Obama's memorial masterpiece in Arizona

I spent much of yesterday writing about a rather famous American speech (on which more later). The day before that, I'd talked for a while on the phone to a young friend who's working on an address he's planning to give at his mother's funeral this weekend.

Today began with President Obama's memorial address in Arizona - first with news on the BBC Radio 4's Today programme about what a good job he'd done, and then from a Twitter link to the speech itself (in full below).

From the moment his opening contrast - "I have come here tonight as an American who, like all Americans, kneels to pray with you today, and will stand by you tomorrow" - prompted the first of many bursts of applause, I was taken back to the first time I ever saw him speak - at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. Before seeing that, I'd never heard of Barack Obama. But a single viewing was enough to know that we were in the presence of a truly great speaker.

We now have another truly great specimen of him plying his art at its finest. It will doubtless keep students of rhetoric busy for quite a while. But today I've neither the time nor the inclination to do more than to urge readers to watch, listen and follow the transcript below.

Memorial addresses, eulogies and tributes really do matter, as I've written and blogged about before - and, on all too many occasions, have been personally involved in doing before.

If ever there were a case where it's worth following the injunction 'read, mark, learn and inwardly digest', this is it. So too were some of those referred to in the links between the video and the text.


Related Posts:
Transcript of President Obama's memorial speech in Arizona

Thank you. (Applause.) Thank you very much. Please, please be seated. (Applause.) To the families of those we've lost; to all who called them friends; to the students of this university, the public servants who are gathered here, the people of Tucson and the people of Arizona: I have come here tonight as an American who, like all Americans, kneels to pray with you today and will stand by you tomorrow. (Applause.)

There is nothing I can say that will fill the sudden hole torn in your hearts. But know this: The hopes of a nation are here tonight. We mourn with you for the fallen. We join you in your grief. And we add our faith to yours that Representative Gabrielle Giffords and the other living victims of this tragedy will pull through. (Applause.)

Scripture tells us: There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God, the holy place where the Most High dwells. God is within her, she will not fall; God will help her at break of day. On Saturday morning, Gabby, her staff and many of her constituents gathered outside a supermarket to exercise their right to peaceful assembly and free speech. (Applause.)

They were fulfilling a central tenet of the democracy envisioned by our founders -- representatives of the people answering questions to their constituents, so as to carry their concerns back to our nation's capital. Gabby called it "Congress on Your Corner" -- just an updated version of government of and by and for the people. (Applause.)

And that quintessentially American scene, that was the scene that was shattered by a gunman's bullets. And the six people who lost their lives on Saturday -- they, too, represented what is best in us, what is best in America. (Applause.)

Judge John Roll served our legal system for nearly 40 years. (Applause.) A graduate of this university and a graduate of this law school -- (applause) -- Judge Roll was recommended for the federal bench by John McCain 20 years ago -- (applause) -- appointed by President George H.W. Bush and rose to become Arizona's chief federal judge. (Applause.)

His colleagues described him as the hardest-working judge within the Ninth Circuit. He was on his way back from attending Mass, as he did every day, when he decided to stop by and say hi to his representative. John is survived by his loving wife, Maureen, his three sons and his five beautiful grandchildren. (Applause.)

George and Dorothy Morris -- "Dot" to her friends -- were high school sweethearts who got married and had two daughters. They did everything together -- traveling the open road in their RV, enjoying what their friends called a 50-year honeymoon. Saturday morning, they went by the Safeway to hear what their congresswoman had to say. When gunfire rang out, George, a former Marine, instinctively tried to shield his wife. (Applause.)

Both were shot. Dot passed away. A New Jersey native, Phyllis Schneck retired to Tucson to beat the snow. But in the summer, she would return East, where her world revolved around her three children, her seven grandchildren and 2-year-old great-granddaughter. A gifted quilter, she'd often work under a favorite tree, or sometimes she'd sew aprons with the logos of the Jets and the Giants -- (laughter) -- to give out at the church where she volunteered. A Republican, she took a liking to Gabby, and wanted to get to know her better. (Applause.)

Dorwan and Mavy Stoddard grew up in Tucson together -- about 70 years ago. They moved apart and started their own respective families. But after both were widowed they found their way back here, to, as one of Mavy's daughters put it, "be boyfriend and girlfriend again." (Laughter.) When they weren't out on the road in their motor home, you could find them just up the road, helping folks in need at the Mountain Avenue Church of Christ. A retired construction worker, Dorwan spent his spare time fixing up the church along with his dog, Tux. His final act of selflessness was to dive on top of his wife, sacrificing his life for hers. (Applause.)

Everything -- everything -- Gabe Zimmerman did, he did with passion. (Applause.) But his true passion was helping people. As Gabby's outreach director, he made the cares of thousands of her constituents his own, seeing to it that seniors got the Medicare benefits that they had earned, that veterans got the medals and the care that they deserved, that government was working for ordinary folks. He died doing what he loved -- talking with people and seeing how he could help. And Gabe is survived by his parents, Ross and Emily, his brother, Ben, and his fiancée, Kelly, who he planned to marry next year. (Applause.)

And then there is nine-year-old Christina Taylor Green. Christina was an A student; she was a dancer; she was a gymnast; she was a swimmer. She decided that she wanted to be the first woman to play in the Major Leagues, and as the only girl on her Little League team, no one put it past her. (Applause.)

She showed an appreciation for life uncommon for a girl her age. She'd remind her mother, "We are so blessed. We have the best life." And she'd pay those blessings back by participating in a charity that helped children who were less fortunate. Our hearts are broken by their sudden passing. Our hearts are broken -- and yet, our hearts also have reason for fullness. Our hearts are full of hope and thanks for the 13 Americans who survived the shooting, including the congresswoman many of them went to see on Saturday. I have just come from the University Medical Center, just a mile from here, where our friend Gabby courageously fights to recover even as we speak.

