TransCanada chief uses rhetoric to lay the blame on rhetoric

A well structured sound-bite is guaranteed to win you headlines.

TransCanada president and chief executive, Russ Girling, knows this. Here’s what he had to say about last week’s decision not to go ahead with the Keystone XL Pipeline:

“Today, misplaced symbolism was chosen over merit and science — rhetoric won out over reason,”

Take a quick scan of the resulting coverage and you’ll notice that most articles not only reference this line, but lead on it.

And that’s because this line is a carefully constructed piece of rhetoric specifically designed to generate a sound-bite. So well crafted in fact, it could have come straight from our very own Dirty Rhetoric toolkit!

Hang-on a moment though, because the quote itself is attacking rhetoric as being the evil that doomed the pipeline!

So – Russ Girling…. J’accuse! And the crime is that of skullduggerously attempting to shift the blame by blaming rhetoric, while using – rhetoric!

Here’s my evidence before the jury:

Item: Use of Opposites

Misplaced versus merit. Symbolism over science. Communicators call this antithesis, and it’s a guaranteed tool of the sound-bite.

Item: Use of the sound-pattern ‘FunPhrase’

It’s no coincidence that we’ve got those double ‘M’s, repeated ‘S’s and finally that lovely triple-play on ‘rhetoric…won…reason’.

Technical term – ‘Consonance’, but we call it FunPhrase. Yet another sound-bite technique.

Item: Use of Analogy

Here’s where it all gets just a little bit clever, because when we look at the whole phrase, there’s a hidden logic-structure at play. A is to B, as C is to D:

Misplaced symbolism is to science, as rhetoric is to reason

Having lost the argument, Russ Girling now blames defeat on his opponents’ unfair use of this evil thing called rhetoric — while freely using rhetoric himself.

Rhetoric is an essential human tool. It’s the tool that allows us to create everything from structured logic through to poetry of the highest art. It is also, admittedly, the first refuge of the scoundrel when seeking to shift the focus.

So – today’s top-tip – whenever you hear a public figure laying the blame on ‘rhetoric’, be suspicious.

Be very suspicious.

Obama speech underplays strikes in Syria

 

by Peter Paskale

It wasn’t a speech. It wasn’t even an address. It was a book report.

Speaking today on the White House lawn as Marine One spooled up it’s engines behind him, President Obama tripped-up the media. What was billed as a ten minute speech on last night’s Syria actions against ISIL,  was delivered in just 3 minutes 11 seconds. Obama was already striding back to the White House door before TV news crews even realised that the speech was over.

What happened? For a President whose foreign policy credentials are so often doubted, you would think that he might have wanted to make a little more out of the moment.

What happened was a delicate, if dull, attempt to keep a coalition together. A coalition in Congress, and an unusual coalition in the Arab world. Both are exceptional and crucial.

Lets consider the speech for just one moment. The president paid tribute to the armed forces involved. He paid tribute to the Arab nations who joined the attacks. He laid out the rationale for the attacks. End of story.

We heard no moments of pride, and it was almost devoid of rhetorical flourishes. All of Obama’s usual speech elements were, oddly, missing.

The clues to Obama’s mission in this speech were the words “bipartisan”, which occurred twice, ‘coalition’, which occurred once, and a special-guest appearance by that horribly tired old cliche “shoulder to shoulder”. These four phrases comprised the closest that we could hear to any form of a dominant message, and that message was ‘let’s stay together’.

We did receive one slight rhetorical flourish, and that was when the president used a form that carries the marvellous name of Dirimens Copulatio – it’s the “not only, but also” figure. The purpose of Dirimens is to amplify a point – to make things appear bigger. We heard it in the president’s phrase “…this makes it clear that this is not America’s fight alone.” Again – this is a shove towards that topic of bipartisanship.

It must have been tempting for White House speech writers to incorporate a couple of political point-scorers on behalf of the president. He’s taken such heat in recent weeks and months for a seemingly toothless foreign policy. When we’ve just seen American missiles and jets pounding a repulsive terrorist group, then surely this is the time to notch up at least a couple of political bonus points?

Absolutely not. Had the president attempted to take any form of political credit for last night’s attacks, what would then have happened to that rare bi-partisanship? It would have fractured – both at home, and potentially between the growing coalition of Gulf States.

That’s why we got a book-report on the White House lawn, and not a speech, and for today’s needs that was just what was needed. It will hold the coalition together.

Now let’s see how he does at the UN. Will we get more of the same, or will there be a change of tone?

