By Any Other Name, It’s Still Presentation

In the runup to the 2008 Presidential election, which is already off to a sputtering start, certain buzzwords are being commandeered by party strategists, politicos, and the media in an effort to define what the various candidates have to do in order to get ahead of the pack.

So far, some of the typical words and phrases describing these efforts have included "connect," "articulate," "make the case," "persuade," "explain," "outline," "promote", "put forth," "sway," "convince," "capture," "captivate," "pitch (as in sales)," "show charisma," "achieve star power," among many others. Recently, one so-called "expert" on a national conservative talk radio program compared Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama by saying Mr. Obama was "comfortable in his own skin," compared to Mrs. Clinton.

Though some may see these efforts as a mysterious and unknowable process, it’s actually as plain as the nose on Jimmy Durante’s face. All of these words and phrases can be distilled down to one simple concept: Presentation. The more a candidate understands how to make a good presentation, the more effective he or she will be in achieving all of the above, and any other name that might be devised. It’s still presentation.

Let’s face facts. To be an actor, you need to have about fifty or sixty tools in your presentational toolbox, and you have to know how to use them in a wide range of venues, which may take years to master. To be a good presenter, however, you only need to know about ten or fifteen, in fairly predictable venues, which, theoretically, should be much easier and take a lot less time to do. This is why Ronald Reagan earned the moniker "The Great Communicator." Even though by most accounts he was only a "B" actor, he understood those ten or fifteen presentational elements cold.

Here are some of the tools we mean:
1) Eye contact - Everyone knows you have to make good eye contact with your listener in order to be believed. If you were standing at a party with someone who refused to look you in the eye, you wouldn’t trust him as far as you could throw him. Why should it be any different in a group? Yet when most of our leaders get in front of a crowd, they splatter their message around the room, talking to THE ROOM, rather than to any people in it. Since we know that as listeners we will only trust someone who looks us in the eye and won’t trust those who won’t, it becomes a simple matter for a leader to use a specific presentational technique. They simply need to look at just one listener for a complete sentence or two, before moving on to another person. Then they should make solid eye contact with that next person, and complete a sentence or two to them. It takes discipline, yet it’s the only way to capture the appearance of trust that proper eye contact provides.
2) Gestures - We make gestures all the time, and almost never think about them when we are having a one-on-one conversation. But once we stand up in front of a group, suddenly we don’t know what to do with our hands. If we have a lectern, usually we solve the problem by leaning on the lectern, which gives us a lovely no-neck fullback posture (very attractive... not!) Often when we do gesture, it’s because we’ve thought about it, planned it, and stuck it in when we felt the time was right. Unfortunately, when we do that, it inevitably ends up being late, because a natural gestures ALWAYS precedes the words the gesture is to accompany, and when you think about them, they become add-ons, so they are always late. NEVER plan gestures, period. Wait until you have an overwhelming urge to gesture, than give yourself the freedom to gesture when that urge hits you. It’s the only way to avoid late (and repetitive, and fake-looking, unnatural, knuckle point and karate chop) gestures.
3) Vocal Range - When we talk naturally, we use a very wide range of vocal pitches, running up and down many octaves of the pitch scale willy-nilly. When we start reading, or regurgitating a well-rehearsed script, we almost always fall into the grade school reading-out- loud cadence, when we begin slightly above a monotone pitch and then slide ever so slightly down to just below a monotone pitch (think "I pledge allegiance to the Flag," or "The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want.") To be an effective presenter, you must be able to recapture the much wider vocal range that comes naturally to us.

These are just three of the simplest tools a presenter must understand, and anyone who achieves any or all of them will, without question quickly rise to the top, in politics or any other scenario. During this next election cycle, it’s imperative that we become more astute observers, so that we are able to recognize when presentational techniques are being employed. That way, we will have the opportunity to start asking ourselves, do we really like that person and his or her policies, or are we just enamored by the fact he or she has learned a few presentational tricks of the trade?

Considering the last great orator who was able to apply all fifteen of the elements of presentation effectively was Adolph Hitler, it’s a lesson worth remembering.

The Epidemic of Uh

If you're the kind of person who hates to get a song stuck in your head, you may not want to read any further, because if you do, you'll never be able to watch TV news the same way ever again.

Not so very long ago, people who spoke in public were generally obliged to be articulate and well-spoken. That's why they became our leaders, our news anchors, our experts and our noted storytellers, receiving accolades and admiration for their skill in using the tool of language.

Nowadays, the most common word (if you can call it that) you hear in almost any American public forum is "uh", along with it's annoying cousins "umm" and "ya know". Turn on any 24-hour news channel or C-Span, and start counting the number of times you hear these noises. (We do. View the results at our website www.speakology.com) It can reach the hundreds in an hour. It'll drive you crazy once you start to notice it.