And I want to tell you -- her husband Mark is here and he allows me to share this with you -- right after we went to visit, a few minutes after we left her room and some of her colleagues in Congress were in the room, Gabby opened her eyes for the first time. (Applause.) Gabby opened her eyes for the first time. (Applause.) Gabby opened her eyes. Gabby opened her eyes, so I can tell you she knows we are here. She knows we love her. And she knows that we are rooting for her through what is undoubtedly going to be a difficult journey. We are there for her. (Applause.)

Our hearts are full of thanks for that good news, and our hearts are full of gratitude for those who saved others. We are grateful to Daniel Hernandez -- (applause) -- a volunteer in Gabby's office. (Applause.) And, Daniel, I'm sorry, you may deny it, but we've decided you are a hero because -- (applause) -- you ran through the chaos to minister to your boss, and tended to her wounds and helped keep her alive. (Applause.) We are grateful to the men who tackled the gunman as he stopped to reload. (Applause.) Right over there. (Applause.) We are grateful for petite Patricia Maisch, who wrestled away the killer's ammunition, and undoubtedly saved some lives. (Applause.)

And we are grateful for the doctors and nurses and first responders who worked wonders to heal those who'd been hurt. We are grateful to them. (Applause.)

These men and women remind us that heroism is found not only on the fields of battle. They remind us that heroism does not require special training or physical strength. Heroism is here, in the hearts of so many of our fellow citizens, all around us, just waiting to be summoned -- as it was on Saturday morning. Their actions, their selflessness poses a challenge to each of us. It raises a question of what, beyond prayers and expressions of concern, is required of us going forward. How can we honor the fallen? How can we be true to their memory?

You see, when a tragedy like this strikes, it is part of our nature to demand explanations -- to try and pose some order on the chaos and make sense out of that which seems senseless. Already we've seen a national conversation commence, not only about the motivations behind these killings, but about everything from the merits of gun safety laws to the adequacy of our mental health system.

And much of this process, of debating what might be done to prevent such tragedies in the future, is an essential ingredient in our exercise of self-government. But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized -- at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than we do -- it's important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we're talking with each other in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds. (Applause.)

Scripture tells us that there is evil in the world, and that terrible things happen for reasons that defy human understanding. In the words of Job, "When I looked for light, then came darkness." Bad things happen, and we have to guard against simple explanations in the aftermath. For the truth is none of us can know exactly what triggered this vicious attack. None of us can know with any certainty what might have stopped these shots from being fired, or what thoughts lurked in the inner recesses of a violent man's mind. Yes, we have to examine all the facts behind this tragedy. We cannot and will not be passive in the face of such violence. We should be willing to challenge old assumptions in order to lessen the prospects of such violence in the future. (Applause.)

But what we cannot do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on each other. (Applause.) That we cannot do. (Applause.) That we cannot do. As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let's use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy and remind ourselves of all the ways that our hopes and dreams are bound together. (Applause.)

After all, that's what most of us do when we lose somebody in our family -- especially if the loss is unexpected. We're shaken out of our routines. We're forced to look inward. We reflect on the past: Did we spend enough time with an aging parent, we wonder. Did we express our gratitude for all the sacrifices that they made for us? Did we tell a spouse just how desperately we loved them, not just once in a while but every single day?

So sudden loss causes us to look backward -- but it also forces us to look forward; to reflect on the present and the future, on the manner in which we live our lives and nurture our relationships with those who are still with us. (Applause.) We may ask ourselves if we've shown enough kindness and generosity and compassion to the people in our lives. Perhaps we question whether we're doing right by our children, or our community, whether our priorities are in order.

We recognize our own mortality, and we are reminded that in the fleeting time we have on this Earth, what matters is not wealth, or status, or power, or fame -- but rather, how well we have loved -- (applause)-- and what small part we have played in making the lives of other people better. (Applause.)

And that process -- that process of reflection, of making sure we align our values with our actions -- that, I believe, is what a tragedy like this requires. For those who were harmed, those who were killed -- they are part of our family, an American family 300 million strong. (Applause.)

We may not have known them personally, but surely we see ourselves in them. In George and Dot, in Dorwan and Mavy, we sense the abiding love we have for our own husbands, our own wives, our own life partners. Phyllis -- she's our mom or our grandma; Gabe our brother or son. (Applause.) In Judge Roll, we recognize not only a man who prized his family and doing his job well, but also a man who embodied America's fidelity to the law. (Applause.)

And in Gabby -- in Gabby, we see a reflection of our public-spiritedness; that desire to participate in that sometimes frustrating, sometimes contentious, but always necessary and never-ending process to form a more perfect union. (Applause.)

And in Christina -- in Christina we see all of our children. So curious, so trusting, so energetic, so full of magic. So deserving of our love. And so deserving of our good example. If this tragedy prompts reflection and debate -- as it should -- let's make sure it's worthy of those we have lost. (Applause.)

Let's make sure it's not on the usual plane of politics and point-scoring and pettiness that drifts away in the next news cycle. The loss of these wonderful people should make every one of us strive to be better. To be better in our private lives, to be better friends and neighbors and coworkers and parents.

And if, as has been discussed in recent days, their death helps usher in more civility in our public discourse, let us remember it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy -- it did not -- but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to the challenges of our nation in a way that would make them proud. (Applause.)

We should be civil because we want to live up to the example of public servants like John Roll and Gabby Giffords, who knew first and foremost that we are all Americans, and that we can question each other's ideas without questioning each other's love of country and that our task, working together, is to constantly widen the circle of our concern so that we bequeath the American Dream to future generations. (Applause.)

They believed -- they believed, and I believe that we can be better. Those who died here, those who saved life here -- they help me believe. We may not be able to stop all evil in the world, but I know that how we treat one another, that's entirely up to us. (Applause.)

And I believe that for all our imperfections, we are full of decency and goodness, and that the forces that divide us are not as strong as those that unite us. (Applause.)

