TV Or Not TV - Is That the Question?

Some things never change. Or perhaps they change slowly, even over decades. But set the Wayback Machine to early fall 1960, Sherman, and we’ll visit the Kennedy-Nixon presidential debates. On September 26, 70 million TV viewers in the U.S. tuned in to watch Democratic Senator John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Republican Vice President Richard Nixon go at it in a televised presidential debate, the first ever. This first-of-four debates centered on domestic issues. The results are legendary, perhaps creeping into cliché.

In this relatively new medium, candidate Nixon fared poorly. He was underweight from illness, and his trademark five o’clock shadow was in full bloom. By comparison, Kennedy — only four years younger —was tanned, rested and poised, seeming much younger. Nixon seemed discomfited by his princely opponent, and while radio listeners thought he was the winner, the 70 million viewers were impressed by what they saw. There were three subsequent debates, which most observers of the day believed that Nixon won. But you know what they say about first impressions — Nixon never recovered, and that probably created his losing razor-thin margin.

According to writer Erika Tyner Allen, “The impact on the election of 1960 was significant, albeit subtle…. At election time, more than half of all voters reported that the Great Debates had influenced their opinion; 6 percent reported that their vote was the result of the debates alone. Thus, regardless of whether the debates changed the election result, voters pointed to the debates as a significant reason for electing Kennedy.”

When Kennedy ran for president, he had served in the U.S. Senate for little more than one undistinguished term. Nixon was a sitting two-term vice president with a reputation for fighting communists at home. Fast forward to today, and we have a relatively inexperienced senator winning primary elections because of his preternatural oratorical skills. He may be going against a war hero who is in his 70s. Despite the much-vaunted power of the World Wide Web, the Internet is still mostly a fund-raising tool. After nearly 50 years, TV is STILL the medium that familiarizes candidates. And it is still speaking skills that make that connection. If they face off in November, how will the seasoned senator with the respected resume fare against the acolyte orator? Is it style over substance, or is style actually substance in this case? Is the talent to move people, to motivate them to action, what the American Presidency really needs? My biases tend more to the former. I believe that certain Presidents in the latter part of the 20th Century showed us that substance is critical.

What do you think? I would like to know your thoughts on this, and I would like to keep this topic up-to-date as we move together through this historic election period.

Hear My Interview with Ryan and Bo

I was pleased to take part in an interview with Ryan Levesque and Bo Bennett on their Internet radio show, The Talking Toastmasters. Ryan and Bo called to discuss my recent Toastmaster magazine article, "Speaking of Business." They are a couple of fun and irreverent guys who really know how to lighten up the topics surrounding public speaking.

The show is already posted on the web, and you can find it here:
http://www.igroops.com/igroops/publicspeaking/blog/VIEW+00000012+00000122#00000122

I hope you enjoy hearing it as much as I enjoyed doing it. I also encourage you to listen to Ryan and Bo's other weekly broadcasts with a wide variety of interesting people.

Ratcheting Up the Rhetoric

Is it official yet? Are John McCain and Barack Obama the candidates for President of the U.S.? Senator McCain seems to think so. Last night, in his victory speech after the Wisconsin primary, he said that he may not be the youngest candidate, but he is the most experienced. Thus, he took on Senator Obama, ignoring the continued presence of Senator Clinton. But most striking was his stab at soaring rhetoric. He denounced the “eloquent but empty” calls of Obama. He derided war critics as taking a “holiday from history,” and called dictators like Fidel Castro “moral monsters.” Alleluia for alliteration! Nice catch phrases, but do they make a speech inspirational?

On the other hand, Obama took to the podium last night to give his victory speech after it was apparent that Clinton would not congratulate him during her concession. (A bit spiteful? Is that beneath him? I contend that public figures need to keep to high standard for class, which Obama generally does. See my posting, “Poise under Super Pressure.”) A commentator on MSNBC announced that his speech would be “impromptu.” Hardly. I heard him give essentially the same speech a few days ago at a rally.

So is McCain trying to rise to a standard set by his main competitor? Has Obama begun to run out of fresh phrases and resort to the oratorical equivalent of leftovers? Is Clinton still in the picture at all, or can she use her own skills to make a fresh case for herself? Keep watching. We are again reminded of the power of presentation, even in a Web 2.0 World.

Attention Toastmasters - Check Out My Article in February 2008 Issue

If you are in Toastmasters International, please check out my article titled "Speaking in Business: Five lessons in corporate communication." You'll find it on page 8 of the February issue. It's about my decades of experience in corporate communications and how they benefit me as a speaker and speechwriter. I'll put a link on this blog to the article when it is posted on the Toastmasters.org

There’s a Craft to Online Social Networking

I recently attended a seminar on LinkedIn. Okay, I’m a little late to the party on this one. In fact, I was already in LinkedIn, but I wasn’t making those most of it. I know the benefit of it. You can reach out to a number of people and build your personal brand equity. This sort of networking fits my personality pretty well. I relate to a large number of people, and I certainly like to talk about myself (hey, if I didn’t, I would be marketing myself as a speaker and communicator).

