Pope Francis' Christmas Message

Pope Francis delivered an inspiring, but very pointed, Christmas message today. His theme was peace. Religious speakers often talk about peace, but typically discuss peace only in the most general way. The Pope's message, in contrast, was pointed. He listed various war-torn places and reminded the world's leaders that the inhabitants needed peace.

Pope Francis (US government photo)

He took an adept approach. He began with a traditional Christmas greeting. In the English translation: "Christ is born for us, let us rejoice in the day of our salvation!" He called Christmas "A day of mercy . . . A day of light . . .  A day of peace, which makes for encounter, dialogue and, above all, reconciliation." He continued that it was "A day of joy." He re-emphasized traditional Christian doctrines about the nativity. He told the crowd that "Where God is born, hope is born."

This straightforward message led Pope Francis to discuss various specific places that called for peace. He urged "Israelis and Palestinians" to "resume direct dialogue and reach an agreement which will enable the two peoples to live together in harmony." He specifically prayed that the United Nations' agreement would lead to an end to Syria's conflict and resolve "the extremely grave humanitarian situation of its suffering people." He went on to urge the opposing parties to reach agreements to end the conflicts in Libya, Iraq, and Yemen. He expressed sympathy for "those affected by brutal acts of terrorism."

He wasn't finished reviewing the world's problems. He also prayed for peace in Congo, Burundi, South Sudan, and Ukraine. He reminded the world's leaders that they had already agreed on terms "to restore concord in Ukraine" and urged them to fulfill their agreements.

Pope Francis concluded his message by returning to explicitly religious theme: "Where God is born, mercy flourishes." Of course, the point that he implied was that peace is a specifically religious theme.

Anyone following the news knows that many of his points were actually very controversial. But if a speaker isn't willing to create some controversy, why bother giving a speech at all? Many people think that a religious speech, especially on a special day, should avoid politics. But why? When is it more important to discuss public policy, to remind the world's leaders of their moral obligations? Please note that the Pope did not speak for or against any particular politician, nor did he speak for or against any particular proposal. Instead, he offered moral guidance to help the world's leaders understand their obligations. Just as ceremonial speeches can, and often should, turn to political or moral questions, so a religious speech can, and should, offer moral guidance about public issues.

So, for my own part, I wish a joyful and peaceful Christmas to all.

Dolly Parton's Commencement Speech: Lively, Extemporaneous, Specific, Detailed

For some reason, I just remembered Dolly Parton's 2009 commencement speech at the University of Tennessee. I have shown this to my students several times; most of them like the speech and some do not. I think that she gave a very good ceremonial speech, and here are the reasons why:

1. She spoke extemporaneously. What this means is that she was prepared, and she had reflected carefully on what she was going to say and how she would say it. She did not, however, read the speech. When a speaker reads a speech, the manuscript sticks a barrier between speaker and audience. Also, a good speaker wants to respond to the audience's reactions. A prepared manuscript often prevents that from happening. Also, no matter how well the speech is written, it will never sound like conversation.

2. She was lively. Her voice was varied. She was alternately loud, soft, fast, and slow. Her voice expressed her ideas and thoughts. She was easy to hear. I am horrified by how often good speeches are ruined simply because no one can hear the speaker. Dolly was easy to hear.

3. She told many stories. Very few speakers can give a good speech full of generalities. Well, Abraham Lincoln could do it, but most of us cannot. She told stories about her childhood and her career. Each story made an important point. For example, she told a wonderful story about rehearsing for 9 to 5, when she had memorized the entire script and other actors only knew their own lines. They thought it was funny that she didn't know better. Yet, she didn't miss her lines during the performance, and other people did. This made her point about how important it is to be prepared for whatever one does.

4. She praised the graduates, of course, since praise is the main point of a commencement speech. She also made general points and talked about larger issues. Ceremonial speakers should always do so. She told the graduates to work for their dreams, to be prepared, and to be on time. A ceremonial speaker's main job is to bring out values and to pass those values on to the audience.

5. She also sang for the graduates. Why not?

Bob Dylan's Nobel Prize Speech

Aristotle said that ceremonial speeches are about honor. All good ceremonial speakers take time to express some issue broader than the immediate honor. The American songwriter Bob Dylan accepted the Nobel Prize for Literature on December 10, 2016. Declining to attend the ceremony in person was quite in character for him. Since he wasn't there, he sent a speech, which United States Ambassador Azita Raji read. Dylan's speech talked about the honor, and drew a larger point.

This seemed a bid odd, but historians for rhetoric know that there is precedent for speeches that the speaker doesn't present. For example, in ancient Greece, Gorgias' praise of Helen was written as a sample to study, not for oral presentation. It has been said that Gandhi was sometimes too nervous to read a speech, and had someone else read it for him. I do recommend showing up in person to give your own speeches, but, well, I'm not Bob Dylan.

The speech itself? Dylan expressed a proper degree of modesty: he said he was "honored to be receiving such a prestigious prize" and said that he "never could have imagined or seen coming." He repeated the names of earlier prize winners, whose work he had read and admired, including "Kipling, Shaw, Thomas Mann, Pearl Buck, Albert Camus, Hemingway."

Concluding, Dylan said that "Not once have I ever had the time to ask myself, 'Are my songs literature?'" That is the larger point. Are songs literature? Certainly! Good ones, anyway. Again, many of the great poets of the past were songwriters. The immortal Sappho was a songwriter. Of course, thousands of years later, no one really knows what tunes she sang, but her song lyrics remain icons of poetic beauty. Indian songwriter Rabindranath Tagore won the 1913 Nobel Prize for Literature.

A good ceremonial speech is never fluff. It should always be interesting, and can even cause controversy. Congratulations, Bob Dylan, and thank you for the songs.

Franklin Roosevelt's War Message, December 8, 1941

Today is the anniversary of Franklin Roosevelt's War Message to Congress. The Japanese had attacked Pearl Harbor the day before. Roosevelt did not need to persuade Congress to declare war; this was a given. He did, however, need to express outrage about the attack, to demonstrate the evil behind it, and to assure the nation of his resolve to pursue the war to victory.

FDR and his speechwriters put the speech through a series of drafts.

Draft of Pearl Harbor speech

A long speech was unnecessary, but a forceful speech was. It was as much an epideictic or ceremonial speech as a policy speech, and Roosevelt used the opportunity to criticize Japan and to emphasize the dastardly nature of the attack. It is not unusual for epideictic rhetoric to imply or advocate a policy. Aristotle said that the purpose of an epideictic speech is praise and blame. Praise is more common, of course, but this was a speech of blame. The phrase, "a day which will live in infamy," has become a national symbol.