That's what I believe, in part because that's what a child like Christina Taylor Green believed. (Applause.)

Imagine -- imagine for a moment, here was a young girl who was just becoming aware of our democracy; just beginning to understand the obligations of citizenship; just starting to glimpse the fact that some day she, too, might play a part in shaping her nation's future. She had been elected to her student council. She saw public service as something exciting and hopeful. She was off to meet her congresswoman, someone she was sure was good and important and might be a role model. She saw all this through the eyes of a child, undimmed by the cynicism or vitriol that we adults all too often just take for granted. I want to live up to her expectations. (Applause.)

I want our democracy to be as good as Christina imagined it. I want America to be as good as she imagined it. (Applause.) All of us -- we should do everything we can to make sure this country lives up to our children's expectations. (Applause.)

As has already been mentioned, Christina was given to us on September 11th, 2001, one of 50 babies born that day to be pictured in a book called "Faces of Hope." On either side of her photo in that book were simple wishes for a child's life. "I hope you help those in need," read one. "I hope you know all the words to the National Anthem and sing it with your hand over your heart." (Applause.) "I hope you jump in rain puddles." If there are rain puddles in Heaven, Christina is jumping in them today. (Applause.)

And here on this Earth -- here on this Earth, we place our hands over our hearts, and we commit ourselves as Americans to forging a country that is forever worthy of her gentle, happy spirit.

May God bless and keep those we've lost in restful and eternal peace. May He love and watch over the survivors. And may He bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

Miliband does well with instant rebuttal + 3 things that Alan Johnson does know

I didn't see the whole of Ed Miliband's press conference this morning, but did see quite a lot of comments on Twitter suggesting that he did better in the Q-A session after his formal statement than in the statement itself.

As I'd already questioned his effectiveness in 'face-to-camera' pieces a few days ago (HERE), I was intrigued enough to see whether any of the news channels had posted anything from the Q-A session yet.

The BBC instantly obliged with the following short clip, that is indeed rather interesting (full report HERE).

Welcoming smiles from Ed Miliband?
Note that, when Joey Jones from Sky News refers to Shadow Chancellor Alan Johnson's weekend gaffe, Mr Miliband grins (at 38 & 40 seconds in).

Not so much 'nervous' grins, I suggest, as an 'I know what you're talking about, I'm a good sport with a sense of humour, I expected that and what's more I've got a prepared answer up my sleeve' sort of grin.

And that's what he had: an instant rebuttal contrasting Johnson favourably with Chancellor Osborne, explained by three things about the economy that the former does know about:


Instant rebuttal as a useful weapon for interviewees
In conversation, answering "No" to a question that's looking for a "Yes" - instantly and without any delay, "ums", "ers" or other particles indicating that a 'dispreferred' answer is on its way - doesn't happen very often (for more on 'dispreferred answers', see Did The Godfather feature the longest pause and most blatant lie in the history of movies?)

But it really comes into its own when you want to ensure time to give reasons why you are disagreeing so immediately. As soon as you've done it, the floor is still yours for a while, as your questioner will expect and wait for you to explain why you don't agree before he/she speaks again.

If you then package your message as a contrast between Chancellor and Shadow-chancellor and explain it with brief list of three things that the latter does know, you're likely to come across as decisive, articulate and confident. It might even persuade or convince some of your listeners that you're right.

A promising day for Miliband
On the basis of this specimen, at least, I can see why the Twitterati thought that Miliband did better in the Q-A session than in the statement that preceded it. More generally, it may be evidence that he and his communication team are beginning to get the hang of things.

Who says managers can't talk about numbers without using slides?

My attention was drawn to this by a Twitter link from Shane Greer (@shanegreer), to whom many thanks.

It's a TED talk on Why we have too few women leaders by Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, and is well worth watching, not just because of her very effective use of anecdotes, rhetorical questions and a three-part structure that she sticks with and helps the audience to follow, but because of the complete absence of slides - even though you might have expected some as she goes through some key numbers and percentages.

What Ms Sandberg demonstrates, yet again, is that managers can give clear and compelling presentations about complicated subjects without having to depend on slides at all.

Although this is something I've been teaching, writing books and blogging about for years, it's always good to come across new videos like this that can be used to illustrate the point.

It's also interesting to reflect on just how important a part might have been played by Ms Sandberg's own presentation skills in helping her to break through the glass ceiling that she's talking about.


P.S. Charismatic woman?
Watching this again, I was reminded of something I wrote in Our Masters' Voices (1984) about the way Margaret Thatcher partly solved one of the central problems facing professional women - also posted HERE a couple of years ago and then developed in another post about Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin.

From what we see in this video, it would appear that, like Thatcher and Palin, Sheryl Sandberg has no qualms about coming across as unequivocally female in the way she dresses and appears. Given my ancient thoughts on the 'evolution of charismatic woman' from 27+ years ago, I'm therefore left wondering how 'tough' and 'decisive' she is as a leader in her everyday work.

Labour leadership: from Welsh windbag to Doncaster droner?

Although this clip was posted on YouTube by ITN, I didn't see it featured in its entirety on any of the ITN news bulletins.

However, some Labour supporters must have thought well enough of it for Labour List to embed the whole 2 minute statement on their blog (HERE).

What surprised me about it was that Mr Miliband seemed to ramble on for so long about so little - in marked contrast with some of his much more pithy statements during the Labour leadership campaign, where, on at least one occasion (the Sky News debate), he stood out from the other the candidates as the only one who knew exactly how much he could say in the allotted 20 seconds.

As the second 'face to camera' statement I've seen from Mr Miliband over the past couple of weeks (see also his Christmas message) - neither of which struck me as impressive as some of his performances during the leadership campaign - it's got me wondering what's going on.

Does he have new advisors who think he excels at this form of communication?

Or has the Welsh Windbag, now he's been given his party back by the new leader, been allowed behind the scenes to transform him into the Doncaster droner?

