So you either saw Obama or your saw someone else. About 300 words on the content, delivery, etc. See previous assignment on the speech observation you did earlier for cues on what you should talk about.
At the end, though, I'd like you to boil all of your analysis into 3 take home points for us.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I went to see Nina Berman in “The American Political and Social Landscape through Visual Communication.” She presented work from her books Purple Hearts and Homeland which documented wounded Iraqi war veterans and militarization in American life respectively in the Annenberg Auditorium. I felt torn throughout the speech, torn between trying to lean forward to absorb all the nuances of the pictures, and trying to push myself as far away as possible from the front of the room, where Berman was, and into the seat of my chair because I felt annoyed at her irritatingly timid and poor delivery. She used a lot of vocal fillers, did not give us eye contact choosing to stare instead down at the podium, and assumed a spineless stance. She tended to swivel side to side while she spoke, which only accented her uncertainty and did not open her mouth completely so while I could still understand every word, I felt she undermined the potency of her words that fully enunciating would have bestowed. The third thing I think she should do is start using transitions. Immediately after showing us a video comprised of her work from Purple Heart, she pulled up the photos for her Homeland book. I would have preferred to hear her explicitly link these two topics together, or to tell us that we were moving onto a new topic.
ReplyDeletePart II
ReplyDeleteHowever, I did enjoy the content of her presentation. This was one of the things I felt she did very well. She explained that why she wanted to take pictures—she felt disconnected from the war and wanted to help others who were also distanced—and told us that she had preserved the neutrality and consequently credibility of the photographs she took because she had refrained from committing to a pro or anti war stance while photographing. Her pictures were also well presented, in a logical and fluid manner. The second thing that I thought she did well was preserving objectivity during her presentation. She told us that she wanted us to see the different effects of war. She showed us two pictures of a wedding between a facially deformed war veteran and his bride. The first picture depicted the cliché consummate happiness despite the mutilated face of the veteran, and the second picture showed the bride staring uncertainly into the distance while the veteran’s damaged face was revealed more fully in the picture. These two pictures showed the two sides of war, which was what she wanted us to see, and so I thought she accomplished everything she promised in her speech. Furthermore, she did not over-talk her pictures. This is the third thing she did elegantly, and it was the best thing she did. She gave her pictures enough breathing time while supplying us with only necessary background information. Her narration fit in well with her pictures, and her pacing felt natural and complementary to the topic.
I’m glad I attended this event because I was able to see a different take on visual presentations, with the speech supplementing the visual instead of the other way around. Berman’s mousey delivery however, revealed to me the importance of holding and directing the audience’s attention, even if there is a competing visual aid. Two other things I will try to take from her presentation include interspersing pauses skillfully in a presentation and present information objectively so that I maximize my credibility.
I saw Obama at USC and watched address to the military in Pensacola, Florida on YouTube. At USC, he rallied support for Democrats with a metaphor he has used before – Republicans “drove” the country into a ditch and he worked hard to get us all out. In Pensacola, the content was meaningful and serious – He was thanking the military for their response to the oil crisis.
ReplyDeleteIn both speeches, Obama had strong delivery. At USC, he was personable and conversational, but may have sounded like he was bashing Republicans with friends. In Pensacola, he successfully incorporated hand gestures and volume variation. For example, he raised his voice when he said 100% of Americans need to support the troops.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAt USC, Obama tried to make the audience feel welcome with “Fight On” and “si se puede.” However, he used strong anti-Republican rhetoric which marginalized Republicans in attendance. He should have kept in mind that many members of the audience were USC students that were not Democrats, but wanted to hear him speak. He also incorporated audience analysis at Pensacola by using patriotic rhetoric – He began with appreciating the pledge and national anthem, and ended by saying “God Bless America.”
ReplyDeleteThe crowd dynamics make a big difference when listening to a speech. At USC, seeing Obama live meant standing packed into a group of people where you can hardly see him. One lady even clung on to me and yelled for everyone to sit down so she could see!
Overall, Obama generally has strong delivery, he attempts to tailor his speech to the audience, and I found it’s a lot easier to focus on the content and delivery of a speech while watching online – where I won’t be used as a ladder.