 One common purpose of epideictic or ceremonial speeches is to give honor, but this speech was about dishonor. Japan's attack was, Roosevelt insisted, dishonorable: "The United States as at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific."

Sometimes a short speech is all that is necessary. The speech's brevity gave it its power: Roosevelt made a few quick points, and the speech was over. The vote for war was nearly unanimous.

World War II was a great horror. My uncle died in the war, and my father and father-in-law both served in the armed forces.  Hundreds of thousands of Americans, and tens of millions of people, died before the conflict came to a weary, uneasy end.

Image:U.S. National Archives and Records Administration) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Quotations Are Great in a Speech: But Be Careful!

A few months ago, I published a research article about fake gun control quotations. I'm happy to see that another researcher has already cited it. It is always good to know that someone is reading what one writes.

It is a wonderful technique to quote people during a speech. Quotations add currency to your speech. They tie your ideas to the wisdom of the past. They are often charming. A quotation is a great way to begin a speech, and often an even better way to end a speech.

"Fake quotations are bad."

Unfortunately, fake quotations float all over the Internet. You can easily find fake quotations from George Washington, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, or Abraham Lincoln. Many of the fake quotations falsely attribute extreme right-wing views to those famous persons. My article talked about a group of fake pro-gun quotations often attributed to the United States' Founders. Liberals get quotations wrong, too. Barack Obama once got caught using a fake Lincoln quotation.

So, use quotations, but always trace them back to the source. Never, ever assume that some blogger has the quotation right. Do not assume that a quotation collection that you find in the library or on the Internet is correct. Do not even assume that some journalist or college professor has the quotation right. If you cannot find the quotation in the actual person's writings or speeches, than the quotation is probably fake.

I also refer you to an interesting book entitled They Never Said It, by Paul F. Boller, Jr., who does a great job of talking about how fake quotations spread.

Just as the Internet makes it easy to find fake quotations, the Internet also makes it easy for your audience to catch them. Use one fake quotation in your speech, even once, and you will have harmed your credibility forever. If your audience has smartphones, they will probably find out that you used a fake quotation before you even finish the speech. So, yes, quote famous people, but check your sources and be very careful.

How to Win a Political Debate

Political debates: who wins and who loses? The obvious debate winner is the election winner. This is different from college and high school debates, when an expert judge picks the winner. Things are not always so simple, however. In 1858, Abraham Lincoln debated Stephen Douglas at seven different locations around Illinois. They were running for United States Senator from Illinois. Lincoln lost the election. However, newspapers across the country printed transcripts of the debates. These reports made Lincoln a household name. His views about slavery became known nationwide. Very likely, the debates, which Lincoln lost in 1858, helped him spread his opinions so he could become a serious presidential candidate in 1860.

In recent years, presidential debates have degenerated into name-calling fests. Issues are no longer discussed in depth. Although most pundits felt that Hillary Clinton won the 2016 debates, she lost the election.

Partly, the debaters no longer understand how to debate. Here are some ideas which result in better debating:

1. State your conclusion before you give your argument.
2. Explain why your conclusion is right.
3. Give evidence, citing appropriate sources as needed.

The debate formats in 2016 did not lend themselves to this simple approach. The speeches were too short, and the questions did not follow themes with any consistency. The debaters got personal all too often. Thus, in-depth explanations and proof were lacking. One-liners and talking points are poor debating methods.

Attitude change resulting from name-calling, fear-mongering, and personal attacks results only in short-term attitude change, and has little effect on behavior. Going to the polls to vote is behavior, and behavior tends to be more deeply seated when reason and evidence underlie it. I imagine that the methods that Clinton and Trump used in 2016 tested well in focus groups, but focus groups aren't the election.

So - state your case, explain it, and prove it. It's not magic.

How to End a Public Speech

The audience often remembers the last thing that a speaker says, so a speech's conclusion gives the speaker a chance to make a final impression. Daydreaming audience members often wake up as the speech's conclusion draws near.

Here are some suggestions:

1. Almost always repeat your main points. Don't explain them again; just restate them. This helps the audience to remember what you said.

Abraham Lincoln

2. End with a striking statement. This gives the audience something to think about. Here are a couple of famous examples:

• Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address: "... government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." How could anyone forget that ending? Lincoln did not just say that the Union should continue the Civil War (which was part of his purpose), but also reaffirmed the nation's most basic values. This placed his speech on a higher plane.

• William Jennings Byran, "Cross of Gold:" "You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns; you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold." Bryan's speech at the 1896 Democratic National Convention was directed against the gold standard. This was an arcane economic issue that few people really understood very well. So, ending his speech, Bryan emphasized that the gold standard would (in his opinion) oppress the ordinary working American. His dramatic conclusion placed economic issues on a more human level. 

William J. Bryan

Both of these famous speakers understood that they needed to end their speeches memorably.

3.  End with a call to action. Ask the audience to vote, to support your plan, to donate to your charity, to attend your program, or whatever.

4. End with a story. Actually, a really good method is to begin the speech with a story, but don't complete the story. Give the rest of the speech, and tell the audience the end of the story in the conclusion. This ties things together, and the suspense helps the audience pay attention all through the speech.

For tips on beginning a speech, see my earlier post.

Hillary Clinton's Speaking: Did Her Speaking Style Contribute to Her Loss?

Did Hillary Clinton's speaking style contribute to her loss in the 2016 election? Maybe, I suppose. In an earlier post, I explained how Donald Trump's speaking style was direct and energetic. Now, Hillary Clinton's speaking style was not bad at all. She spoke firmly and her voice had plenty of variety. Her voice and nonverbal communication were much more similar to what I teach my students than were Donald Trump's. At the same time, she often seemed overly rehearsed and a bit stiff, especially in the three presidential debates. Her smile sometimes seemed forced. When Trump insulted her or tried to intimidate her, her response was a particularly stiff smile. For my part, if I had been in her place (thank goodness that I wasn't!), I would have reacted more directly.

Hillary Clinton

When a woman debates or speaks forcefully, people often unfairly say that she sounds shrill. Clinton had a difficult balance to strike, in that she needed to sound firm and to stand up to Trump without sounding harsh. All the same, I have, many times, heard women debate forcefully and effectively.