England Ashes victories: 2010 & 1953

2010



1953

My parents bought their first TV set just before the coronation in 1953. Tiny black and white screen it may have been, but it did enable us to watch Dennis Compton (right) hitting the winning run that regained the Ashes in the final test match at the Oval (scorecard HERE).

I'd like to watch it again - so if anyone knows of an internet link to it, please let me know.

P.S. Thanks to 'pje' for entering the link to what I was looking for in the comments section - the British Pathe film can now be watched below.

FIGHT FOR THE ASHES - FINAL TEST AT THE OVAL, 1953

PowerPoint Christmas circular competition result

This year's competition, inspired by the rise and rise of the Christmas circular letter, invited readers to take this art form to a new level of tedium:

All you have to do is to design a PowerPoint show for posting online to keep all your friends and relations up to date on the wondrous achievements of your children, the latest antics of your cats and dogs, your exotic holidays, etc., etc., etc. Whether you stick to the truth or tell a pack of lies is entirely up to you.

AND THE WINNER IS ...
Laura Goldberg, who will be receiving a signed copy of Lend Me Your Ears for producing such a masterful blend of banality, boastfulness and fake sincerity.

She lost a few points early on in the show for being rather too clear and persuasive, concentrating as she did on three children and three pets, about the first few of which there were three blobs.

But she made up for this by earning bonus points for screwing up such a promising start by abandoning the structure completely, for no apparent reason and without any rational explanation whatsoever (from slide 5 onwards) - thereby demonstrating one of the many types of audience distraction commonly inflicted on audiences by PowerPoint presenters.


SLIDE (1)
Hello dearest friends.

We are delighted to inform you of our family news this year.

SLIDE (2)
Our children are splendid
Tom Cooper Ellis Joy Jones (15.5yrs)
  • Upgraded school shoes from velcro to laces
  • Makes us smile every day.
  • We're very proud.
SLIDE (3)
Our children are splendid
Calum Ben James Marcus Oliver (17yrs)
  • Spelt out word for female breast on his calculator.
  • Most creative in expression.
  • Destined to be a writer.
SLIDE (4)
Our children are splendid
Timothy Alfred Jack Louis Daniel (19yrs)
  • Reached second gig venue on Guitar Hero World Tour.
  • Very talented.
  • On his way to rock stardom.
SLIDE (5)
Our pets are bothersome
Tom (cat)
  • Lives largely in own world.
  • Brings home assorted fish for our supper.
  • Salmon. Haddock. Plaice.
  • Makes a mess.
SLIDE (6)
Our pets are bothersome
Harry (dog)
  • Is deaf as a post.
  • Munches treats a little too loudly.
  • Plays Elgar on our piano.
  • Irritates the family.
SLIDE (7)
Our pets are bothersome
Dick (hamster)
  • Thinks himself a Houdini.
  • Escapes regularly, with not a tooth mark in sight.
  • Cage security grows by the day.
  • As does our resentment.
SLIDE (8)
Happy Christmas
Lloyd-Kennedy-Davies family XXX

Anoraks' Corner: Two Christmas TV speeches

In case you missed them, as I did, here are two Christmas messages for you to catch up on.

YouTube scores (so far): Ed Miliband, 8,970; The Queen, 2,744 (though the former was posted four days earlier than the latter).

Favourable reactions in YouTube comments suggest that Miliband is in the lead (so far).

For what it's worth, I thought there was something a bit odd about both of them, but have yet to figure out exactly why. See what you think:



Last minute Daily Telegraph Christmas quiz

With only 24 hours left for you to enter my main Christmas Quiz (HERE) and inspired by the standards of journalism propagated by the Daily Telegraph over the past 48 hours (for more on which, see HERE), here's a last minute Christmas competition:

The said 'quality' newspaper has offered you the chance of sending their tape-recording buggers to bug a conversation between any two people in the world, a transcript of which will be published in the Daily Telegraph (and on this and Robert Peston's BBC website blog).

All you have to do is to name two unsuspecting victims on whose conversation you would like to eavesdrop.

Optional for anoraks: Write a short transcript of what they might be saying.

PRIZES
The winner will receive the same prize as the winner of my main Christmas competition - with the added bonus of an indeterminate amount of fame among readers of this blog and my followers on Twitter.

'Telegraph' or 'Sleazygraph': the ethics, uses and results of covertly recorded conversation

Following the covert bugging of Vince Cable by two people sent by the Daily Telegraph to pose as constituents attending his surgery, the media has been making quite a meal of it.

Yesterday, Twitter was buzzing with gleeful journalists speculating about what Cable will or should do, what Cameron and/or Clegg will or should do, what Miliband will or should do, etc., etc., etc.

Among the scores of journalists and bloggers who'd been tweeting about it since the story broke (not to mention reporters on all the main TV news programmes), I'd only noticed one who, towards the end of the day, expressed any reservations at all about the way the Daily Telegraph had acquired the story, when Sue Llewellyn (@suellewellyn) dared to ask on Twitter (at 17.49) :

'Anyone else feel uneasy about the whole idea of secretly taping someone?'

To which I replied: 'Yes, I've been tweeting about it all day.'

Why the unease?
There are a number of reasons why I've risked 'coming out' as more sanctimonious than most Twitterers, bloggers and mainstream media journalists.

My initial reaction was that it hardly seemed news that politicians say things in private conversations that they wouldn't dream of saying in public. After all, has anyone ever come across any community, society or organisation where people don't spend quite a lot of time saying things behind the backs of other people that they wouldn't say to their faces?

Then, as the story gathered pace, I began to worry that no one else seemed to be in the least bit concerned about the implications of so-called 'quality' media outlets, from the Telegraph to the BBC, using covert bugging, publishing and broadcasting of private conversations as a perfectly acceptable way of gathering news (or should that be 'creating news').

It struck me as being at best unethical and at worst illegal.

