Lies, Damn Lies and Percentages

When my son asks what good all the math he’s learning will do him later in life, I say it’s a very important skill to master if you want to be a speechwriter. He doesn’t appear to find this argument very compelling. Nevertheless, it’s true, especially when it comes to statistics.

Most speechwriters worth their salt have learned to manipulate statistics for maximum impact. Not that any of use with intentionally mislead, of course. Heaven forefend! But if you’re going to make a case, you might as well make it convincingly.

One of my favorite examples has to do with percentage decreases and increases. The Wall Street Journal, for instance, reported this week that for the S & P index to get back to its October 2007 high it would have to rise by almost 100%. They reported this like it was news. But it’s exactly the same as saying that the S & P index has declined by about 50%, which we all know.

If you have 100 of something and you loose 50, that’s a 50% decline. If you gain 50 back, that’s a 100% increase. A 50% increase would only bring you back to 75. It’s pretty obvious when you’re dealing with round numbers like this. It’s less obvious at other times. But a decline is always going to be less as a percentage than an increase that is exactly the same in absolute terms.

WSJ on Sykes on Obama

wanda-sykesI’ve written before about the struggle for comedians to find a funny trope to rely on when sending up President Obama. So far, the winner seems to be that he’s just awesome — perhaps too awesome, and perhaps too aware of his own awesomeness. As Vinca pointed out, even Joe Biden advanced the legend that the president has an inflated opinion of himself when he delivered a speech at this year’s Gridiron Dinner.

Soon the task of zinging President Obama will fall to Wanda Sykes, who was chosen as the featured performer at the White House Correspondents Association dinner next month. People in Washington salivate over this speech because it’s a chance to hear someone point out the president’s quirks, foibles, and gaffes — while he sits a few feet away.

Today, the Wall Street Journal‘s Amy Chozick takes a look at Sykes, her brand of humor, and the challenges of taking on this particular president.

Race hovers like a wet blanket ready to be thrown over any sparks of off-color humor about President Obama. In that respect, handing the responsibility for jokes to Sykes, a black woman who’s never afraid to openly talk about race, was smart. Plus, she’s pretty damn funny, so it should be a good show.

Fortunately the president seems to have a healthy sense of humor about himself. If he laughs, the rest of Washington will laugh with him.

Obama All Hot and Bothered

President Obama got a little overheated in his global warming rhetoric at today’s G20 closing press conference.

Responding to a question from an Indian journalist about his meeting with her country’s prime minister, our president said the two men discussed, among other things, energy issues and the need to develop less carbony sources of fuel.

President Obama emphasized his point by saying that if India’s and China’s economies used as much per capita energy as America’s “we would have all melted by now.” (Video here; the reference begins around the 13:10 mark.)

Really?

I’m not familiar with all the literature on global warming, but I don’t recall reading anywhere that the earth could get so hot humans would actually melt. I’ve always been told we’re a far cry from becoming Venus.

Of course I realize the president was speaking metaphorically. But his phraseology was unusual. Did he mean to imply that India’s and China’s economic growth actually would be dangerous to humanity, assuming their growth outpaces new, earthier energy sources? Read More »

Who Is This Guy III

Mark offers the contours of a fascinating chapter in presidential speechwriting history.  But where Mark was diplomatic and restrained, I’m going for the big reveal, and assuming that the story to which he alludes is Peter Robinson’s experience writing President Reagan’s celebrated remarks in Berlin — “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.”

Here’s Peter’s article — and it’s a wonderful story, not only as a peek behind the scenes of one of the most memorable speeches of the age, but also as a reminder of the sometimes pivotal role speechwriters play in the policy process.

