When This Byrd Talked, People Listened

I’ve been reading the obits and watching videos of speeches of the late Sen. Robert Byrd, and I think he has something to teach us about the art of speechmaking.

He was definitely of the old school. His style has been described as reminiscent of the 19th century Senate, when giving speeches was the only way to communicate with fellow senators and constituents.

To me, he sounded like an old fashioned evangelist, punctuating his words with long pauses and bursts of booming rhetoric. Instead of a Bible, he wielded a small, red-bound copy of the Constitution, which he often waved while lecturing his colleagues.

Byrd read his speeches, which meant he didn’t have good eye contact with his listeners. But he made up for that deficit with skillful use of body language and gestures.

He was fond of quoting the Constitution, the Bible, Shakespeare and classical poetry. He was not college educated, but he had a commanding knowledge of history and used that expertise to add richness and depth to his speeches.

“How that man loved to speak,” said The Associated Press in its obituary of the 92-year-old senator.

Byrd firmly believed that senators should be allowed to talk as much as they want in their deliberations. He affirmed that position many times, especially in 1964, when he filibustered against the Civil Rights Act for 14 hours and 13 minutes – one of the longest filibusters in Senate history.

Grammar: It's Not Just For Nerds Any More

Okay. I’ll admit it. I’m a nerd when it comes to grammar. If you want proof, here it is. One of the best books I ever read is called When Words Collide: A Media Writer’s Guide to Grammar and Style.

I highly recommend it to the grammar-challenged and to other grammar nerds. It’s very readable and has the answer to almost any question you might have on the subject.

I’ll admit something else. I’ve been guilty of complaining about the seeming death of grammar in public discourse and in the written word. People kvetch about how the broadcast pundits mangle the English language and the newspapers are full of subject-verb agreement errors. I’ve been among them.

I have taught copyediting at the college level and have encountered students who readily admit they have had no training in grammar or punctuation. I have been in the communications industry for 30 years and have worked with many professionals who do not have a grasp of these writing essentials.

Not that I’m an expert. As a writer and editor, I constantly refer to When Words Collide, the AP Stylebook, the dictionary and other resources.

So, what’s the point? The point is that knowledge of grammar, punctuation and spelling is acquired. It doesn’t come naturally to most people. You have to learn it the old-fashioned way. And you must learn it because it’s the foundation of good writing.

If you’re a writer of any stripe – author, business writer, web content creator or whatever – make it a point to learn grammar basics. It’s an essential part of true professionalism as a writer.

A Small Gold Star for Good PR

Politicians, corporate executives and organizations can learn a valuable lesson from David Letterman. Confession is not only good for the soul – it’s good PR.

By admitting his sexual relationships with fellow workers, Letterman short-circuited his alleged extortionist, who according to Letterman demanded $2 million for silence.

I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve watched companies and individuals publicly deny wrongdoing, only to have the truth of their unsavory behavior come out later. And usually the truth is revealed after weeks, months or years of bad publicity.

Think Bill Clinton.

Unfortunately, public confessionals have become too commonplace for people to hear them without a certain amount of cynicism. But still, from a public relations standpoint, it’s the best way to go.

So, next time the lawyers or the spinmeisters urge that you stonewall or deny, consider the following:

• Admitting a mistake or misdeed gives you a measure of control over the public discussion about the situation. You get to frame the issue by the way you announce it.
• Admitting that you did something wrong is the right thing – the ethical thing to do.
• The public is willing to give a certain amount of respect and forgiveness to people and organizations who say they’ve gone astray – especially if the offenders offer to make amends.
• Admitting wrongdoing can shorten the life of the story. True, the bloggers and talking heads will have new fodder, but it won't be nearly as juicy.
  

Left Brain, Right Brain

The best speeches appeal to both sides of the brain. That is, they appeal to the creative, emotional aspect of the human mind as well as the factual and logical side.

This point was brought home to me recently when I watched the 1991 film Other People’s Money starring Gregory Peck and Danny DeVito. Only in this movie, Gregory Peck addresses his audience’s right-brain sensitivities with appeals to their humanity; DeVito uses left-brain facts to sell his point of view.

It’s worth watching these speeches. They are instructive on not only how to make different appeals, they also show how to handle a hostile audience and win them over.

Peck plays the role of the head of a New England wire and cable manufacturing company that is losing money, and DeVito plays a corporate raider who buys dying companies and liquidates them. The scene is a stockholders meeting, which is being held to determine who will take control of the company.