So, Clinton did not really do anything wrong. Her problem was, how could she stand up, nonverbally, to Trump's behavior, which was sometimes a bit bizarre? That is a hard question, and I have no clear answer.

There are, of course, several caveats here. First, Clinton's lead in the popular vote has, at this point, reached over 2 million and counting. She gained more total support than Trump. She lost votes in the mostly smaller, more conservative states of  the Midwest and Southeast, most of which are, by the Constitutional Convention's design, over-represented in the Electoral College. Maybe she didn't seem feminine enough to some people, or seemed too feminine to others. Who knows? One of my students was upset that Clinton wore pants, not a dress. Second, hindsight is always 20-20, and post-hoc explanations like mine do not always mean a lot. Still, one has to wonder: was there a way that Clinton could have presented herself nonverbally--voice, gesture, facial expressions--that would have helped her to counter Trump more effectively? Or not?

Official Dept. of State photo

The Family Thanksgving Speech: What Are You Thankful For?

The big speech ritual at Thanksgiving, just before the blessing and the turkey-carving, is for everyone at the table to give thanks for something.

"I'm thankful for my family."
"I'm thankful that we have everyone at home."
"I'm thankful that I passed my math test."

Or whatever. These are actually brief epideictic speeches. That is, they display people's values, emotions, and sense of unity. Although these tiny speeches often fill the children with impatience ("Can we eat yet?"), they also help people to bond, to reflect, to affirm what is important to them. These are some of the most important reasons to give a speech.

For more about epideictic speeches, see:

Selena Gomez

4th of July Speeches

Should ceremonial speakers cause controversy (sure, why shouldn't they?)

Did Trump's Speech Delivery Help Him Win?

I promised to spend more time talking, not about what Trump did wrong during the campaign, but what he did right. He won, did he not? He must have done something right. What about his speech delivery, that is, his voice and body language?

Much fun was made of Donald Trump's speaking during the 2016 campaign and presidential debates. Rightly so. He was crude; his nonverbal behavior was distracting, and he snorted a lot. Awful. His delivery, however, contributed to his success, and for reasons that any speech textbook will explain.

Donald J. Trump by Gage Skidmore

As Herbert Wichelns pointed out almost a century ago, speech is not about beauty, but effect. To win the election, Trump did not need to speak beautifully. He needed to speak with effect. Some of the things that he did during his speeches and debates, such as mangling facts and threatening his opponent, were reprehensible. The sniffling, scowling, and growling were irritating. Trump rambled incoherently. If I had graded his speeches in my public speaking class, I would have trouble finding any excuse to pass him.



At the same time--Trump's speech delivery was:

• Enthusiastic
• Varied in pitch, volume, tone, and rate of speech
• Full of eye contact
• Loud and easy to hear
• Relaxed
• Conversational (most of the time)

Trump was easy to listen to. That doesn't mean that he was enjoyable to listen to. It means that it was hard not to listen. Trump was often unpleasant, but he was hard to ignore.

In contrast, although Hillary Clinton was much classier, and far better prepared, she sometimes seemed a bit remote. A little stiff. Why did this matter? Did her delivery actually hurt her a little bit? Maybe. I'll talk about that in a future post.

Lesson for public speakers: enthusiasm, vocal variety, eye contact, vocal projection, and a conversational manner, as public speaking textbooks recommend, actually work. Remember that.

Photo by Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=49561185

Selena Gomez at AMA: Epideictic Speech at Its Best

Selena Gomez gave a moving acceptance speech at the American Music Awards. She didn't just give thanks for the award; she also brought up her long struggle with depression and anxiety, using the occasion to discuss personal triumph. She passed an important insight to the audience. Truth and sincerity are often the best persuaders.

More about President William McKinley

 In From the Front Porch to the Front
Page, I explain William McKinley and
William Jennings Bryan's campaign
speeches.

My chapter in Before the Rhetorical Presidency
traces McKinley's speaking career
in four stages.

With American history often forgotten, it has become too easy for people to forget the past's lessons or, worse, for unscrupulous people to invent a past that never existed. So, to follow up on my previous post about William McKinley, here is a bit of self-promotion for two of my publications about McKinley's speaking career.


Also see my earlier post about McKinley's speaking approach.

McKinley's Last Speech: Inclusive, Rational, Persuasive

McKinley speaking in Buffalo (enter of stage in white shirt)
(Library of Congress)

President Willliam McKinley's last speech, which he gave at the Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo, NY, spoke for free trade and for the future. His speech was rational, persuasive, and unifying. McKinley stuck to a theme for the entire speech. It was an excellent speech, nothing like the (much worse) political speeches that we hear today. 

Conservative writers rightly consider McKinley to be an underrated president. Kevin Phillips' book marks McKinley as among the best, albeit not greatest, presidents. Karl Rove considers the 1896 election that sent McKinley to the White House to have been pivotal, and remarks on the calming effect that McKinley's style exerted on American politics. 

I was privileged to present a paper about McKinley's last speech at the 2016 NCA Convention, on a panel shared with other researchers of American communication. 

L-R: Marylou R. Naumoff, Anjuli J. Brekke, Joan Faber McAlister (panel chair), William Harpine

In this last speech, McKinley spoke against the protective tariff, which he had previously favored. He praised the Pan-American Exposition as a "timekeeper of progress." Most notably, he made every effort to offend no one. He was lavish with praise, and circumspect with criticism. His goal was to build unity, to help people work together toward the future. "No nation," McKinley said, "can longer be indifferent to one another." So different from the angry, polarizing style of 21st century politicians like Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. So different from the angry, polarizing style of McKinley's own competitors. 

Question to ponder: if a 2016 presidential candidate had spoken like McKinley, trying to bring us together, praising everybody, showing sympathy for the entire nation and world, could such a style win elections? We don't know, since no major candidate in the 2016 election spoke in such a helpful, patriotic manner. 

PS: see my update

Trump and Conspiracy Theories

Conventional wisdom holds that Donald Trump believes in many conspiracy theories, and that this belief system makes him unqualified to be president, and that he was elected in spite of this character flaw. Trump's speeches certainly contained many conspiracy theories.

An article in the reliably liberal Huffington Post points out that Trump has held many conspiracy theories, claiming that "He's long presented the absurd and false as fact." For example, Trump told a group of Southern Californians that the government caused the state's ongoing drought by sending water out to sea. Rather unlikely, don't you think?

