After-Dinner Speaking: What Michelle Wolf Did Wrong, and How to Do It Better

White House, US government photo

Michelle Wolf's speech at the White House Correspondents Dinner got me thinking about after-dinner speeches. I taught and judged after-dinner speakers when I was a college speech and debate coach, and, of course, I have heard plenty of after-dinner speeches. If Wolf were my student, I'd have given her speech a bad grade, but not for the reasons that we see in the press.

After-dinner speaking is a type of ceremonial or epideictic speech. Aristotle said that the purpose of such a speech is praise or blame. Speeches of praise are, of course, much more common. The first after-dinner speech I ever heard was a speech praising Protestant reformer Martin Luther. I do not recall that the speaker told jokes, but he did give a good speech.

Michelle Wolf gave a speech of blame. That was OK. Her speech was full of sexual jokes and personal attacks. That was not entirely OK. Some of her attacks were well-deserved: Donald Trump and his administration have repeatedly attacked the press, and seem to attack the press most harshly when the press reports the truth. It was right and proper at a White House Correspondents Dinner to speak out against Donald Trump's conduct, and the conduct of his staff. There is, however, a right way and a wrong way to do it, and Wolf chose the wrong way.

So, here are some suggestions for giving a good after-dinner speech:

1. A good after-dinner speech needs to talk about a serious purpose. Remember what I said about Aristotle? The speaker should either praise or blame something. A speech of praise is usually better. More positive. The speaker should tells us something good about a person, place, or thing that can inspire us. At the White House Correspondents Dinner, the speaker could praise a great journalist of the past or present. The speaker could explain what that person did that was good, and how other journalists can follow the honored person's example. Or she could have praised an honest President from the past. The audience would have gotten the point.

2. Speeches of blame have their place. Given President Trump's hostile attitude toward the press, which leads him to call any report he does not like "fake news," a speech criticizing President Trump was in order.

3. The speaker needs to prove her points. Bald accusations never do the job. Michelle Wolf did that wrong when she criticized Sarah Huckabee Sanders, in what turned out to be her most controversial point:

What Wolf said: “I think she's very resourceful, like she burns facts and then she uses that ash to create a perfect smokey eye. Maybe she's born with it, maybe it's lies.”

What Wolf could have said: "She has misled the White House correspondents one time too many. She wrongly said that the Obama administration was not vetting immigrants. She falsely said that Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the country, when Chicago actually has open carry. When President Trump wrongly said that the United States is the highest taxed country in the world, Huckabee Sanders repeatedly flat-out denied that Trump had said what he was on record to have said." 

Then, and only then, Wolf might lighten things up by telling her joke about Huckabee Sanders' dishonesty. The joke would have worked better, because it rose from a foundation. Even a humorous after-dinner speech can prove its points. Ceremonial speakers have been offering proof for centuries, and there is no reason that Wolf could not have proven her accusations. If she had, her critics would have become much quieter. 

4. Humor is fine in an after-dinner speech, and, in fact, audiences expect it. But the humor should be tasteful. Jokes about people's sexual or bathroom behavior do not belong in a formal dinner. People want to relax and have fun. A wise speaker will save dirty jokes for smoke-filled nightclubs full of drunken patrons. For my part, although many of Wolf's jokes were badly out of place, I did not think that her joke about Huckabee Sanders was totally out of line. Huckabee Sanders has told many falsehoods (see the links above) and she had it coming. But crude humor did not fit the occasion, which should have been more dignified.

5. A good after-dinner speaker always, and I mean always, draws a moral lesson from the presentation. Wolf ended her speech by cursing. Instead, she could have drawn any number of morals:

Possible moral #1: Wolf could have ended her speech by saying, "A democracy depends on trust among the government, the people, and the press. The government has broken that trust. It's time to make repairs."

Possible moral #2: Instead, Wolf could have called the audience to action, like this: "The White House correspondents need to insist that the White House speak more honestly, and the White House needs restore trust. The White House has to stop saying things that are not only false but ridiculous, and the White House needs to stop attacking the press for reporting the truth."

Possible moral #3: Or Wolf could have been simple and bold, like this: "In an era of fake news, the White House needs to stop attacking the truth."

That is, the speech can be funny, and probably should be funny, but needs to end on a serious note.

I do not know whether anybody connected with the White House correspondents will read my blog. But if they do, here is my suggestion: let the keynote speaker at the White House Correspondents Dinner be a journalist, not a raunchy comedian. The event has gotten out of control, and it is time to get things back in order.

Here is a very good website published by Gustavus Adolphus College about how to give an after-dinner speech. Gustavus Adolphus College has for many years done a great job of teaching people how to give speeches. I judged their students at speech contests in the 1970's, and I'm glad to see them continue their tradition of excellence. 

To post comments, log onto your Google account. All tasteful non-commercial comments will be posted regardless of your political views.