For those who don’t have time to read the whole thing, here’s the crucial excerpt:

The work I did on the speech was the most notable of my professional life. It proved a monumental struggle to get to the point at which President Reagan could speak those words that seemed fanciful even at the time I wrote them–words that would come gloriously true two and a half years later (even if it wasn’t Mikhail Gorbachev doing the tearing down). The Berlin Wall address is merely one of half a dozen or more Reagan speeches that even now remain important–the Westminster address, the “evil empire” speech, the address at Moscow State University. But historians will have difficulty getting the story of the Berlin Wall address right, and not only because documents have disappeared. Ever since the Wall came down, people in and around the government in those days have sought credit in part or full for the speech. In Europe, recent articles have attributed it to John Kornblum, a career foreign service officer, now ambassador designate to Germany, who actually fought it tooth and nail.

Kornblum didn’t write it. And, in some very important ways, I didn’t write it either. The key phrase came from a woman I met at a dinner party, and the phrase remained in the speech solely because of Ronald Reagan.

Who Is This Guy II

Jeff posted an interesting piece on people coming out of the woodwork to pose as former White House speechwriters.

Speechwriters face a lot of dilemmas when it comes to credit-taking: What credit is owed to the writer of speech?  And how can that writer enjoy recognition, without stepping all over his boss?

Ted Sorensen famously refuses to take credit for JFK lines now etched in marble.  The answer, for most speechwriters, is to show a little leg–but only in confines of  a small circle.   In recent years, of course, some have elected to blow past this bit of courtesy to their presidents–and have been richly rewarded for it.

What to tell and what not to tell, however, seems like a minor issue compared to people who go public with what you wrote.  They essentially absorb your resume.

One of my Republican colleagues wrote a very famous line in a very famous presidential speech that a former senior official claimed as his own.  Frequently.  Publicly.  As if this were not bad enough, said former senior official had–when he was at his post–strenuously opposed both the speech and its signature line.

It is one thing to decline public credit for one’s work.  It is something else to let an impostor claim it.

My Republican friend did the right thing.  He wrote a high profile piece and burned the guy.  Badly.

Who is this guy?

The unwritten rule among speechwriters is that we are heard, but rarely heard from.

But what about when they’re heard from, without actually ever being heard.  Such is the strange case of Jacob Rigg, who has been making a name for himself in the UK claiming to be an Obama speechwriter.

And give him credit for trying to monetize the credential, because it appears that now he’s selling tickets for the privilege of hearing him speak.

Here’s the problem: nobody inside the White House seems to have ever heard of the guy, never mind taken his input on a speech.

This happens more than you might think.  I make no claim to knowing Jacob’s motivation, but I can’t tell you how many times during my time as a White House speechwriter, somebody would come up to me and say, do you know so-and-so — he’s a speechwriter in the White House?  And I’d have no idea who they were talking about.

In some cases, someone was asked to submit a few ideas for a speech, and felt that their contribution earned them the title.

In other cases, it’s just a little bit of deliberate obfuscation.  Someone who is a speechwriter at a cabinet agency will call themselves an administration speechwriter.

Sometimes a speechwriter for the Vice President, wanting to be associated with the President, will call him or herself a White House Speechwriter.  (I’m sure I was guilty of this, back in my dating days.)

But what to make of somebody who, as far as anybody can tell, simply seeks to bask in the reflected glow of President Obama’s rhetoric? 

Sam Rosenman, who was a speechwriter for FDR, once described the job as “the grind and the glamor.”  It seems that this guy wants the latter without the former.

I guess rhetorical victory really does have 1,000 fathers.  Even if some of them are adopted.

Did I Ever Tell You About the Time I …

Politico‘s Carol E. Lee, who evidently spends more time listening to and analyzing President Obama’s speeches than any other human, wrote today about the president’s habit of injecting personal anecdotes into his speeches:

Listen carefully to Obama’s speeches, and there is almost always something personal. It might be a reference to a family member — parents, wife or daughters — an aside about their new routine in the White House or an anecdote from his early life….

All presidents in the modern communications age tend to weave their personal stories into their public images…. The obvious difference with Obama is that his background is more exotic than the typical president…. [T]his gives him more touchstones and cultural reference points than any predecessor — and he is not shy about invoking them in all manner of forums to make all manner of points.