Actually, in my old 1941 Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, uh and um aren't even in it, though newer dictionaries errantly include them. They shouldn't be there. Words, after all, are supposed to convey substantive meaning, a tangible object or an abstract idea. These syllables of noise do not. To say it is the sound of "thinking out loud" is just wrong. The only thing this cacophony of sounds indicates is that the speaker apparently has no idea what he or she is talking about, regardless of how many degrees, titles and credits they may have attached to their name.

Some might blame the advent of the 24-hour news stations for this epidemic, the talking heads who must interview anyone and everyone, regardless of broadcasting or speaking experience, simply to fill the airwaves with noise in order to prove they exist. That seems like the simple answer. Yet if that were the case, then why are so many so-called "professional" broadcasters some of the worst offenders? And how does that account for so many public and private leaders who are guilty of the same sad habits?

Let's face it. Whenever you hear someone use a lot of "ums" and "ya knows" you cannot help but doubt their credibility. So why do they do it? Why don't they realize just how much more intelligent they would sound if they simply replaced this obnoxious noise with what we in the listening public affectionately refer to as "a pause"?

Imagine, for a moment, what it would be like if the speaker was to eliminate these irritating and obnoxious sounds, and instead, you were treated to a grand moment of ..... silence. A beautiful, cool, clear breath of fresh air, allowing us, for an instant, to be drawn fully into the image the speaker is creating (or about to create) in our minds. Anyone who's ever heard Paul Harvey on the radio knows exactly what I'm talking about.

Not only does a pause give us time to reflect on what the speaker is saying to us, it also makes it appear that the speaker is carefully sorting through reams of knowledge in order to find just the right words to share with us, thus creating the impression of both intelligence and concern for our understanding, the absolute antithesis of "uh". Now THAT is a speaker we can admire.

Trained professional speakers, broadcasters, experts and our leaders should already know this, and should have enough discipline to be able to use pauses effectively, yet most of the time, they don't. Perhaps this phenomena is most aptly described by Dr. Temple Grandin as, "The bad has become normal." And it surely is bad these days.

Perhaps a bit of tough love is in order to raise the bar. Just imagine if Fox News or CNN were to begin to fine their anchors $10 for every "pause filling noise" they used instead of a pause. How long do you suppose it would take before we could eliminate this annoyance forever? (Though it might take big loss of pay before some of them can break the habit, it would be worth it!)

Another approach might be increased drug testing. You see, my husband has a theory (to which I originally guffawed, but now I'm having second thoughts), that the exponential growth in the use of these annoying "thinking" noises comes from the loss of short term memory caused by the smoking of too much marijuana. He thinks the more times they "um" and "er", then... well, you get the idea. Hmmm... suddenly it's a lot more fun to watch the news...

State of the Union long on content, short on delivery

As usual, President Bush's delivery of the State of the Union was less than inspiring, not because his script lacked what Americans needed to hear, but because he, once again, failed to grasp the simple concept that HOW he delivers his message is significantly more important to his viewers than WHAT that message is.
Bush is not alone in this lack of understanding. Political pundits who subsequently analyze his speech invariably gloss over his delivery with a few vague adjectives (strong, weak, tired, flat), then skip merrily along to tearing apart the content of the message, which is easy because no matter what it is, it could never make everyone happy no matter how well written it might be.
Most Americans, on the other hand, will form an opinion of his speech based on HOW he said it rather than WHAT he said. What most of us feel about the speech is primarily derived from how Mr. Bush MADE us feel about it, and that comes entirely through his delivery, not his words. When the president's delivery is lackluster and uninspired, it's impossible for his audience to feel anything more than that.
Let's face it. We all instinctively know what characteristics we expect from a President of the United States. It is practically ingrained in us from birth. When someone says, "That person looks presidential," we know exactly what they mean. Whenever an actor portrays a president, he or she always know just what to do to look "presidential." That's one reason why Ronald Reagan was dubbed the "Great Communicator," because he had acquired the tools he needed to be a good presenter during his early acting career, and continued to hone them throughout his life.
Yet these tools are hardly exclusive to professional performers. Bill Clinton was a very good presenter, too, as was John F. Kennedy and FDR. Unfortunately, most viewers, including the political pundits, believe that the ability to appear presidential, particularly in difficult times like these, is something innate, incomprehensible and immeasurable. They believe that a person either has been born with the ability to make an effective presentation, or he hasn't, period.
Because of that errant assumption, many people don't even try to seek out and acquire the tools that could be of such benefit to them. Such is the case with President Bush. Despite the fact that being able to make an effective presentation (which includes the tools necessary to look "presidential") is, or should be, Job One for a president, this president has capitulated that responsibility, surrendering in the face of ongoing criticism because he believes he's doing the best he can. He hasn't learned what every actor knows, that these skills need constant honing, and that with the right tools, he could learn to be better.
There's still time for President Bush to regain some of his earlier power and popularity by improving his presentation skills. Just look at Al Gore. He's gone from Mr. Stiff in 2000 to Academy Award nominated performer in 2006, just because he learned somewhere along the line how to make a better presentation. If Al Gore can do it, anybody can.