I for one like to see professional speakers trip up. It reminds me that they are human. And if it happened more often wouldn’t we be forced to have more conversations?

Like most people I enjoy some lectures, but most political speeches leave me completely cold. I think it’s because I get the sense that I am being ‘told’ what to think, and I don’t enjoy the attempt at manipulation.

Is there a way for speakers to make their talks more interactive, and more like conversations? Where the needs of the listener are better considered? Where the listener has a more active role?

Thanks

Another great post. Thank you!

I’m always struck by how 100 people can watch the same speech and emerge with 100 different conclusions. The reason of course is that most of us come to acts of communication to have our views re-inforced, not challenged. Hence, right-wingers leapt on this to say it proved what they’d thought all along: Obama was a puppet. However, my own view, as an Obama-phile, was different. I thought he recovered pretty well, PARTICULARLY given that he was on walkabout without a paper back-up.

The moments when speakers are forced off-piste, whether through technological failure or sharp questioning, provide a far better test of character than their ability to read a script. In my book, Obama passed those tests with flying colours. He didn’t get angry or frustrated, he simply laughed nervously, tried to blag it and joshed around with the audience. Very human. Very natural. Easy to identify with.

I remember cringing when watching an autocue crash on one (very senior) politician. He stopped his speech dead. Then he shook his head saying, ‘Oh dear… Oh dear…’ It was clear the technician was in for a beating! This left the audience with a far clearer insight into his character than they’d have otherwise gained, if not the kind of impression he’d have wanted to leave!

Very best wishes

Simon

1. Background knowledge in high-spots of current affairs
2. A little bit of self notes should technology support (like autocue) fail
3. Tremendous presence of mind and capability to quip / slip a laughter or
divert and recover back to topic
4. Sometimes too many rounds of speeches do tend to make one repetitive –
spend less time on self notes. But, one has to strike a wavelength with one’s
own team so that keywords / vocabulary used will gel with self thinking
pattern that will often help to recall or continue speech even if things like
autocue fails (words like inhalator & breathelyser are not top vocabulary
charts!)

Does that mean that I never make a slip-up? No. Does that mean that I never have to correct myself? No. Does it mean that my talks are varied, flexible, responsive to my audience, and authentic? I certainly hope so.

We, the public, with the help and guidance of the media, have come to expect unreasonable perfection in our politicians, which is why so many of the successful ones are little more than polished Barbie & Ken -a-likes. The real, authentic politicians, the ones who may never achieve the highest office (but who do seem to have much more longevity), occasionally slip off the fine line of the approved word, the catchy phrase, and the focus-group tested statement, but slowly, over time, they gently win our respect and affection.

Perhaps we need to be less quick to judge perceived slip-ups, but quicker to see the benefits of appreciating authenticity.

Great article, thanks Martin.

Increasingly, leaders need to inspire people and inspire confidence. There’s an argument that if that’s all they do while in office, they might do less harm – after all, it’s mostly the civil servants and underlings who actually keep the country running. A key job of a political leader is to ensure citizens have confidence that everything will keep running, that the economy is strong and that the future is bright, while not acting to prevent any of the above. Inspiring confidence is the one thing the civil servants can’t do, yet in our fragile economy it’s so vital.

Would someone with the charisma of John Major be electable today?