A presentation pointer for Chris Christie, and he can take this to the bridge

by Peter Watts

When there’s an underlaying bogey or accusation lurking behind your presentation, and you’d rather  not have that bogey become smeered all over the screen as the main talking-point of the day, should you:

a) Make your announcement, and then quietly and concisely move on, or

b) Make your announcement and then immediately mention the accusation before vehemently denying it’s existence?

A few examples:

• “Redundancies are not an indication that the company is in trouble.”
• “The product recall is not a sign of engineering issues in our other product lines.”
• “The legal action does not represent a worry for our shareholders.”

No matter how firmly those denials were made, your audience just heard:

• “Company about to fold”
• “Complete product recall of everything”
• “Dump shares before Feds arrive”

In the world of rhetoric, to deny something is to confirm it.

Governor Chris Christie has been having a spot of trouble with a bridge recently, and amongst other unfortunate statements during today’s press conference, we were treated to this:

“I am not a bully.”

Hands-up all those who now suspect that the Governor is precisely that!

There is a technique in public speaking called Paralipsis, which is to put something into the mind of an audience by denying that you want to speak of it. It’s often used in politics, for example, “I would not stoop to mentioning my opponent’s history of spousal abuse, drunk-driving, and tax evasion.”

Fair enough, but while you wouldn’t “stoop to mentioning it”, your audience are now all thinking about it! Used well it can be devastating against one’s opponents, but Governor Christie’s usage demonstrates how to neatly slam the technique into reverse and then backfire it all over your own message.

If somewhere beneath the bonfire of your presentation, little kindling flames are delicately smouldering their way across the bridge of your Presidential ambitions, then the thing you really shouldn’t be doing, is blowing on them.

What you deny, you will affirm!

Romney tax trap: The power and the pitfalls of tropes

Don’t trip over your tropes when presenting. Use them instead

by Peter Watts

Tropes are powerful magic. Think of them as cultural storylines with entire value sets and back-stories ready-made for easy access. Taking advantage of a trope allows us to cast ourselves heroic, or patriotic, or wise, or kind, or any other persona we choose.

When we work within a trope, our words and actions are re-interpreted through the lens of the trope. When deployed well, they attach glory. When tripped over, a trope can turn the noblest intentions on their heads.

Tropes can be long established. For example, Robin Hood has become a trope. Invoke Robin Hood and your audience interpret your message through the age-old context of the noble renegade, who takes from the rich to give to the poor.

At the same time a smaller portion of your audience might start to think of men in tights! For this we can thank Mel Brookes. A trope hijacked with sufficient force will morph into something new. In the case of the Robin Hood trope it has started to symbolize vaguely cross-dressed humor.

Tropes can be tricky affairs. I’m fascinated by their diversity and potential. As a child growing up in the UK, I used to watch a lunchtime children’s program called Mr Ben. In it, the hero, a respectable British gentleman, in plain dark suit and bowler hat (spot the trope!), would visit a magical costume store. He would change into a costume, and the whole world would change around him to match the costume, complete with ensuing adventure. Tropes provide the Mr Ben costume changes of the presenter’s world.

Take a look at some of the wonderfully diverse cast of trope characters available. Feel like slipping into one of them?

Good speech-writers, speakers, and image makers will all be aware of the terrific power of tropes. They script from within narratives that work for their candidates, while attempting to trip opposing candidates into tropes that are damaging.

Sometimes, the speechwriter doesn’t need to do anything at all, because sometimes the inept opponent can be relied on to do all the hard work for them.

That’s what is happening to Mitt Romney through his self-inflicted tax disclosure wounds, or rather, lack of disclosure. Romney has placed himself firmly into the grip of a trope trap of his own making.

Allow me to explain:

By way of background to the trap, Mitt Romney has spent the last few weeks fighting off requests that he release income tax records, a fairly standard part of an election process, and one in which all potential Presidents participate, most of them willingly and generously. Romney’s refusal to divulge anything except the barest minimum of information is now feeding speculation about what he’s trying to hide.

This is an election season, and it’s a part of the political cycle when political tropes surge to the foreground. Few of them are good. Check out, for example, this trope definition of the sleazy politician.

For any politician with even the tiniest hint of tarnish attached to them, a large section of the viewing audience start to suspiciously view that politician’s every move through that tarnished trope.

In the case of Romney’s self-inflicted tax issues, they can now add “evasiveness” to the trope….

And they can follow it up with “money”……

And finally, for good measure, it’s “tax money”!

Suddenly that tarnished trope takes a turn for the tricky. It wraps itself around it’s victim. It squeezes, and the harder the victim struggles, the tighter that squeeze becomes.