Another explanation, however, makes more sense. What Trump's critics miss is that a great many Americans, probably a majority, believe at least one unproven conspiracy theory. Most, not some, Americans believe that Kennedy was assassinated by the CIA, or the FBI, or the Cubans, or the Russians, or.... Bigfoot? Who knows, since there is little actual evidence for any of it. Worse, some conspiracies, such as the Watergate cover-up, turned out to be real.

Basically, there is no good reason to think that belief in unjustified conspiracy theories turns all that many voters away from a candidate. Of course, Trump's conspiracy theories differ from conspiracy theories sometimes held by liberals, such as the 9/11 conspiracy theories or the HIV conspiracy theories. Many people are inclined to mistrust the government, and are therefore predisposed to believe outlandish explanations about secret cabals. In fact, returning to the drought conspiracy theories, when my wife and I visited central California a few years back, we saw quite a few road signs opposing the government-caused drought. Wow! Those people attribute great powers to the government.

When real conspiracies occur, and they do, it is important to flush them out into the open. It is equally important not to be carried away by silly conspiracy theories that lack underlying proof. How do you tell the difference between real conspiracies and unproven ones? My earlier posts give some ideas.

Overall, however, many voters would be quite content to know that Trump accepted many conspiracy theories. That's because many voters themselves hold similar beliefs. Indeed, it is quite possible that they found his conspiracy speeches reassuring, thinking something like, "At last! A candidate who will protect us against conspiracies!" So, the conspiracy rhetoric that filled many of Trump's speeches, and which his opponents ridiculed, may have been a  powerful persuasive strategy.

Trump: Are Speech Experts Missing the Point?

I just returned from the 2016 National Communication Association in Philadelphia. The conference was on fire about the 2016 general election results. Some researchers called the election results a national tragedy or an inexplicable shock.

Many people asked, what did Hillary Clinton do wrong? But isn't that the wrong question? The fact remains that Trump must have done something very persuasive to win the election and reshape the Republican brand. How did he do it? I'll offer some thoughts over the next few days.

Charles Bierbauer: "What Were the Founding Fathers Thinking?"

I was fortunate enough to appear on a panel last night, November 7, 2016, at the University of South Carolina Aiken. The featured speaker was Charles Bierbauer, Dean of the College of Mass Communications and Information Studies at the University of South Carolina Columbia. Bierbauer was formerly a senior correspondent for CNN. David Dillard-Wright moderated.

Bierbauer's message emphasized that our political system is durable. He discussed the press' role in keeping the public fully informed about important issues and events. Showing us his ever-ready pocket Constitution, he explained its role in determining our governance. He also emphasized that we all need to get our news from multiple sources. Good advice, in all.

The role of the other panelists, myself included, was to bring up additional questions about the campaign and political communication. For my part, I asked what could be done to restore the press' credibility, when so many honest reporters are accused of bias when their only sin is to report something that people would rather not know. We who specialize in communication need to work on that issue, don't we! This was an important program; many community leaders attended.

L-R: Bob Botsch, Brandy Horne, Charles Bierbauer, Matt Thornburg, William Harpine
USC Aiken Photo

Why Such a Negative Campaign?

Senator Albert J. Beveridge

The 2016 presidential campaign has reached great depths of negativism. Americans seem sick of the election.

1. Crazed negativism has long plagued American politics. The 1800 campaign was much nastier. Yes, that's right, our Founding Fathers knew how to get very negative. The great Republican orator Albert J. Beveridge (winner of college speech contests!), a prominent United States senator, wrote eloquently and humorously about the nasty political speeches that he heard as a boy growing up in the post-Civil War era. Beveridge was a firebrand himself early in his career, but eventually developed sober, conservative attitudes toward speaking.

2. Politicians go negative because it works. If positive visions won elections, politicians would have more positive visions. It's up to us, the voters, to vote for candidates who express a positive vision - if that is really what the voters want!

3. Voters need to sort genuine negative things from wild accusations and bizarre conspiracy theories. My earlier post about conspiracy theories gives some suggestions.

Good Speaking Voice

Gary Genard posted a note about how to develop a good speaking voice. His advice is very similar to what I tell my students. He emphasizes breathing from the diaphragm and speaking with energy rather than shouting. Good ideas.

A good voice is only partly about your natural talent. Almost anyone can learn to relax and project to the back of the room. I tell my students, "don't yell, but push your voice to the back of the room."

You will sound better if you speak in your natural pitch range. A common suggestion is to hum - you will tend to hum at your natural pitch. Many people tend to speak at a higher or lower range than what is natural for them.

Other tips - drink plenty of water. Maintain eye contact. You should feel very little strain in your throat - good speaking feels almost effortless. Think about conversing with the audience rather than speaking to them.

Incredulity effects: Why don't mainstream authorities worry about conspiracy theorists?

Salem Witch Trials

The spread of bizarre conspiracy theories, advocated in several recent speeches, makes us think about how they spread. Hillary Clinton is the devil. The United States government was behind 9/11. The government wants to take our guns and put us in FEMA concentration camps. All silly.

In part, mainstream writers, scholars, and journalists simply do not realize how popular these absurd, but often dangerous, ideas have become. The conspiracy theories are so ridiculous that responsible people do not believe how many people either believe these piles of nonsense, much less recognize how much harm conspiracy rhetoric can cause. Unfortunately, a great many Americans have been persuaded of ridiculous conspiracy theories.

Worse, it is actually not necessary for people to believe conspiracy theories for them to be dangerous. Many people who do not believe the conspiracy theories do, however, at least suspect that they are true. There are plenty of real reasons to mistrust authorities; adding fuel by spreading conspiracy rhetoric only weakens the American republic.

And, while this goes on, most mainstream experts falsely attribute conspiracy rhetoric to a small lunatic fringe.

Here's my post about how to evaluate conspiracy speeches: http://harpine.blogspot.com/2016/10/speeches-about-conspiracies-how-can-we.html

Free Speech on Campus, Part III

The news reports that UCI students want the university to cancel a speech by Breitbart's Milo Yiannopoulos. Now, I, for one, have no interest in Breitbart other than idle curiosity. The Breitbart website says little that is worthwhile. At the same time, I think that students should let the speaker speak. If you don't like the guy, skip the speech. Problem solved. 

Also, do students have so little confidence in their classmates? I assume that most college students could listen to Yiannopoulos, disagree with him, and move on. Frankly, part of the alt-right's secret is that mainstream people don't even believe that they are saying the things that they say. Don't suppress them. Bring them out into the open! Let them talk! Let them fall apart all by themselves. If they have something worthwhile to say, listen. Don't turn them into martyrs. 