I also went to see Nina Berman in “The American Political and Social Landscape through Visual Communication.” The Visions and Voices event was held in the Annenberg Auditorium last Thursday. The audience was mostly a mix of adults and students (probably attracted by the free food, which was fantastic). Berman presented some of the work from her book Purple Hearts, which featured very graphic pictures of wounded veterans from the Iraqi war. She gave a very brief background behind her work, explaining her reasoning behind wanting the photograph these wounded soldiers to show the harsh realities of war that aren't shown to the general public through major news outlets, but she didn't really give much of a personal background. She started off with a video without much context beforehand, so to me it was a bit awkward. The presentation was meant to showcase her photography, which was very impacting, but I expected to hear more supportive and enthusiastic commentary along with the pictures I was seeing up on the screen. I was surprised by the quality of her voice and presentation, which was rather dull and emotionless. Also, her actual visual presentation wasn't as put together as I would have hoped for a Visions and Voices event; she spent a notable amount of time trying to find where the images she wanted to present were on her computer, which I thought was a bit unprofessional.
ReplyDelete(cont'd)
ReplyDeleteI was more satisfied with her commentary as the presentation progressed to where she was showing photos from her book Homeland, as she started to explain more about her work and the reasons why she was so motivated to capture the images that she did. She talked about how she learned a lot about the motivations of the soldiers and the isolation that they felt after coming through the interviews and photo shoots she had with them, giving her work more of a dynamic and story to follow. Even so, her tone and hand gestures were not engaging at all, and considering the subject matter I thought that she would have been a little more passionate about what she was presenting.
Overall I was moved by Berman's work, but I wish I could have been given a bit more context behind what she was about to present before she started showing her photography. Also, I was unimpressed by the tone and volume of her voice, as well as her nonverbal presentation skills. Lastly, I would definitely consider a well-prepared presentation an important aspect of any form of public speaking; I was definitely contemplating credibility as I was watching Berman search for her presentation on her computer.
PART 1:
ReplyDeleteI saw President Obama’s speech on Friday, October 22nd in front of Doheny Library at the University of Southern California. I will begin by contrasting the Obama I saw in person with the Obama I’ve observed via media platforms. Obama’s physical presence is not at all intimidating. Rather, he presents himself as very approachable – like a regular guy that just happens to be the President of the United States of America. He seemed relaxed, his shirt-sleeves were rolled up, and he talked to us, not at us, about an issue towards which he felt a particular conviction – in this case the encouragement of the Democratic vote in the November election. I was fortunate to be in very close proximity to The President and was amazed at how naturally he engaged with his audience. This was contradictory to my preconceived notions about what I thought my experience would be like. In watching Obama speak online or on TV, I perceive much more distance between Obama and his audience – that there exists a tone of deference to his authority, and relatedly less audience interaction. This perceived distance is particularly evident in another speech I watched entitled, “A Just and Lasting Peace” in which Obama was accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. This tonal discrepancy is likely based upon the obvious difference in occasion. However, I think it is also important to point out that many USC students were expecting a more epic speech than the one presented leading to overall dissatisfaction with the experience.
PART 2:
ReplyDeleteI will briefly highlight Obama’s constructs of delivery and content. Obama was very good at incorporating pauses into his delivery for emphasis. He also varied his volume and pitch to keep the audience on its toes. He encouraged audience interaction by building on the momentum he had created with the speech through his articulation of gestures that welcomed applause and verbal agreement. As far as content, I feel his speech was not catered to USC students but rather towards democratic voters. He did his best to incorporate aspects specific to the University (for example the use of the phrase “Fight On” and “I want to move forward Trojans”) but overall, as a student, I felt that these were just cheap attempts to rally applause because I didn’t feel targeted. Also, by employing the metaphor that the Republicans have driven Washington into a ditch leaving a mess that he has had to clean up, Obama successfully alienated USC Republican students that may have been excited to hear him speak or were supportive of him despite their ties to their political party.
Three Take Homes:
-Obama’s approachable demeanor as a contrast to the more stoic and referent tone of the event many in the audience expected.