Peck speaks first and makes an emotional appeal to the audience, many of whom are his employees and neighbors.

“A business is worth more than the price of its stock,” he says. “It is the place where we earn our living, where we meet our friends and dream our dreams. It is in every sense the very fabric that binds out society together.”

Then DeVito, who just came into town in his limousine from the big city, takes the microphone and lays out a logical argument for voting his way. He tells them the company is dead and nothing can revive it.

“You know why? Fiber optics. New technologies. Obsolescence.”

His appeal to the audience’s self-interest won in this battle of speeches, which are excellent examples of how to effectively appeal to both sides of the human brain.

Shorter is Sweeter

I couldn’t have said it more succinctly myself. Mark Allen’s Opinion piece “A Shorter Route to Communication” on NPR sings the praises of brevity. In this case, he’s talking about keeping to the point and cutting down verbiage in emails and other electronic communications. But this is good advice for speakers as well.

In my book, Seven Steps to the Podium , I point out that shorter is always better when it comes to speeches. Ever notice how audiences tend to get restless and inattentive after a speech goes on for longer than 20-25 minutes?

If a speaker is particularly gifted and a speech is well-crafted, audiences can stay engaged for much longer. But that kind of public speaking experience is a rarity. Most of the time, listeners are grateful when speakers get to their key message and wrap up their comments in 20 minutes or less.

So, like Mark Allen, the next time you have to endure a 45-minute speech that could have been delivered in 15, just put one word on the evaluation form: “Shorter.”

Crying over spilled grammar

It’s enough to make a Speechwonk shed a tear once in awhile. Listening to public discourse is not for the faint-hearted speechwriter. If it’s not a public speaker pairing the right subject with the wrong verb, it’s a pundit misusing a perfectly good word.

This is nothing new. As Ragan Communications’ Larry Ragan points out in a column he wrote in the 1960s, the English language has a troubled past.

One reason for this disturbing state of affairs is that the public schools don’t teach grammar any more. I found this out when I taught copyediting to a bunch of college seniors at a state university.

One student admitted to me that he had never had grammar in his K-12 years and that the entire subject was new to him. It was clear he was not alone in this predicament. Unfortunately, I made the mistake of trying to teach the class grammar basics. But in one semester, it was a lost cause. I would have been better off sticking to quizzing them on the AP Stylebook.

I live and write in Texas, where the teaching of grammar in public schools became the subject of great controversy among members of the State Board of Education in 2008. Many more traditional educators wanted to bring back a singular focus on grammar in English/language arts classes. Many, who were described as more progressive, preferred a more subtle approach which would incorporate grammar instruction into writing exercises.

This is a very simplified explanation of what turned out to be a long and very drawn-out and vigorous debate. In the end, the traditionalists won, and I’m glad. Call me old-fashioned, but the correct use of grammar, punctuation and spelling is the nuts and bolts of the English language.

For the grammar-challenged, I recommend the excellent book When Words Collide: A Media Writer's Guide to Grammar and Style by Lauren Kessler and Duncan McDonald. It covers the subject nicely and in a very readable format.

All A-Twitter Over Ghostwriters

When the New York Times reported recently that fans were all “a-twitter” because celebrities were using ghostwriters to handle their Twitter accounts, I had to chuckle. Speechwriters, a/k/a ghostwriters for speakers, have been dealing with the same kind of public dismay for decades.

As the article pointed out, stars like rapper 50 Cent is just one of many who hire writers to keep in touch with fans via Twitter. One of the rapper’s writers, a fellow named Chris Romero, said his client “doesn’t actually use Twitter, but the energy is all him.”

That pretty well sums it up for speechwriters as well. In an ideal situation, speakers take an active role in working with a writer in the preparation of a speech. The actual text, if done properly and with plenty of input from the speaker, takes on the tone, voice and phrasing of the speechmaker. Again, the energy is all him (or her).

Unfortunately, most speakers who use speechwriters don’t have the luxury of devoting a lot of time to their speeches. That’s why they hire writers to take care of the research and create clear and organized prose for them to deliver.

In most cases, speech drafts are reviewed and edited by a team of people who work for the same organization as the speaker. And then it’s up to the speaker to put his personal touch on the remarks.

As the ghostwriters for the stars have found out, knowing their client is essential to their jobs. The same is true for speechwriters. The better they know their speaker and the more they can collaborate, the more the resulting speeches will be true to the speaker’s intent.