At the same time, it is a real shame that the conservative movement is now reduced to this level. Can't the right wingers find better speakers to represent their viewpoint? 

Earlier posts about free speech on campus:

http://harpine.blogspot.com/2016/06/free-speech-on-college-campuses-time.html

http://harpine.blogspot.com/2016/05/freedom-of-speech-on-college-campuses.html

Follow-up: Really Big Conspiracies Don't Stay Secret Very Long

Interesting, although horrifying, post from ww2today.com leads to a follow-up about conspiracy speeches. This is important right now, as the 2016 presidential campaign has fueled quite a few bizarre conspiracy theories.

The biggest, most awful conspiracy in history was the Nazi Holocaust. The German government went to great effort to cover up evidence of the atrocities. All the same, before too long, enough people had seen horrible things that ordinary Germans knew what was happening. Eyewitness testimony was circulating widely.

One of many lessons to draw: if a conspiracy is big, it doesn't stay secret, and people know.

This doesn't mean that we don't need to worry about conspiracies. Real people do conspire to do evil things. It does, however, mean that the world is not run by huge conspiracies. Real conspiracies are never perfect, and, the bigger the conspiracy, the less perfect the conspiracy will be. Truth has a funny way of coming out.

This is one reason that suspicion, minor anomalies, or unanswered questions are not enough to prove a conspiracy. Conspiracy theorists need to produce present affirmative proof.

Clinton and Trump at the Al Smith Dinner: Two More Reasons to Avoid Roasts

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump appeared together at the Al Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner. This charity event has, for reasons best left unexplained, deterioriated into a roast. This sad state of affairs brings to mind my earlier post "Against Roasts: Never Give Them, Never Attend Them, the Case of Ann Coulter." The Clinton-Trump exchange was, if anything, even worse than Coulter's situation.

Roasts pretend to be good fun, but they tend to deteriorate into lose-lose situations. Speakers at a roast target the roastee, but the speaker also appears rude and shallow. In this case, most (although not all) pundits think that Trump was much cruder than Clinton, but what's the point of that? I'd prefer that neither would speak crudely.

Here's how someone like Hillary Clinton could handle a situation like this: Trump spoke first. He was rude and obnoxious. He insulted his supporters, his enemies, and his ever-so-loyal wife in good measure. Clinton's response should have been automatic. She should have tossed her prepared speech into basket #13 and responded instead with a polite, gracious speech praising Al Smith (who was, after all, a Democrat). She could have devoted the speech to the Al Smith Foundation's good work. Instead, she gave a speech that, although much funnier than Trump's, contained altogether too many nasty barbs.

If you want to prove that you are better than other people, it's important to act better than other people.

So, to repeat my advice: never roast anyone, and never allow yourself to be roasted.
Q. E. D.

The October 19 Clinton-Trump Debate: What about the Format?

The presidential debates, between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, including the October 19 debate, suppressed serious discussion of issues. The speeches were limited to two minutes each. Important national issues require more than two minutes. For example, moderator Chris Wallace asked an important question about the federal debt. This issue, much in the news for several years, involves complex matters: tax collections, fiscal stimulus, government spending, Medicare, and Social Security, just for a start. Different economists have much different opinions. To discuss that issue in two minutes is impossible.

I have no idea whether either candidate is capable discussing economics (or any other issue) intelligently and thoroughly, but we will never know from the debates. The format encouraged the candidates to talk in sound bites and catch phrases. They repeated standard talking points, but there was no chance to explain their reasons.

Catch phrases are no substitute for sound governance.

Speeches about Conspiracies: How Can We Tell Whether a Conspiracy Is Real?

Recently, quite a few political speeches have touted various conspiracy theories. The system is rigged; the vote is rigged; Satan is influencing our politics; the government plans to implement martial law, and so forth.

A conspiracy occurs when people work in secret for evil purposes. There's a real intellectual problem here. Evil people do conduct conspiracies, and the public does need to uncover them. At the same time, a perfect conspiracy would be, well, secret, so how do we know about it? Unlike other things that people talk about in speeches, that no evidence supports a conspiracy theory seems like no refutation. After all, a really good conspiracy is unknown, right? Cue the X-Files theme.

Conspiracy theories have been around for a long time. Most of them turn out to be false:

How do we tell which conspiracies are real? There is no need for us to dwell in existential despair. Argumentation and debate theory gives us ways to evaluate conspiracy theories.

1. You can never expect any proof to be perfect. Human knowledge and wisdom are never perfect. This means, first of all, that you don't need perfect evidence to prove a conspiracy. Conspiracy theorists don't need to prove a conspiracy beyond a doubt. They only need to prove it with probability.

2. Conspiracy speakers do, however, need to give proof. Richard Whately showed centuries ago that the burden of proof lies with the side that speaks against accepted belief. Most conspiracy theories arise from unanswered questions and minor inconsistencies. It is not legitimate for conspiracy theorists to ignore their burden of proof. Minor inconsistencies and unanswered questions prove nothing, and mean little. Conspiracy theorists need affirmative evidence to prove their points. Without proof, they don't have an argument.

3. Since proof can't ever be perfect, however, the government and mainstream media can't be held to perfection, either. Conspiracy theories arise when media or government reports contain errors or inconsistencies, or give rise to questions. Unfortunately, all of our communication contains errors and inconsistencies. That proves only that people are human. In particular, minor errors don't mean much. When the authorities quickly correct their errors, the errors mean nothing.

4. Questions aren't proof. The Kennedy assassination, for example, gave rise to questions. Big deal. Every big event gives rise to questions. If the questions are important, then the answer is to investigate further. But the questions by themselves don't prove a thing. If the investigation leads only to more questions, that is not the same as proof. Now, the Watergate affair led to questions, which led to investigations, which ultimately led to proof.

5. If the conspiracy speaker's questions are answered, the conspiracy theories should go away. If, instead, conspiracy speakers ignore answers they don't like, they are guilty of bad faith.

6. Sometimes, faced with unanswered questions, we can just say that we don't know. That's better than jumping to conclusions.

7. Finally, really big, really secret conspiracies are pretty rare. Massive conspiracies are impossible. Someone will talk. People want to tell their stories, and big conspiracies just don't stay secret very long.

People who listen to conspiracy speeches need to engage in critical thinking and apply the tests above.