I thought about this earlier today while watching the president’s remarks on GM and Chrysler. In an effort to buck up auto workers, Obama said, “I can’t promise you there isn’t more difficulty to come. But what I can promise you is this: I will fight for you. You’re the reason I’m here today. I got my start fighting for working families in the shadows of a shuttered steel plant.”

Speakers are frequently told to include in their remarks personal experiences that can help them form a bond with their audience. When you’re the president, offering these anecdotes can humanize you and win allegiance from people who may not naturally be in tune with your politics.

Critics of President Obama will say that he is too enamored of his own story — indeed, that he is almost all narrative without any real plot.

But the president obviously likes telling stories — from his books, to his speeches. And at this pace, he’s bound to find something in common with all of us.

Obama at the Wheel

President Obama delivered solid remarks on the auto industry this morning, informing us that neither GM’s nor Chrysler’s government-mandated restructuring plan “goes far enough to warrant the substantial new [taxpayer] investments that these companies are requesting” and laying the groundwork for a gut-wrenching period of concessions ahead.

I thought he was particularly effective on a couple of key points: (1) Openly discussing a potential bankruptcy proceeding for GM or Chrysler and explaining that the process doesn’t necessarily mean the end of the line for the companies; (2) emphasizing that GM and Chrysler are – and must be – private companies.

On the latter point, the president said, “[W]e cannot make the survival of our auto industry dependent on an unending flow of tax dollars. These companies – and this industry – must ultimately stand on their own, not as wards of the state.”

Furthermore, following the announcement that the government had forced the resignation of GM’s CEO and is working with GM and Chrysler to produce long-term operations plans, the president said, “Let me be clear: the United States government has no interest or intention of running GM.”

Perhaps a good analogy is to think of the government as a super-creditor, with a giant cudgel ready to be employed if the companies don’t accede to its demands.

At times President Obama did sound like an auto executive Read More »

Yes, with a reservation

Let me second what Vinca says about Mr. Obama and the TelePrompter.  More than with any other office — well, almost any, chair of the Fed being the exception — presidential communications is about discipline.  Some of this is that, as president, your words become policy.  If you care so little about them that others cannot count on your statements being your administration’s policy, chaos will follow.  And your political currency in Washington will be devalued.

I carry no brief for the new administration, but all this talk about the TelePrompter as crutch is unfair to Mr. Obama.  He is seeking to put out clear and consistent statements about the challenges before the nation and his policies in addressing them.

Michael Gerson is right that President Reagan used the TelePrompter frequently.  Mr. Reagan stuck largely to his prepared texts, and as a result, the entire government took his words seriously.  His speeches became a guide to members of his administration at all levels and to the government more broadly.  That Mr. Obama is taking the same care with what he says counts for him as a leader, not against.

My reservation: Contrary to what Michael Gerson says in the column to which Vinca links, Mr. Reagan was precise and articulate in press conferences and other off the cuff venues.  He often said things that the press corps didn’t want to hear or credit.  He also, upon occasion, would appear to be speaking extemporaneously but in fact was using talking points on cards or, it appeared to me, had memorized a text.  Part of his art was to conceal his art — an example that Mr. Obama would do well to note and take to heart.

Show Me the Money

A $787 billion stimulus bill.  Hundreds of billions — even trillions — on the war in Iraq.  Trillions of dollars of lost shareholder value.  Trillions of dollars more in toxic assets.

Big numbers are simultaneously scary and antiseptic — too abstract to comprehend.  Thanks to fellow blogger and friend Ian Griffin for alerting me to this nifty post, which illustrates in simple visuals what a trillion dollars actually looks like.

