media establishment seems to believe (for more on which, see HERE and HERE) – a point that has, of course, been amply demonstrated by rise and rise of Barack Obama.

So here’s another classic. One of the frustrating things for students of speech-making is that very few of Winston Churchill’s great wartime speeches are available on film.

A notable exception was his famous three-part list after the battle of Alamein in 1942 (in a speech at the Mansion House), in which each next item contrasts with the previous one and, not surprisingly, prompted an instant burst of applause.

How NOT to use PowerPoint

When the manuscript of my book Lend Me Your Ears was in its final stages before publication, my publisher's lawyers tried to get me to 'tone down' some of the sections that were critical of the style of slide-dependent presentation that has become the industry standard in so many companies and organisations.

They were apparently worried that it might prompt legal action from Microsoft, but I refused to make any changes for two reasons. First, my understanding of the law on defamation is that you have a defence if you can show that what you were saying is true. Second, sales would surely benefit enormously if the purveyors of PowerPoint decided to litigate.

Unfortunately, sales of the book had no such PR boost. Nor, as far as I know have other critics been sued, and I remain baffled as to why the lawyers were so cautious when stuff like the following is freely available on YouTube and, as far as I know, hasn't attracted any attention from Microsoft's legal department.


P.S. (Five months later): The interesting question is who got YouTube to remove the above version 'due to terms of use violation'? And did they think that there aren't any other copies still posted on YouTube (e.g. HERE) and/or below?