PS: see my follow-up. 

Bob Dylan versus Twitter

Well, sure, these days, Nobel Prize winner Bob Dylan is all over Twitter.

Still, what a difference an era makes. Bob Dylan helped to shape the Sixties with songs, many of them beautifully written. Songs like "Blowin' in the Wind," "Masters of War," and "Chimes of Freedom" helped to express people's concerns, fears, and hopes. Many of Dylan's songs were much too long to fit on a 45 rpm record; they were sometimes condensed for recording.



Official White House Photo by Pete Souza

Today, however, song has mostly vanished from the political arena. Political rallies simply take hit songs off the play lists and blare them out to the crowd over shrill sound systems. Instead, this campaign is being waged on Twitter. It's easy to shout out a quick thought in 140 characters, but no one can explain and defend a position that way. Political issues are complicated, and the new media don't make much room for complicated things.

Speeches and debates are our natural ways to work out political differences. I don't mean show debates with two-minute questions that feature gratuitous insults. I mean actual, reasoned debates. We need to speak; we need to listen; we need to be open to some degree of rationality. And, as Dylan reminds us, songs express our deepest emotions.

Political Rhetoric, Then and Now

It's not the same.

I'm not saying that political discourse has ever been good. But we've been reduced to sound bites, Twitter posts, 30-second political ads, and Twitter posts.

Dwight Eisenhower complained that no one could talk properly about a national issue in a five-minute media event. This fall, political candidates are expected to expound their points during the CPD presidential debates in 2-minute speeches. This is completely ridiculous. That one of the two major candidates is unable to hold a continuous thought for 2 minutes isn't the point. Our nation, and the world, face important, difficult questions. A 140-character Twitter post cannot answer them. A 2-minute speech cannot answer them.

The public will not always understand complex issues, but it is our responsibility as voters to make an effort. Slinging insults, slogans, and talking points do not do the job.

As the world grows more complex, we as a people need to develop more tolerance for complexity. We need to stop demanding quick, easy answers. The world isn't a 140-character place.

The First Clinton-Trump Debate, September 26, 2016: A Study in Personalities

The first Clinton-Trump debate was pretty much what we all expected. Clinton was prepared and, for the most part, stuck to the issues.  The issues, however, were not the point. The point was, which of these two people would be the best president?

Clinton presented an image of a cool, prepared policy wonk. The right wing, however, cares little about policy wonks. Instead, the right wing has a vision. The right wing has long contended that the United States is falling apart, that the world is dangerous, that a strong, authoritarian leader will keep us safe. Trump projected that image: he was loud, angry, and forceful.

Who won? From a debating standpoint, the event was a hands-down Clinton win. Trump was not in the running on the issues. His comments about Obama's birth records and his own taxes were nearly incomprehensible. He routinely got his facts wrong. Clinton got some facts wrong, too, but not on the level that Trump did. Trump rambled aimlessly. He ignored hard questions. He did, however, touch the conservative movement's hot-button issues: he said that the country was weak, that other countries were beating us, that crime was terrible, and that a strong arm was needed. Many conservatives share these concerns, and may have been happy to hear Trump express them.

What about appearances? Clinton looked relaxed and smiled a lot, although her smile often looked forced. Trump grimaced, snorted, and made faces. Voters who want a tough guy in charge probably liked Trump's approach. People who want a calm, sensible person to control our nuclear arsenal probably did not.

How will the debate affect the election? Time will tell. Immediate pundit responses or poll results have, historically, not been accurate. If the debate had an effect at all, it might not be obvious right away.

Debate Watch Tonight!

All over the country, people will be hosting Debate Watch events, recommended by the Commission on Presidential Debates. These might include small friendship groups, families, or classes.

At USC Aiken, I'll be hosting a debate watch for USC Aiken students tonight, September 26, 2016, in B&E 140 at 9:00. We will watch the debate together, and then turn off the TV and have a 30-minute discussion. We can talk about the debaters, the issues, the moderator, the format, or anything else. 

For live tweeting, use the hashtag #USCADebateWatch.

The official hashtag is #Debates2016.

Do Presidential Debates Matter? Maybe Yes, Maybe No . . .

Larry J. Sabato says that debates have, historically, had little effect on presidential elections. Going by poll data, very few people change their minds after watching a presidential debate. There have been some exceptions. In 1976, Gerald Ford denied, in the midst of the Cold War, that there was any Soviet domination of Eastern Europe. Every school child knew better. Worse, he doubled down on his ridiculous claim and gave details about it. He lost the election. For the most part, however, people usually vote on straight party loyalty, although ethnicity and income level also help to predict people's voting. This has all been known ever since the 1948 Elmira voting study.

The 1856 Lincoln-Douglas debates helped to make Lincoln famous. Since then, however, debates' impact has been much discussed but little proven.

Debates are, of course, about issues, and issues have, rather strangely, little effect on how people vote. Republicans who thought it was just fine for Reagan and the Bushes to run up huge budget deficits thought it was awful when Obama did it. Democrats now mostly favor same-sex marriage. In general, people tend to shift their opinions to match their candidates, not to pick candidates because of the issues. So, learning that an issue position is right or wrong does not necessarily change how people will vote.

The debates are still useful. First, people who have not followed the campaign closely may watch the debates, and will learn more about the candidates' views. Second, the debates give voters a change to size up a candidate's personality and character. Since, sadly, most Americans know very little about political issues, the debates give them a chance to learn something.

Still, tomorrow's debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump might be more important than usual. First, many people think that Clinton is dishonest and ruthless; if she turns in a calm, issue-oriented debate performance, some negative feelings about her might calm down a bit. Second, since pundits have labeled Trump as volatile and unreliable, potential supporters may want to size up his presidential mettle. The voters can judge whether the candidates show elementary courtesy.

Much also depends on the moderator: will the moderator enforce the rules strictly (like Candy Crowley), or loosely (like Jim Lehrer)? Will the moderator fact-check the candidates (an important but very, very tricky undertaking)? Will the moderator ask good questions? We'll see.

Tomorrow's debate format, which resembles that of earlier debates, is very weak. Candidates are to give two-minute answers, and two-minute answers do not give candidates enough time to explain and prove their points. Sigh.

Why Speeches on 9/11?

Speeches help us remember the past. We don't want to forget those who have died. We want to reaffirm what we believe in. Speeches to commemorate 9/11 are not just ceremonies; they help us carry on for the victims, continue our resolve against evil, and assure the nation that there is still much good in the world.