That squeeze showed itself this week during Romney’s speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, a key electoral group.

Here is the line from the speech that came to dominate media attention. It’s a section where Romney demands the White House investigate accusations of classified information being leaked. He is picking up on a theme introduced by Senator John McCain several weeks ago.

“…….it is unacceptable to say, ‘We’ll report our findings after Election Day.’ These are things that Americans are entitled to know – and they are entitled to know right now. The President owes all Americans a full and prompt accounting of the facts.”

Romney wanted to sow seeds of doubt about White House leaks, but instead, with the trope trap in place, the line rebounds back on him like a evil spell cast into a mirror.

“tax records…. Americans are entitled to know….. full and prompt accounting of the facts please…after the election it’s too late……tax records…..Now!”

Tropes are wonderful, playful, and powerful elements of storytelling and whether we are delivering a speech or building an image, storytelling is the all important art form.

Here’s the thing though. Tropes work best when used to build and guild from a well defined foundation. When applied to obfuscation and evasiveness however, they morph, and once in process, that morphing becomes unpredictable.

Romney is still to find his dominant narrative. Further trope traps await.

Boy Scouts of America: An American value?

 

by Peter Watts

America has made itself the home of public speaking. A nation of free speech.

While other countries debate if public speaking skills even belong in the classroom, American children “Show and Tell” from the age of six. Once past the Show and Tell stage, Speech and Debate classes continue their development.

The Greeks and Romans started the art of oratory, and during the 20th and 21st centuries it was with their MLKs and JFKs, with their Reagans’ and Obamas’, that America championed oratory. That tradition is honored as American children continue to be equipped with self-belief and confidence.

To speak in public you need to own what you are saying, to own what you believe, and to believe in yourself.

Teaching someone to doubt themselves is to drain passion at its source. It is a form of abuse. To consciously teach someone to repress their identity, is not a value of America.

The Boy Scouts have this week voted to continue their own form of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, excluding gay youngsters from membership. For the Scouts, DADT is endorsed in its most extremist form: Don’t exist.

Making young people lie about their identity and to doubt themselves, is not a value of America.

They are teaching children and young adults to fib about themselves, to lie about themselves, and ultimately to deny themselves.

Denial of self-identity, is not a value of America.

It has been pointed out that according to a Supreme Court ruling back in 2000, that the Scouts are entitled to deny membership to whomsoever they like. Well, the same logic is used to keep people of color out of private colleges.

It doesn’t make it right. It merely makes it legal. Jim Crow laws were legal. While the Boy Scouts might be content to sit with such values, times have changed, and today, Jim Crow is not a value of America.

The decision of the Boy Scouts does have one positive aspect though. There is one wonderful way in which it can power speaking; it can power anger about injustice.

Anger about injustice has powered many of those great American speakers. Those MLKs, those JFKs, and all of those other great speakers who came before them were all powered by a burning rage against injustice.

To speak out against injustice, that is a value of America.

Social media presenting sales

by Peter Watts

The fields of social media, sales, and public speaking, can all benefit when they work together.

If public speaking can be thought of as blending a fine champagne, then the art of crafting social media is more akin to producing a cognac, distilling your message into something intense and immediate.

• It teaches us to think in compelling sound bites
• It teaches us to think in headlines that capture attention
• It teaches us to give a story legs, with reasons for the audience to send the story viral.
• It makes us think about the story-boards behind that story. Where does the message fit with our communication goals? Are we being consistent in our voice?

Disciplines for effective social media are disciplines that equally apply to public speaking. They are also disciplines that are sometimes forgotten by presenters.

A course in social media skills would be valuable learning for many!

Public speaking meanwhile, has ideas to contribute to the world of social media. At the heart of powerful speaking are techniques of word-play passed down since the times of the Greeks and Romans. These techniques of rhythm and repetition, contrast and combination are as wonderful when written as when spoken.

The Romans referred to them as being “the hidden darts”. Their role in a message is to make language stand-out, locking into the mind of the recipient.

In his book “Microstyle: The Art of Writing Little“, Christopher Johnson details how we can bring these techniques to social media messages. He states:

“We need a rhetoric for the web age – a rhetoric of the micromessage.”

This rhetoric of the web age will eventually evolve by itself, but it can come about more quickly if public speaking practitioners and social media professionals increasingly join forces and share their skills.

The disciplines of public speaking and social media are intensely complimentary. At their heart, each have the same goal: to produce audience action through the vehicle of a message.

As Johnson continues:

“A message…is like a key that opens doors.”

Public speaking has been opening doors for millennia. By understanding and combining the skills of social media, we can now open doors further and wider than ever before.