Whatever temporary damage the 'sting' or 'honey-trap' (or whatever else you want to dress it up as) may have done to the reputations of Vince Cable and the coalition government, there remains a bigger question: what long-term damage has been done to the UK media, now that the supposedly 'quality' end of it regards it as perfectly normal and acceptable to operate with such a cavalier disregard for ethics and legality?

I have no idea what the answer will turn out to be, but do know that what we've witnessed over the past couple of days makes me shudder to think about it.

Why am I getting so worked up about it?
Since starting t0 tweet about this yesterday, I've been asked why I've been getting so worked up about it. I've even been accused of being motivated by a partisan desire to defend Vince Cable and the Liberal Democrats in their hour of need.

Nothing could be further from the truth - which actually goes back more than a decade before the LibDems had come into being to a time when wrestling with the ethics of covertly recording conversations was part of my everyday life.

Much of the data on which conversation analysis was built derived from tape-recorded phone calls. The late Harvey Sacks, one of the founders of the approach, set the ball rolling with a PhD at Berkeley that was based on tape-recorded phone calls to a suicide prevention agency (in which the callers were almost certainly completely unaware that their conversations were being recorded).

Research by two of the other foundational figures, Gail Jefferson and Emanuel Schegloff, as well as that by scores of investigators since, also depended, at least in part, on covertly recorded conversations.

The methodological challenge
The reason why covert recording was considered important was that a central objective of conversation analysts was to establish a rigorous method for observing 'naturally occurring' interaction - rather than relying on answers to questionnaires (e.g. sociology), artificially contrived experiments (e.g. psychology) or invented sentences (e.g. linguistics).

If people were warned in advance that their conversations were being recorded, so the argument went, it might influence or distort the way they spoke, therefore disqualifying the resulting tapes as pure 'naturally occurring' data.

But I know of no one who ever embarked on such work who did so lightly or with devious motives in mind. I don't know of anyone in the field who has not spent endless hours thinking and talking and worrying about the ethical dilemmas confronting us. Nor do I know of anyone who has ever breached the fundamental confidentiality of the taped conversations, let alone anyone who has ever betrayed, damaged or exploited any of the speakers involved in order to benefit themselves.

Scientific and public interest as legitimate defences?
I am certain that the analysis of covertly recorded data was at the heart of some major advances in our understanding of how conversation works.

But I do still have occasional doubts about whether 'scientific' interest really was and is a legitimate defence for what so many of us have done. I also remember a sense of relief from any such worries when I first started studying recordings of political speeches - which had the advantage of already being in the public domain.

Had anyone at the Daily Telegraph or the BBC suffered from similar worries, it would be nice to think that they would never have collected or used such ethically troublesome data in the way that they did.

The depressing thing is that I don't think any of them can have cared enough about the ethics (or legality) of what they were doing to have given such matters a second thought. Nor do I think they can have given much thought to the new standards of media reporting that they were helping to establish as 'normal'.

As for whether the media's 'public interest' defence is any less valid than the 'scientific defence' of conversation analyis is, of course, for others to decide.

At this stage, all I'd say by way of mitigation is that I don't know any conversation analyst who has ever been guilty of either betraying the confidentiality of those being recorded, or of exposing or exploiting anything they might have said for personal or commercial gain.

What made Brian Hanrahan's famous contrast so memorable?

Listen!

"I counted them all out and I counted them all back."
There's hardly a media report today on death of distinguished BBC journalist Brian Hanrahan that doesn't refer to his famous line from the aircraft carrier HMS Hermes during the Falkland's war in 1982 (37 seconds into the above).

Not only did he use repetition and contrast, but he followed it up with a list of three adjectives to describe the mood of the pilots, who were "unhurt, cheerful and jubilant."

Where did the line come from?
There's interesting report in today's Guardian, which includes the following:

'He used that form of words to get round military censorship of media reports – and it became the title of his book about the conflict, co-written with fellow correspondent Robert Fox...

'He was on the aircraft carrier HMS Hermes during the Falklands war when the first air strikes started taking place on Port Stanley in May 1982. Naval officials placed severe restrictions on what he could report, particularly in respect of the numbers of sorties flown by the Harrier jets.

Fox told the BBC today that in order to get round the restrictions, Hanrahan colluded with the "raffish Old Etonian intelligence officer" Rupert Nichol, who told him that they had both seen the same number of planes going in and coming back, and "that was the way he should go". Hanrahan turned the idea into the line he used on his broadcast.'


Why so memorable?
Hanrahan's contrast had already become memorable by the time I was writing a chapter on the way in which rhetorically formatted statements are likely to get noticed and quoted (Ch. 5: 'Quotability') for my book Our Masters' Voices, which came out two years later.

And the question of what makes a particular speech, or a particular line from a speech, memorable is one that has fascinated me ever since. In a post a couple of years ago (HERE), I ventured the suggestion that it helps if it strikes the right chord with the right audience in the right place at the right time - all of which are arguably true of this line from Hanrahan.

In another post, I noted that memorable lines, such as the most famous one from John F. Kennedy's inaugural speech, aren't always recognised as 'memorable' straight away (HERE).

Indirectness v. Directness
I still think, however, that part of the answer to why rhetorically formatted lines are so effective at grabbing the attention audiences is that they tend to be less direct ways of saying things that, if said directly, would hardly have been noticed.

Consider, for example, whether Hanrahan's line have been so widely reported and remembered if he'd selected a more direct way of reporting the same thing, such as "All the planes returned safely"?

I very much doubt it, just as I doubt whether anyone would have noticed if Margaret Thatcher had said "No one is going to make me change my economic policies" rather than her most memorable contrast "You turn if you want to. The lady's not for turning."

The idea that indirectness works better than directness is consistent with other research into conversation, which suggests that, in many and perhaps most contexts, there is a preference for saying things indirectly rather than directly.