Barack Obama Quotes the Bible

This was not the first time that President Barack Obama quoted the Bible, but the context made it interesting.

Obama began today's speech on the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks by quoting "Good morning. Scripture tells us, “Let not steadfast love and faithfulness forsake you . . . write them on the tablet of your heart” (Proverbs 3:3, ESV).  

President Obama at the 9/11 15th Anniversary; whitehouse.gov

Bible quotations usually work only when the audience shares the same religion, which would not be the case at a public event. In this case, however, Obama chose a quotation that expressed an uncontroversial thought, and a religious focus makes sense at a memorial service. Sometimes it works to break the rules. The quotation also started Obama on his theme, which was to praise the nation's unity. All things considered, a stylish start to the speech. 

See my earlier post for more thoughts about speech introductions. 

 

Against Roasts: Never Give Them, Never Attend Them, The Case of Ann Coulter

Conservative advocate Ann Coulter reportedly "hated every minute" of a recent roast on Comedy Central. I don't blame her. The speakers were supposedly roasting actor Rob Lowe, which was bad enough, but Coulter became a major target. Speakers said things about her that could, it seems, not be printed in a family newspaper.

For those people fortunate enough never to have attended a roast, roasts are public speaking events in which the speakers aim nasty jokes at some prominent person. Some folks think that it is an honor to be roasted. In a twisted sense, it probably is. You will only be roasted when you are famous enough, or important enough, that other people want not only to take you down, but to take you down hard. Inevitably, however, a roast will generate hurt feelings that could last for years. Count on this.

I advise my students to avoid roasts like a plague-ridden flea nest. Receiving gratuitous insults brings no one any joy, while handing out gratuitous insults creates lasting resentments. Relationships can be destroyed. Roast participants pay a high price for a few cheap laughs. In real life, roasts are not funny.

My advice to aspiring public speakers: never give a roast, never speak at a roast, never be roasted. Never. No matter what. As Ann Coulter learned the other day, never even attend a roast. If there is a roast at your workplace, you might be wise to have an unbreakable prior engagement that night. For example, maybe you can convince your nephew to get married out of state that night, so you can't attend the roast. People who avoid roasts live happier lives.

Philosophy and Communication

A while back, I got a note from Dr. Elizabeth Radcliffe, chair of the Department of Philosophy at my alma mater, the College of William and Mary. How has philosophy helped my career as a speech professor?

First, a speaker's main job is to spread truth. Although truth often eludes us, careful research and rigorous thinking are the best ways to find it. Philosophy helps out, big-time, because philosophy trains people to think hard, deep, and long.

Second, speakers need to be ethical, and, equally, listeners need to reject unethical speech. Philosophical training in ethics matters a great deal. We cannot always safely rely on our preferences as to what is ethical, as self-interest and intellectual laziness can, in equal amounts, cause us to misunderstand our moral obligations. I always take time for ethical lessons when I teach my classes, and remind my students that the ethical way is not always the easy way.

Philosophy is, by definition, the study of wisdom, and we all need to seek wisdom as hard as we can, even if we might never really find it. In any case, all of my philosophy professors have long since retired or passed away, but I am happy to know that the search for wisdom lives on.

How did I get from philosophy to public speaking? It was actually an easy jump, but I'll save the story for another time.

By the way, Steven Pearlstein has a great article talking about why studying the liberal arts is valuable, and explains that it is a mistake to guide students away from them. Good point.

Enterprise at the 2016 APA Convention

Although I am a professor of communication, not psychology, I have attended and made presentations at several American Psychological conventions. Due to Elaine Clanton Harpine's connections, it has been my privilege to appear on the same panels as some of the nation's most prominent psychologists.

One obvious difference between the APA Convention and the National Communication Association Convention is that APA features much more commercial enterprise. Here are some observations about the 2016 APA Convention.

First, the first sight when one enters the exhibit hall is a large bookstore. APA has a substantial publication program. In addition to its extensive program of research-oriented psychology journals, APA publishes books on many psychology topics. They publish reference manuals, as well as books about therapy, social issues, and career advancement. They publish a substantial list of children's books. The bookstore also sells APA shirts, APA coffee mugs, APA pens, APA portfolios, and so forth. I imagine that this enterprise is profitable; also, the Association's program helps to spread psychological knowledge and publicize the association.

Bookstore at the 2016 APA Convention

Bookstore at APA Convention

Also, the APA exhibit hall features far more vendors than the NCA Convention. Although the publishing industry's consolidation has affected it severely, APA also attracts graduate schools, recruiters, and vendors of psychological programs. 

APA Exhibit Hall, 2016

Of course, I do need to brag about Elaine Clanton Harpine's latest book, Group-Centered Prevention in Mental Health, on the Springer table.

Springer Book Table

The APA Convention was a wonderful experience, and learning the perspective of a different social science has been very enlightening. Also see my posts about Student Presentations at APA and Communication Issues at the APA Convention.

Hillary Clinton's Anti-Trump Speech in Reno

The commentators have been busy talking about Hillary Clinton's Reno speech, in which she accused Trump of building on "dark conspiracy theories drawn from the pages of supermarket tabloids and the far, dark reaches of the internet." Indeed, Trump has long dabbled in various conspiracy theories, most notably the idea that Barack Obama faked his birth certificate.

This speech's power came from two sources. First, she was speaking in Nevada, where Trump enjoys substantial support. The same speech, delivered in Massachusetts or California, would have less emotional impact. Second, she gave specifics. For example, she quoted exact headlines from Breitbart.com, headlines that Trump's new campaign manager, Stephen Bannon, presumably approved, such as: "Would You Rather Your Child Had Feminism or Cancer?" Specifics help to prove a point, raising the speaker above the exchange of "he said, she said" accusations.

This speech leads me to think about the larger question about how to evaluate conspiracy theories. Some conspiracies are real, so how does the public tell real conspiracies from imaginary ones? I'll discuss that soon.

Student Presentations at the American Psychological Convention

The American Psychological Convention encourages student presentations. Elaine Clanton Harpine and I have been working with two wonderful University of South Carolina Aiken students who made presentations at APA in 2016. They discussed research from Elaine's reading clinic for at-risk students.