Since joining LinkedIn, I reconnected with people with whom I lost touch. Cool. I like hooking up with old friends. I’m also looking forward to create new contacts, too. It’s a great way to expand your influence. LinkedIn has 17 million people on it, so many of them are bound to pay attention to me. Also, I am always looking for new information, so this should be a good way to research.
I am struck with how important good communication is to the effective use of LinkedIn. The most obvious skill needed: Succinct writing. You want to have just the right amount of detail in your profiles. Not too much, not too little. You also want the paragraphs to be short. Bullets are nice.

There is also the tone. First person is more inviting. But as a video guy, I can see that it’s important to SHOW your value. As some of my speech idols have advised me, don’t tell them, TAKE them. Use web links. Add documents. Make people feel. And it all goes back to staying on message, so keep your goal in mind. It’s a lot like the skills we need in speaking, isn’t it?
But the most important point is that, like speaking, you have to connect. Don’t be buttoned up; participate. Having these sorts of connections can have many so many benefits that you can’t even imagine right now.

I’ll be interested in your thoughts on LinkedIn and other social networking. What works for you? What could be improved? Let those of us on this blog know.

All Fired Up With Nowhere to Go

I was all set for my first competition in the Toastmaster International Speech cycle. I had written my speech over several months, and trusted friends and fellow speakers reviewed it. They all made suggestions that helped, and I revised the speech. I practiced in front of another club, and I videotaped that performance. My friends attended and gave me valuable feedback. I practiced the words and added blocking (i.e., planned movement on the stage). Last night was to be my big night.


However, it snowed here in the Philadelphia area, and my meeting was postponed hours before I was to give the speech. I was so upset that I didn't speak to my poor, innocent wife for an hour after I got home. The reason was that I was stoked! I was ready! I was fired up! But I had nowhere to expend the testosterone that would have normally gone into the speech.
During the runthroughs, my friends gave me the feedback that I needed more energy, more drama. I knew the reason this was lacking... I was not totally familiar with the speech yet. But by rewriting the speech to improve it, giving myself extra practice to learn it, and take time to energize it, I felt that it was ready.

Now my contest is postponed for two weeks. But this was still a valuable lesson, because it reminded me of the importance of getting yourself up for a speech. The primary elections are teaching us a lot about momentum, and we speakers need it, too. I have also learned this from some of the Toastmaster World Champions. When I met Ed Tate, he advised me that at some point you need to "freeze the design" - stop working on the speech and work on your delivery to give your speech, not someone else's version of it. Also, when he competed, Ed did not stay in the room while his competitors spoke. Instead, he stayed outside, concentrating on his own performance.

Champion Darren LaCroix has used music on his headphones to keep him pumped while waiting in the wings. His playlist has included classic arena rock and the all-time anthem to victory, the theme from "Rocky."

The disappointment has dissipated, and my wife forgave me, as she has over the course of 29 years. But I am reminded that I need that energy when my contests go on. But please, dear God, don't let it snow again. While my speech will be better for it, I don't think my marriage or my blood pressure can survive it.

Razing McCain

It's not news when political oratory heats up during these quadrennial silly seasons. But I really prefer the lofty language of a Ronald Reagan or Mario Cuomo - heck, even unneutral Newt could give an inspirational speech, such as when he was sworn in as House Speaker. But, oy, the invectives we've been hearing since Senator McCain became the apparent front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination! Well, today he became the de facto nominee now that we are mitout Mitt, and who knows what we can expect to hear next? One would think that the republic is in danger now that the apparent nominee is the Viet Nam POW cum senator from Arizona.

Look, I'm not naive. I know that hyperbole is a way to rally your troops. But there was at least one Rush to judgment when we heard that "McCain will destroy the Republican party." Similarly, when Romney backed out today, he said that he had to rally the party around the nominee, fearing that the nation would elect Obama or Clinton "in this time of war." Those are particularly incendiary words, evoking Edward R. Murrow reporting from the rooftops of London during the air raids. (By the way, please don't think I am picking on the Republicans. Such pomposity is not partisan. For example, I've noticed that every time Senator Obama wins a primary, he treats the occasion as though he has set the ship of state on a new course. Back off, Barack. You don't even have the nomination yet, let alone the American Presidency.)

My interests here are not political. This is a lesson for all of us who are speakers or communicators of any stripe. It is at times like these that I remember the words of Marshall McLuhan, who said that "Eternal vigilance brings indifference." Citizens will start tuning out these tirades, and in a Gresham Law of Rhetoric, this bombast stands to drive out valuable, meaningful discussion. Mae West once said that too much of a good thing is wonderful, but I don't think that applies to public discourse. Like all inflation, this stands to devalue the intrinsic value of our language. Do your best to protest it and not stand for it, but at the very least, let's watch our language and not repeat it.