As I said of these examples from Hanrahan and Thatcher in Our Masters' Voices (pp. 162.163): 'these more direct modes of communication leave nothing whatsoever to the imagination and little or no effort is required to be able to see the point' - and of the less direct options '.. to identify and appreciate the point being made, people have to put their brains to work. The increased mental effort involved in decoding interlocking contrasts and lists may increase the chances that particular message will remain in listeners' minds..'

Christmas competition, 2010

Last year I had a bit of a rant about Christmas circulars and the rise of undisciplined writing in the digital age.

Working with clients since then, I've become increasingly concerned by the way in which more and more companies and organisations are abandoning the use of MS Word to write conventional prose in favour of using MS PowerPoint for preparing reports, proposals, internal and external corporate communications, etc. (for more on which, see HERE and HERE).

As the latest of this year's circulars fluttered to the floor from today's delivery of Christmas cards, I realised that this trend has yet to spread from the professional world of work to the domestic world of communication between friends and relations.

Christmas competition 2010
Readers are therefore invited to pioneer a new kind of Christmas circular.

Forget Word, forget prose, and forget about buying paper, envelopes and stamps.

All you have to do is to design a PowerPoint show for posting online to keep all your friends and relations up to date on the wondrous achievements of your children, the latest antics of your cats and dogs, your exotic holidays, etc., etc., etc. Whether you stick to the truth or tell a pack of lies is entirely up to you.

How to enter
Entries should be emailed to me via the link at 'View my complete profile' in the left-hand column before 24 December 2010. If your entry is made up nothing but bullet points, you may prefer to enter it in the comments section below.

Prizes
The winner will receive a copy of Lend Me Your Ears signed by the author. The runner-up will receive a copy of Speech-making and Presentation Made Easy, also signed by the author.

Access to the winning entries (and any other startling contributions) will be made available online some time after Christmas.

Orwell Blog Prize, 2011: a request for help from readers

I've had an email suggesting that I should nominate this blog for the 2011 Orwell Blog Prize, details of which can be found HERE.

The entry form asks for a list 10 posts between 1 January and 31 December 2010 on which the judges can deliberate - which is all very well except for two rather obvious problems:
  1. There are 196 to select from (so far).
  2. Authors are never the best judges of their own work.
HELP!
So I'd very much appreciate it if readers could let me know - either by email via 'complete profile' in the left-hand column or in the 'comments' section below - which post(s) you've liked the best, found most interesting, intriguing, instructive, amusing, etc.

If you've time to go back over the year, you can access a complete list of blog posts during 2010 via the link on the left.

Background from Owell Prize website
The Orwell Prize 2011 is now accepting entries, opening on Thursday 21st October 2010 and closing on Wednesday 19th January 2011. All work published for the first time between 1st January 2010 and 31st December 2010 is eligible. All entries must have a clear relationship with the UK or Ireland (which might include, but is not limited to, citizenship or residency of the author or the work being published first or only in the UK or Ireland) - (my emphases).

The Prize is self-nominating – somebody involved in the production of the work (author, journalist, blogger, publisher, agent or editor) must enter it. If you’ve come across some great political writing this year which you think should be considered, please contact the administrator or discuss on our blog.

Once the administrator has received your entry, you should receive a confirmation email. Please get in touch if you haven’t received one after a few days.

After the entry deadline has closed, a list of entries will be published on this website.

Should prime ministers sing songs?

One of the videos currently available on the Sky News website is an extraordinary clip of prime minister Putin singing the Fats Domino hit I found my thrill on Blueberry Hill at a charity concert:



The sight of a prime minister singing took me back more than 30 years to the last time I remember seeing it happen - when James Callaghan kept the TUC guessing about whether he'd call an election in October 1978 (when he might well have won) or defer it to 1979 (which he did and lost to Margaret Thatcher) with his rendition of Marie Lloyd's Waiting at the Church.

On the basis of these two specimens, Putin comes across as the better singer of the two - and, unlike Callaghan, is unlikely to have done his future prospects any serious damage.

Naughtie's gaffe: 'C', 'K' & 'U' sounds or 'Freudian slippage'?

I've been a bit late catching up on news of James Naughtie's 'slip of the tongue' on BBC Radio 4's Today programme last week because I was away on holiday when it happened.

But I did hear about it and started wondering, as I did on hearing of Gordon Brown's claim to have 'saved the world', whether it would turn out to be yet another case of an 'error' being triggered by sounds of nearby words.

Now I've been able to listen to it, I can report that this is exactly what appears to have happened. As you can see from the transcript and hear in the audio-clip below, the hard 'c' or 'k' sound came just before and twice in quick succession immediately after the dreaded 'slip' - and, when a speaker is reading, he can see sounds and rhymes coming up before he's actually read out some of the earlier words (including the 'u' sound that also comes both before and after the error):

"First up after the news we're going to be talking to Jeremy Kunt-Hunt the culture secretary about broadband.."



As such, it was a fairly ordinary example of what the late Gail Jefferson described as a 'sound-formed error' (as too was Gordon Brown's 'saving the world' gaffe).

But, as I noted of Sarah Palin's recent North Korean 'slip of the tongue' - an example of the related 'category-formed error' - 'The trouble is ... that media commentators (and other experts) love to find deeper meaning in such errors, regardless of how they were formed. As Jefferson pointed out in her original paper, many alleged 'Freudian slips' turn out to be 'sound-formed' or 'category-formed' errors.

And on Radio 4 last Monday, it hardly took an hour for just such an expert to pop up in the very next programme, Andrew Marr's Start the Week - where one of the guests, David Aaronovich of The Times, was there to plug a series of programmes he'd made on ... er.. Freudian Slippage:


'C' , 'K', 'U' - or 'Freudian slippage'?
Although I've always been mystified by the extraordinary intellectual influence of a theory as thin on empirical backing as Freud's (unless it really is just that id, ego and superego amount to a particularly impressive example of the persuasive power of three-part lists), there's one thing about all the reports I've read about Mr Naughtie's gaffe that makes me wonder whether there might be more to all that sexual gobbledygook than I'd thought.