Shana Ingram had a short paper and gave a mini-talk at her poster. Shana's poster:

Collytte Cederstrom also had a short paper and mini-talk. Collytte's poster:

Here's the panel from our workshop, later in the convention, "Skill-Building Session: Bringing Research to Life--Integrating Science and Practice in Real-World Multicultural Settings." This was a collaborative program highlighted in the front sections of the convention program. We talked about bullying prevention, reading instruction in groups, and reducing aggression in schools.

Front, L-R: Shana Ingram, Elaine Clanton Harpine, Dorothy Espelage
Back, L-r: Collytte Cederstrom, William Harpine, Arthur Horne, Katherine Raczynski

Communication Issues at the American Psychological Convention: Dr. Irina Feygina and Climate Change Information

I recently returned from the American Psychological Convention, where I appeared on a panel with my spouse, Dr. Elaine Clanton Harpine. I'll give various impressions about the convention over the next few days.

Researchers in persuasive communication have long understood that audiences often reject uncomfortable claims that conflict with their prior beliefs. At the APA Convention, Dr. Irina Feygina of New York University made an important presentation about making climate change relevant to the public. Examining public reactions to messages about climate change, she emphasized how motivated reasoning affects people's evaluation of climate change messages. Although people often reason and communicate in ways that bolster the present system, the status quo is, unfortunately, harmful to the environment. Her research program finds that some people have a psychological tendency to bolster their beliefs in the status quo, a tendency that, unfortunately, is correlated with resistance to climate change information.

Working with the concept of "system justification," her research program yields many insights that would greatly help us communication scholars deepen our understanding of persuasive communication. In particular, her work could be generalized to help us understand better why and how audiences may reject well-supported information. Our communication research can, of course, get stuck in a rut, and new ideas like Feygina's can help to push us out. As a professor of communication, I do, of course, wish that Feygina were citing more research from communication journals. (Yes, sorry, I needed to say that). There is communication research to help us understand how politically-motivated mass-media communication  message can insulate people from critical thinking. For example, Michael Pfau et al.'s widely cited study about "The role and impact of affect in the process of resistance to persuasion" seems to offer insight into a similar theoretical point from a different perspective. Since most climate change information passes through the mass media, communication issues are surely a factor.

Feygina's presentation did, by the way, impress me in my role as a speech teacher: she spoke extemporaneously, clearly, and persuasively.

In general, I have now attended several APA conventions (alas, 2016 looks to be the last), and the cross-fertilization of ideas stimulates me every time. I certainly learned things from Feygina that I can incorporate into my own teaching and research.

Bill Clinton's 2016 DNC Convention Speech: The Narrative Paradigm

Bill Clinton spoke in support of his wife's nomination at the 2016 Democratic National Convention. Clinton proved his point, which was that he thought that Hillary Clinton was caring, capable, and effective, by telling stories. He told stories about how they met, how she started a legal aid clinic, and how she got involved in politics.

According to Walter Fisher's theory of narrative communication, telling stories can actually help to create meaning and prove arguments. Ronald Reagan was, as we all know, past master of this method. Clinton's story-telling made for an effective speech.

Donald Trump and fear appeals: Are fear appeals persuasive?

Much has been made of the dark, fear-ridden version of the United States that Donald Trump presented in his 2016 speech accepting the Republican nomination to be President of the United States. This may raise the question, do fear appeal really work?

An article by Dolores Albarracin, a professor in the Pyschology Department of my alma mater, the University of Illinois, analyzes over a hundred studies of fear appeals. She concludes that fear appeals do have a significant, albeit often small, persuasive effect. She also argues that other kinds of persuasive appeals are often more effective.

Effective fear appeals require that the audience be able to take some kind of action to reduce the danger that they perceive. In Trump's speech, his point was that he, and he alone, could reduce the dangers that he depicted.

At the same time, were the dangers that Trump depicted entirely real? The fact-checkers are already busy investigating what in his speech was real and what was not.

Fear appeals can be a risky persuasive method. No one can be afraid all the time; at some point, people do need to find rational solutions.

Melania Trump's Plagiarism Scandal

I do not want to put any further heat on Melania Trump for her 2016 Republican National Convention speech. She made a mistake; she got caught; issue closed. I am, however, appalled by some of the things said in her defense.

First, it is no defense to say that one is using common language or expressing popular ideas. Plagiarism does not happen by accident. The only way that one can plagiarize is to copy someone else's words or ideas without giving credit. This can only be intentional. Plagiarism can result from carelessness, or a moment of inattention, or appalling levels of ignorance, but it is never a coincidence.

Second, there are cultural variations in intellectual property rights. In the Western democracies, however, giving credit to someone whom you are quoting is considered basic. We live in an information society, and intellectual property rights underlie both our economy and our intellectual lives.

Third, plagiarism is very common. I always give my students instruction for avoiding plagiarism. It doesn't seem to discourage all of them! Despite knowing better, some of my students still plagiarize their in-class speeches. Famous writers and speakers have plagiarized. Major Democratic and Republican politicians have plagiarized. However, two (or three, or four) wrongs don't make a right. Many of the ridiculous excuses that Republican convention-goers have given for Mrs. Trump sound just like the silly things that my students say when they are caught copying. In fact, second-grade teachers tell the students not to copy someone else's work. Everyone, and I do mean everyone, should know better.

Fourth, changing a few words does not forestall an accusation of plagiarism. In Western culture, one must either express ideas entirely in one's own words, or quote the other person's words exactly while giving credit. Nothing in-between is acceptable. Sometimes writers and speakers weaver their own ideas or words into the material that they have wrongly copied. This is never acceptable.

The Internet age makes it very, very easy to plagiarize. It also makes it very, very easy to catch plagiarists. Speakers should be careful, for one's reputation can be lost in a moment.

Tim Scott's Senate speech: Race relations, and a lesson in speaker credibility

United States Senator Tim Scott, a conservative Republican from South Carolina, and one of only two African-Americans in the United States Senate, delivered an outstanding speech in the United States Senate in the wake of police shootings and the murder of five Dallas police officers. He narrated his own personal experiences, describing incidents during which police officers treated him unfairly. Shockingly, he has even been treated unfairly by Capitol Police during his service in Congress.

US Senator Tim Scott

Several factors made Scott's speech memorable. First, as a conservative Republican, he brought credibility to the issue that liberal politicians may not have enjoyed. Second, he gave several specific narratives, telling not only what happened, but also how he felt. His calm delivery, and his plea for non-violence, also helped to make his speech credible.

Skillful presentation can make a speech more believable, but the speaker's character also makes a speech more credible.