Sales meanwhile, are never afraid to ask for the business. Professional sales people maintain sight of how the product fits to the customer’s needs, and through that understanding develop the unique customer insights that lead to value. They also understand that for every customer journey, there must be an end-point; the sale. It is through awareness of the sales discipline, that public speaking and commercial social media efforts can continually focus on their goal.

President Obama’s speech responding to Supreme Court decision: Analysis

by Peter Watts

Health care is one of America’s most emotive issues. Opinions on either side of the debate are heartfelt, sincere, passionate, and frequently entrenched.

Today’s outcome in the Supreme Court was critical to President Obama. If the White House was watching CNN during this morning’s announcement they would have roller-coasted from despair (“they’ve struck it down”), through to elation (“they’ve upheld it”), and through to surprise…. “Chief Justice Roberts was with the majority???? Really?????”

No one can predict the impact this decision will have on November’s election. Which side of the electorate will be more energized by this outcome? Republicans or Democrats. The Supreme Court has fired the white ball of it’s opinion out onto the table and scattered political reds in all directions.

How President Obama crafts his response this morning will have a major impact on how those balls continue to ricochet throughout the election.

Can he simultaneously fire up his own base, without firing up Republican voters and activists even more? Fiery triumphalism will prove fatal, whilst the classic Obama cool will fail to mobilize Democrats.

What we’re looking for in the speech might include some of the following:

Pathos
Pathos involves an appeal to the emotions. The President wants to bring a lump to the throat of supporters, while dampening the fury of opponents. The vocal tone is likely to be modestly humble. A family man, not a President, reaching out to other families and talking about the protection of those families.

The entire speech can’t be an emotional sob-story however. A little touch of fire is required to motivate that Democrat base. The President will need to identify a bad guy who needs to be beaten, and for that, he might use….

Personification
This technique attaches human motives and emotions to things that normally don’t have them, such as “the markets”. To put some heat into the speech, the President will need to build an adversary into it. That adversary cannot be personified as anyone who might be motivated to vote against him. We’ll see it targeted at something inanimate, maybe even Corporate, and quite probably funding a SuperPac. Listen out for words such as “uncaring” or “greedy” as the lead-in to the adversary section of the speech.

Another clue to the setting up of the adversary will be the President’s voice tone. If there is a phase when President Obama picks up his speed and volume, then this will likely be it.

Proof
At the moment few Americans have directly experienced the benefits of the Health Care Reforms. The President needs to bridge this reality gap by framing a picture that everyone can associate with. Expect to hear a story (probably fairly heart-rending), and the purpose of which is to communicate to the audience “this could so easily be you, or your family affected.”

Palilogia
Repetition techniques are a key part of great speeches. There are numerous techniques. Palilogia involves the repetition of the same word or phrase three times. For example “Care, care, care”.

Other repetition techniques you are likely to hear are anaphora which involves the same word repeated at the beginning of each phrase, or its counterpart, epistrophe, which is the same word repeated at the ends of consecutive phrases.

Presidential
Finally and most important of all for President Obama, today’s speech can be as great a moment as his first Inaugural Address. Whether or not he gets a Second Inaugural Address, may well hang on how well he speaks, just a couple of hours from now.

;

UPDATE:

The President has now spoken. How did he do?

The tone of the speech was lecturely. We saw slightly more of Professor Obama, than President Obama. The tone worked however because this would have avoided firing up the GOP base as it would have done had he struck a more triumphalist tone.

How did he fare in motivating the Democratic base, Independents, and the Undecided?

Very well. There was a heavy use of personification and the inanimate objects selected were the insurance companies and at one point their CEO’s. A smart choice in terms of a perceived “bad guy”.

As to proof, there was proof aplenty. In particular, the story of Natoma Canfield, the lady whose insurance was cancelled when sick. The story of her letter served to give an audience many of whom are yet to feel benefit from Health Reform, a vivid example of “this could be you.”

Repetition techniques featured strongly, in particular anaphora. For example, when personifying insurance companies as being the adversary, we heard phrases that start with the words “No longer can they….” This structure was repeated four time. A heavy repetition.

As to the Presidential tone, I think Obama may have introduced a little too much politics for it to have been truly Presidential. In particular there was a dig at Mitt Romney, and a blatant call-out to women voters.

The President’s conclusion deliberately moved the debate onwards from health care. He projected forward five years, ten years, fifteen years, and then twenty years into the future. He used the words “move forward” repeatedly and spoke about how it is now time to fix the economy and put this debate behind us.