(For another take on how to interpret a trillion dollars, try here, where the author claims that a trillion grains of sand would weigh 73 tons… or Mike Huckabee’s website, where he helpfully points out that a trillion dollars would buy each and every American 1,000 boxes of Girl Scout cookies…)

“Good Writing has an Authenticity of Its Own”

Nice piece from former Bush 43 speechwriter turned Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson on “What the Teleprompter Teaches“:

…it is a mistake to argue that the uncrafted is somehow more authentic.  Those writers and commentators who prefer the unscripted, who use “rhetoric” as an epithet, who see the teleprompter as a linguistic push-up bra, do not understand the nature of presidential leadership or the importance of writing to the process of thought.

Hear hear!



Fore! GOP Shanks Budget Drive

Apparently Republicans spoke too soon — on purpose.

Politico‘s Glenn Thrush reports on GOP infighting over today’s press conference to release a budget blueprint that … seems incomplete.

Thrush tells us that Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor have had a more thorough alternative budget in the works for weeks but were strong-armed into today’s announcement by Minority Leader John Boehner and Republican Conference Chair Mike Pence, who were skittish about the whole “Party of No” thing.

An anonymous source tells Thrush that Ryan got “thrown under the bus,” which Ryan denies. Instead, Ryan says, “[S]omewhere along the line, someone got the mistaken impression that we were going to roll out a budget alternative today…. What we all signed off on was a preview—the real [alternative] is coming next week.”

He sort of sounds like a guy who got his wife a crappy birthday present and is frantically calling the travel agent to make up for it.

The document released today is pretty brutal as a messaging device. Read More »

Yo Dawg, Don’t Phreak

For this year’s White House Easter Egg Roll, the social office apparently contracted with a company called Front Gate Tickets to handle ticket distribution.

Front Gate handles tickets for a lot of concert venues and is therefore accustomed to a more colloquial way of doing business. Which produced this screen if you logged on for Egg Roll tickets during a heavy volume time:

chill

Not exactly Grover Cleveland-style White House language, but you have to appreciate the fresh approach.

After a bit of a Facebook kerfuffle, the “chill” language has been removed.

(Hat tip: JB)

Cantor: Yes We Do!

Turns out all those people who suggested that Republicans lack a coherent plan to counter President Obama’s proposals are wrong. As Politico reports:

House Republicans have begun unveiling detailed alternatives to President Barack Obama’s policies — a concerted effort to push back against Democratic efforts to label them “the Party of No.”

On Wednesday, it was a housing plan. Thursday, it will be a big, TV-friendly stack of budget blueprints, “The Republican Road to Recovery.” That’s to match the president’s own platitudinous budget title, “A New Era of Responsibility.”

This is good news, depending on what’s in the plans. I love tax cuts as much as the next Republican, but at some point you’ve got to go deeper. Health care begs for smart thinking. Novel energy and environmental proposals would be welcome. And of course the slow-motion entitlement car wreck should be a priority.

One tiny problem in the presentation so far is that Republicans seem to be in response mode as opposed to leadership mode. Read More »

The Trash Aquatic

ocean-plasticThe Wall Street Journal’s “Numbers Guy,” Carl Bialik, has an intriguing story in today’s edition. Bialik’s piece includes a complex environmental problem and a communications challenge.

The environmental problem: There’s a big batch of plastic floating in a concentrated area of the Pacific Ocean (pieces of it pictured at right). It may be the size of Quebec – or it may be twice the size of the United States. It’s probably, on balance, not good for the ocean or marine life, but it actually does have some beneficial side effects.

The communications challenge: How do you portray the situation accurately, raising public awareness about the blob without overhyping it?

Bialik describes efforts to quantify the floating plastic and says that the most exaggerated measures of its size get used most often in press reports.

As it turns out, the person who discovered the plastic and has spent the most time with it is sort of guesstimating: “’I just did a very crude estimate, by getting a globe and placing my hand over the area defined by this current, and placing my hand over the continent of Africa’ to see how the two compared, he says.”

But that hasn’t stopped some environmental activists and journalists from presenting the largest size estimate as a fact – in an effort to stoke public interest. Read More »