After all, everything I've seen about the story in the media refers to the four-letter word in question as C*** and not, as I did in my transcript above, as Kunt.

Could this, I wonder, along with the coughing and sniggering to be heard in the two audio clips, be firmer evidence of 'Freudian slippage' than anything said by Mr Naughtie last Monday morning?

At the risk of blogging my own trumpet...

Arriving home after a blog-free week in Tenerife, I found a Google Alert directing me to a rather positive review of these pages on the politics.co.uk website (HERE).

I've long thought that blogging is a bit like writing books, as you never quite know whether you're hitting the mark(s) you were aiming for until you get unsolicited feedback from readers.

So to come across a review like this is not only very encouraging, but also helps to make it seem worth blogging on for a bit longer:

'Knowledgeable, well-written and occasionally witty - rather as one would expect from a professional communications consultant.

'Well laid-out without being visually stunning, Max wins points for plenty of functionality, links and videos.

'He seems to be on something of a crusade against the heinous practise of powerpoint presentations, which lends this blog a unique flavour.

'Not many blogs out there focus so much on politician's presentation style, so this makes a nice addition.

'Regular posting and decent opinion pieces round out what is a thoroughly impressive piece of work.'

I also take it as quite a compliment that Politics.co.uk awarded it the same score (8/10) as Iain Dale's Diary, one of the country's top-rated political blogs.

Blatter the bureaucrat or Blatter the bully?

Blatter the bureaucrat
If you can bear it, here's Blatter the bureaucrat announcing FIFA's decision on which country should host the 2018 World Cup:


Blatter the bully
Now, again if you can bear it, here's Blatter the bully pushing President Zuma out of the way to present the cup to to the winners earlier this year:


Blatter the boor
As I pointed out then - in Bad manners from Blatter as he bags limelight to present the World Cup - there was a time when FIFA allowed heads of state to present the cup. But that, of course, was before Blatter and his boys took over.

Interestingly, the original YouTube video of this that I embedded in the post back in July suddenly stopped working, as it had mysteriously become 'unavailable'. Could it be, I wondered that FIFA had been so embarrassed by Blatter's boorish behavior that they'd had it removed?

In the light of today's announcements from FIFA, how they reached that or any of their other decisions remains a mystery.

So too is whether anyone will have had the decency to warn the Russians that whoever is their president in 2018 will need to bring shoulder-pads to the final.

WikiLeaks News: Are Vladimir Putin and Vladek Schebal by any chance related?



Watching the chess match in the James Bond film From Russia With Love last night, I couldn't help wondering, as they do in Private Eye, whether Russian politician Vladimir Putin and Polish film actor, the late Vladek Schebal, were by any chance related?

Probably not, as Wikipeda assures us that Mr Shebal 'excelled in playing cold, sinister villains'.

P.S. 16th December - and another one
Today I must thank Patrick Hennessy, political editor of the Sunday Telegraph for drawing my attention to another candidate via Twitter (@PatJHennessy): Putin's true look like is much closer to home. It's @paulwaugh. Separated at birth...

I can see what he means, but don't know enough about Mr Waugh to know whether he's as good at 'playing cold, sinister villains' as he is at writing about them:


Child of Thatcher or son of Brown: the power of contrast strikes again



After Wikileaks had revealed that William Hague had described himself and other top Tories as 'children of Thatcher', it had been widely expected that Labour leader Ed Miliband would mention it during today's Prime Minister's Question Time.

Less expected, perhaps, was that David Cameron had not only anticipated it too, but had also come ready with a neat contrast up his sleeve in case it came up.

And so it was that the PM's "I'd rather be a child of Thatcher than son of Brown" was instantly picked up in the TV studios, made mass appearances on Twitter and will no doubt be the only line that get's quoted or remembered from today's proceedings in the House of Commons.

For students of rhetoric, it was sheer delight to see the power of the contrast striking yet again.

You can find out more about the different types of contrast and how to use them in Lend Me Your Ears (especially pp.182-190). Or you can see a variety of video clips, transcripts and discussion in the selection below.

Shades of Nye Bevan and Oscar Wilde?
Cameron's performance today reminded me of a couple of stories about Aneurin Bevan and Oscar Wilde that are relevant to anyone who wants to excel as an ex tempore speaker.

Renowned as a brilliant parliamentary speaker, Bevan apparently didn't leave everything to chance. His preparations for speaking in debates apparently included anticipating the most likely Tory heckles and composing witty ripostes, just in case they happened.

I also heard it said of Oscar Wilde, originator of so many famous quotions, that he would go to parties equipped with a list of witticisms in his pocket that he could trot out if the opportunity arose.

Whether or not either of these is true, I don't know, but they do point to a practical tip that David Cameron already seems to be putting to good use.

Prince Andrew cool under fire on Sky News - except that he wasn't under fire at all!



Looking at the latest selection of video clips on the Sky News website a few moments ago, I was struck by three things that seemed a bit odd about this one.
  1. Prince Andrew didn't seem as defensive as I expected him to be after the Wikileaks allegations about his being rude about various people, newspapers and countries at a business brunch in Kyrgyzstan.
  2. He seemed much more careful about what he was saying than the Wikileaks story suggests that he sometimes is.
  3. No interviewer puts in an appearance, let alone one who might have exploited the rather long silences by coming in with a challenging question or two.
Then all suddenly became clear when I noticed the box in the top right hand corner of the screen - revealing that this was recorded nearly a year earlier than any of the other nineteen (current) videos featured on the same web page.

Or rather his coolness and the absence of any interrogation was what became clear. What didn't was why Sky News replayed it alongside all their other clips about Wikileaks without so much as a word of explanation.