- Obama’s delivery effectively emphasized his main points
-Obama’s content as marginalizing to Republicans, did not target USC Students
*reverent tone of the event
ReplyDeleteWhen watching President Obama, one realizes that he is an extremely confident speaker who is able to command the stage. When comparing Obama’s speech at USC to another speech he gave at another university for their graduation, the University of Michigan, one sees that like any speaker who is trying to gain an audience’s attention he tries to cater to them by saying things like, “Fight ON!” or in the case of Michigan, “Go Blue!” Despite the audience being predominantly the same for both speeches, namely college students, the speeches did differ in the subject matters as well as atmosphere, which in return changed Obama’s demeanor. In the USC speech, Obama embodied a rock star as he ran out onto the stage, giving high-fives to all the students sitting behind the podium as if they were seated ready to watch a football game or a concert. He was relaxed and dressed much less formally and his main purpose of the speech was to persuade us college students to vote! In the Michigan speech he was giving a graduation speech where he was much more reserved and dressed in appropriate graduation attire. He was not high-fiving, and his speech was not one of persuasion, but rather addressing the future and commenting on social acceptance.
ReplyDeleteThe atmosphere also greatly affects a speech. What I found bizarre about the USC speech was the amount of people who waited in five hour long lines and then left as soon as President Obama began his speech. Also, with a bad sound system it was extremely difficult to understand what Obama was saying and a large amount of people around the area I was in were talking with each other and not even paying attention. The Michigan speech was a much more subdued event where everyone was quite and attentive to the speech. Overall I enjoyed President Obama’s Michigan speech more than the one he gave at USC. His I found his message to be much more effective and less of a rock concert setting. As many people commented, I felt that the speech was not catered toward USC students as a whole, but that our facilities were just being used to give the speech. In my opinion, his USC speech also did not have anything extremely memorable.
As I waited in line, I couldn’t stop thinking about how I was getting the chance of a lifetime to watch one of our nations most iconic speeches. I was prepared to be moved. Maybe it was because I had too high of expectations or maybe it was simply the context and message, but I didn’t receive the emotional experience that I was expecting to have while listening to our Presidents voice. That said, I found there to have been many strong facets of his presentation. Firstly, he, as in most of his other appearances, had a very strong presence on stage. Despite his informality (sporting no jacket), he was able to engage the audience with his fluctuation in tone in tandem with his gestures. He, as in many of his other public appearances, demonstrated his innate ability to coordinate his gestures, volume, tone, and punctuation in perfect harmony. Secondly, he adapted his message to the context in which he presented it.
ReplyDeleteIt comes as no surprise that he targeted his audience towards USC students, trying to rally the youth vote. More interestingly, he included Spanish in his speech, which could be considered controversial because of the current debate over national language. It shows how committed he is to adapting to an audience. Despite the strengths of his speech, I still found it hard to fully involve myself in the experience. His biggest flaw, in my opinion, was that despite adapting to his audience, he failed to fully engage them and fully enrapture them with his words. He was missing the energy that has made his other appearances examples of public speaking that are praised and admired.
ReplyDeleteIn conclusion, Obama:
Aligned many qualities that are integral to public speaking such as volume, tone, and movement in order to enhance his speech.
Demonstrated that he put in considerable effort to adapt his message to the audience.
Despite his efforts, failed to deliver a speech that I will look back on in ten years and remember as an amazing opportunity/experience.
Part 1:
ReplyDeleteI attended President Obama’s speech in front of Doheny Library on October 22, 2010 and also watched his speech in Nashua, New Hampshire on the night of the primaries. For the speech I viewed online, it became clear that Obama is an extremely talented orator whose charisma can make anyone believe in every word he says. He spoke with a very fluid rhythm, allowing pauses for his words to sink in with the audience as well as for the audience to quiet down. His facial expressions appeared much more serious and authoritative. I thought he did a great job of being natural on the stage and it did not look like he was reading off a teleprompter. He used devices such as repetition as he stated over and over “there is something happening when…” to drive home the points he was making. He understood who his audience was and made sure they felt listener relevance as he made an effort to reach out to the younger generation and made them feel like this speech was about them. He states that despite partisan differences we are all going to work together, being sure not to alienate anyone in his audience. In this speech, his tone was elevated with passion at the end of his statements. When the audience starts chanting “we want change,” Obama breaks out in a huge smile, straying away from his otherwise serious face, giving him a more relaxed and natural vibe. Overall, he was extremely composed and used his hand movements naturally as they went along with what he was saying.