Poise Under Super Pressure?

BREAKING NEWS! The New York Giants just beat the heavily favored New England Patriots in one of the biggest upsets in the history of football, perhaps all of sports. Patriots coach Bill Bellichick, fairly or unfairly, has recently been cast as a villain, given the whole “Spygate” controversy.

Giants coach Ton Coughlan has also been much maligned in recent years, but for different reasons. Branded as a loser, and under the white-hot glare of the unforgiving New York media, he had to fight for his job this season. According to the Fox Network, Coughlan coached a record 205 games before taking a team to the Super Bowl. And now he has won in his first Super Bowl appearance. Certainly, he had the opportunity to fire back at his critics.

In the meantime, Mercury Morris of the 1972 Miami Dolphins has been making news on his own in the past few days. He would tell anyone who would listen that the Patriots were just not as good as his own team. What was more, he believed the Pats were vulnerable in The Big Game.
So how do you comport yourself in such situations once all the dust has settled? How would you react if you found yourself in cases like these?

First, the owners of the Giants thanked the fans and praised teamwork. Coughlan praised the Patriots as “a great team.” He never maligned his opponents, instead choosing to emphasize the positive qualities of his own team. In his press conference, he expressed happiness for how his veterans would get a Super Bowl ring.

Bellichick was taciturn as always. He gave terse, unsmiling responses to the reporter. In my opinion, this was perfectly understandable. However, he also noticeably did not congratulate the Giants, nor did he acknowledge the level of their play.

ESPN interviewed Morris after the win, now something of a Cassandra for predicting the win. Also, his team holds onto their immortality. He admitted that a tear came to his eye as his team remains the only football team with a perfect record that went on to win the Super Bowl. “It was important that the Giants won the game… You people (the media) after two games declared them the world champions… We were the best ever then, and we’re the best ever now.” When the ESPN commentator congratulated Morris, he said that the congratulations belonged to the Giants.

So here are a few takeaways when you find yourself in a similar high-pressure situation:
When you win unexpectedly after having been widely projects as a loser, don’t gloat. People will remember your better angels.

When you lose surprisingly, be gracious. Congratulate your opponents or whoever else is on the other side. People will remember your churlishness.

Be selfless enough to keep the focus off yourself as Mr. Morris did. If we haven’t learned the bad effects of hogging the spotlight from Bill Clinton as he supports Senator Clinton’s campaign, then we will never learn it.

Again, these situations show the value of being able to speak extemporaneously. Preparing for all possible outcomes is also important. BREAKING NEWS! The New York Giants just beat the heavily favored New England Patriots in one of the biggest upsets in the history of football, perhaps all of sports. Patriots coach Bill Bellichick, fairly or unfairly, has recently been cast as a villain, given the whole “Spygate” controversy.

Giants coach Ton Coughlan has also been much maligned in recent years, but for different reasons. Branded as a loser, and under the white-hot glare of the unforgiving New York media, he had to fight for his job this season. According to the Fox Network, Coughlan coached a record 205 games before taking a team to the Super Bowl. And now he has won in his first Super Bowl appearance. Certainly, he had the opportunity to fire back at his critics.

In the meantime, Mercury Morris of the 1972 Miami Dolphins has been making news on his own in the past few days. He would tell anyone who would listen that the Patriots were just not as good as his own team. What was more, he believed the Pats were vulnerable in The Big Game.
So how do you comport yourself in such situations once all the dust has settled? How would you react if you found yourself in cases like these?

First, the owners of the Giants thanked the fans and praised teamwork. Coughlan praised the Patriots as “a great team.” He never maligned his opponents, instead choosing to emphasize the positive qualities of his own team. In his press conference, he expressed happiness for how his veterans would get a Super Bowl ring.

Bellichick was taciturn as always. He gave terse, unsmiling responses to the reporter. In my opinion, this was perfectly understandable. However, he also noticeably did not congratulate the Giants, nor did he acknowledge the level of their play.

ESPN interviewed Morris after the win, now something of a Cassandra for predicting the win. Also, his team holds onto their immortality. He admitted that a tear came to his eye as his team remains the only football team with a perfect record that went on to win the Super Bowl. “It was important that the Giants won the game… You people (the media) after two games declared them the world champions… We were the best ever then, and we’re the best ever now.” When the ESPN commentator congratulated Morris, he said that the congratulations belonged to the Giants.

So here are a few takeaways when you find yourself in a similar high-pressure situation:
When you win unexpectedly after having been widely projects as a loser, don’t gloat. People will remember your better angels.

When you lose surprisingly, be gracious. Congratulate your opponents or whoever else is on the other side. People will remember your churlishness.

Be selfless enough to keep the focus off yourself as Mr. Morris did. If we haven’t learned the bad effects of hogging the spotlight from Bill Clinton as he supports Senator Clinton’s campaign, then we will never learn it.

Again, these situations show the value of being able to speak extemporaneously. Preparing for all possible outcomes is also important.