Ed's weekend Miliramblngs

Yesterday, I was struck by a line in an interview with Ed Miliband by Nicky Campbell on Radio 5 live (partly transcribed HERE), in which he said something that seemed a bit short in the precise and decisive departments:

"I think I can fairly sort of certainly say to you now, Nicky, that's unlikely to be the biggest priority for the country."

Part of that interview was trailing the speech he was going to make today at Labour's National Policy Forum (transcript HERE). So stand by, I thought, for a bit more precision and clarity in his first major speech since paternity leave.

A seasoned reporter has trouble following him
Just after Mr Miliband had started speaking, I noticed that Sky News reporter Alistair Bunkall (@AliBunkall) had suddenly got busy on Twitter whilst listening to the speech - with a series of tweets that included the following:
  • Miliband speaking without notes. Multiple accusations that govt is arrogant.
  • Miliband. There are 5 things we (Labour) need to do.
  • 1. "Need to reconnect. Talk to people" Must be one of the most over-used phrases.
  • 2. Need to give a voice to Labour Party members. Will help create better policy.
  • Finally a spot of clapping. Thought the audience might have dropped off..
  • Sorry, lost track, I can't count. Apparently must-do number 2 is the need to change the economy.
  • Miliband: "We have to under-promise and over-deliver." Is that a subtle address to the criticisms of lack of substance?
  • Miliband jokes about Cameron going 2 arctic with huskies early in his leadership. But it got Cameron headlines & Miliband needs some of that.
  • Summary: Miliband wants Lab Party to reform and focus on economy, climate change and liberties. Party must hold conversation with voters.
I was intrigued that a professional television news reporter was losing track of the five-part structure Miliband had announced and didn't include all of them in his summary. Maybe the structure would be easier when reading rather than listening - so I turned to the transcript (HERE).

Clearer for readers than listeners?
But the written version also seemed to be a bit lacking in the precision department - and actually sounds, at least to this reader, rather rambling and incoherent as you're reading through it. Keeping track of the five-part structure announced at the start is quite hard work and involves having to re-read some of the segments to check whether he's on to a new point or still on the previous one.

As you'll see from the following outline of the structure as it unfolds, things really start to go astray after the 4th one starts with a "But". And is the "one other thing" the fifth or an extra one that he's added to the fifth?

"So I want to talk to you about the five things that I think we need to do....

"First of all we have to be a party rooted in people’s lives....

"Secondly we have to change our economy and we have to understand how we need to change our economy....

"Thirdly we need to change our approach not just to markets, but to government as well....

"But fourth we also need to think about not just the relationship of the individual to the market and the relationship of the individual to government but also the thing that probably matters most to all of us in this room, the relationships between individuals....

"There’s, one other thing which is the way we do our politics....

(Miliband's summary of the 5 points)
"We’ve got to change in terms of the way we are rooted in people’s lives, and you are essential to making that happen. We have to change in the way we think about our economy, the way we think about government, the way we think about community and indeed in the way we think about politics too."

Two tips for Mr Miliband
  1. Stop trying to copy the walkabout 'script-free' style of speaking that played such an important part in David Cameron's surprise victory in the Tory leadership beauty parade. The PM is pretty good at it, but most politicians are not (on which, see also HERE, HERE & HERE).
  2. Do some homework on how to structure a speech so that your audience will find it easy to follow, on which Chapter 9 of my book Lend Me Your Ears: All You Need to Know about Making Speeches and Presentations might be as good (and cheap) a place to start as any.

Sarah Palin's North Korean slip of the tongue: what we heard and what we'll make of it


For American politicians, talking about North Korea seems to be a bit of a minefield.

When Hillary Clinton threatened North Korea with "consequences" for its misconduct, she prefaced her dire warning with a large number of 'pre-delicate hitches' (HERE).

Now we have Sarah Palin telling us that she wants to "stand by our North Korean allies".

As she's also trying to convince her fellow Americans that she's a credible presidential candidate, it's hardly surprising that her gaffe was not only noticed, but has also become a big news story around the world.

But however much her opponents may be hoping that it will damage her reputation, the most likely explanation of it is that it was a rather common type of 'slip of the tongue' - i.e. what the late Gail Jefferson, one of the founders of conversation analysis, described as a 'category-formed' error (HERE)

Sound-formed errors
Two years ago, a similar gaffe from Gordon Brown attracted widespread media attention when he claimed to have saved the world.

However, as I pointed out at the time, there were four 'w' sounds in the sentence that ended with "world", which he quickly corrected to 'banks' (video and comments HERE). In other words, it looked like a fairly typical example of what Jefferson had described as a 'sound-formed' error, namely one that was triggered by a repeated sound in the words spoken just before the 'wrong' one came out.

Category-formed errors
A similar type of conversational 'error' described by Jefferson was what she called the 'category-formed' error. This is when the word that comes out means something that's related to the one intended - a common example of which involves selecting a word that means the exact opposite of what we meant, e.g. right instead of left, hot instead of cold, black instead of white, etc.

Viewed in these terms, Palin's use of North for South therefore sounded like a fairly typical example of a 'category-formed' error.

Freudian slips or slips of the tongue?
The trouble is, of course, that media commentators (and other experts) love to find deeper meaning in such errors, regardless of how they were formed. As Jefferson pointed out in her original paper, many alleged 'Freudian slips' turn out to be 'sound-formed' or 'category-formed' errors.

But, as I discovered when doing a radio interview on Gordon Brown's 'saving the world' gaffe, the media isn't very interested in a such mundane explanation of slips of the tongue when there are alternative that are 'deeper', more sensational or more damaging.

Once it's out, it's anyone's
In case opponents of Mrs Palin think that I'm trying to offer her a neat way of getting off this particular hook, I should mention that there is also some encouraging news for them from one of the other founders of conversation analysis, the late Harvey Sacks - who used to say about talk: "Once it's out, it's anyone's".

He didn't just mean that you can't 'un-say' words after they've already been said, but that they're available for anyone to analyse and interpret in whatever way they like. And that is precisely what the media is doing in this particular case.