I suspect that this part of the speech may have been written in the moments immediately before he approached the microphone, contrasting as strongly as it does to the tone of Mitt Romney’s speech delivered just fifteen minutes before. In that speech, Romney struck a backward looking emphasis on returning things to how they were before the Health Reforms. The word “returning” was repeated several times, and one of the synonyms for returning is “to go back”.

The President has concluded by setting up a sharp contrast for the election by positioning himself as moving forward and the GOP as wanting to move back.

It’s a clever move at the end of a good speech. Not a great speech, but a good speech.

Let’s see what happens next.

McCain accuses Obama with rhetorical witchcraft

by Peter Watts

President Obama’s actions to defeat terrorism have been making news, and in the process have allowed John McCain, the man he beat for the White House, to use some marvellously cool rhetoric to accuse the President of a marvellous cool PR plot.

Backstory: McCain has accused Obama of leaking defence information deliberately chosen to make him look good as Commander-in-Chief.

Here’s the McCain technique:

“…one could draw the conclusion that this is an attempt to further the President’s ambitions for the sake of his re-election…”

In his accusation, note the form that the Senator has taken:

“One could draw the conclusion….”

This isn’t the Senator coming out with an accusation that he can be called on, but instead couching behind a mythical third party. It’s a rhetorical form called a Paralipsis whereby McCain doesn’t directly say the the President is leaking information but merely suggests that someone could be forgiven if they thought that he was.

The Senator then follows up with a call for the White House to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate such supposed leaks, and suggests that if such a prosecutor is not appointed, the only reason for that hesitation can be guilt!

In other words, if the White House doesn’t confirm there has been a leak by appointing the prosecutor, then they are choosing to confirm the presence of a leak by not confirming it.

It’s a rhetorical ploy for creating a news-story that’s so witchily crafty that it reminds me of the ducking-stools used during the witch trials. Should the accused drown beneath the waters during her ducking, she was innocent. Should she survive however then she was clearly guilty, in which case they burnt her at the stake.

Senator McCain has successfully placed the White House onto a rhetorical ducking stool.

How to respond?

When you’re damned if you do, and you’re damned if you don’t, then the best defence is often to do nothing at all! At the moment, despite all that billowing smoke, there still isn’t a direct accusation to respond to; that is, unless the White House chooses to see one.

Will they or won’t they?

Senator McCain has conjured the smoke. Now he’s hoping that the White House, should they respond, will conjure the flames.

Imagine “How creativity works”

by Peter Watts

“Our most important mental talent: the ability to imagine what has never existed.”

“Imagine” explores the latest mechanics of creative brain science; all our little grey cells and the zaps and flashes of insight zinging between them.

Jonah Lehrer brings together all the facts and lays them out in this relaxed guide. If you are a fan of the New Yorker or similar magazines, you’ll recognize the long-form writing style that makes the book so easy to drop in and out of.

Hard science blends with anecdotes and interviews. Scientists, business people, educators, and innovators all come join the project. I came to particularly enjoy the little word-sketches that Jonah Lehrer uses to introduce and visualize his interviewees, ranging from urban campaigners through to an Israeli technologist who was so chilled that he was quite literally horizontal.

The care taken in writing these descriptions means that the stars-of-the-show, the enviable selection of interviewees, all feel as if they are in the room along with you.

The book touches on to a wide arena of subject areas from neuroscience through to urban planning, education, and even intellectual property law. All of which, it turns out, are having significant impacts on the creative intelligence of society.

A wide source of ideas and inspiration for a wide range of public-speaking topics.

You can find out more about the author by visiting www.jonahlehrer.com

and you can catch the video promo for “Imagine” by clicking here.

Why you will fail to have a great career

by Peter Watts

Universities can scrap the scheduled speakers for this year’s graduation ceremonies. They can whack up a  screen and speakers, and play their students this TedX jewel instead.

Professor Larry Smith of the University of Waterloo, berating students about “Why you are going to fail to have a great career”.

The Professor enumerates for his audience the reasons for failure, pick-axing one after another the self-destructive excuses we feed ourselves for not reaching our dreams.

“I’m an economist, I do dismal.”

Not only does he do dismal (inspiringly), he does manic, funny, and spit-flecked passion. He does logic, structure, and crafted balancing of speech techniques. He offers a 15 minute alternate take on the tired old formula of the Commencement Address, and delivers memorable and stand-out thought provoking.

The talk veers through life stages from birth to death. From a digression on how not to propose marriage through to what your gravestone epitaph will say compared to what it could have said.

No punches are pulled in highlighting the self-destructive tropes we feed ourselves for why we can’t stand-up to achieve greatness……

Unless…….