Part 2:
ReplyDeleteAs for his speech at USC, I could not disagree more with what I have previously written about Obama than I can after seeing him in person. Perhaps it was the large crowd, or the “rock concert vibe,” or even knowing that he was making a stop at USC as part of his college tour for reelection, but everything in this speech felt contrived and effortless. Aside from a few remarks about “fighting on,” there was nothing specific to USC, which completely turned myself and other students away from what he was saying. Knowing a large amount of students at USC are Republicans, despite having the people from the local area there, he should have talked more about reuniting the parties as he did in his speech at the primaries rather than constantly alienating people who were not Democrats. Thus his speaker credibility as well as listener relevance were shot. I ended up leaving toward the end of his speech because it was too crowded and loud to understand a word he was saying. Overall, I would much prefer to watch his speech either on TV or in a much more composed, serious venue where I could pay attention to him and really understand his words]
3 main points:
- The venue determines the tone of the speech and how receptive the audience is.
- Without establishing listener relevance, your message will fail no matter how well the presentation is.
- the audience can tell when something is real or fake, so do not give a speech you are not passionate about.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFor my speech observation, I saw President Barack Obama speak on campus on October 22nd. I was extremely optimistic about seeing him in person on the campus that
ReplyDeleteI walk on every day. I waited in the dramatically long lines and finally found a spot where I was surrounded by a ton of people could get a tiny glimpse of him. The environment started the event off on a bad foot since there were so many people packed into one place and because I was so far away from the stage. Before he actually came on stage, there was a band playing before that was not very good, along with speakers that tried to get the crowd upbeat such as Jerry Brown, Barbara Boxer, and Jamie Foxx. I felt that Jamie Foxx was obnoxious and was not funny at all and if anything he was just a distraction because of how absurd he was acting.
When Obama finally took the stage, I instantly became excited. I couldn’t believe that I was actually seeing the President of the United States in person. I was greatly anticipating what he was going to say. At first, he maintained my attention and used a lot of rah-rah techniques to get all of the USC students excited about what he was about to say. He did a good job of identifying his audience by saying, “Fight On!” and things like that. But once he started talking, I slowly began to lose interest. I felt like he used too much slang such as, “Si se puede!” and more that I could not connect with. It seemed like he was “dumbing it down” for the audience, which actually insulted me. He also started slamming the political, especially the Republican Party, and how their past political figures left this country in such a mess. He kept promoting the Democratic Party and how we should continue to vote Democrat.
This was also something that made me to lose interest in what he was saying. He didn’t even give enough background information on the subject that he was talking about. When he was giving his speech, his method of delivery was too plain. It seemed like he was just talking to us, which usually would be good except he was presenting his speech at a rally. He did not motivate me or move me to do something. It was hard for me to really focus on the message that he was saying and I felt that he contradicted himself when afterwards, he asked for “everyone to join.” In the end, I was not moved by his speech at all and was extremely disappointed by the event. I was even more disappointed when I found out in class that he uses the same speech at each event.
ReplyDeleteEven though I didn’t get a lot from what he was saying, I did think that he showed good public speaking techniques. First, he did a good job of using metaphors, which allowed him to make certain points in his speech personable. He identified the audience by recognizing some of USC’s traditions such as our slogan. He also changed the variation in his voice during points of emphasis and used really good hand gestures. Last, when I was walking out I saw him blown up on one of the big screens and I noticed how he maintained really good eye contact with the audience.
3 Main Points:
ReplyDelete1. The environment greatly affected my experience at the rally.
2. He did a good job of identifying the audience, but did a poor job because he insulted our intelligence by "dumbing it down" for us.
3. Exemplified many qualities of a good public speaker such as variation in his tone of voice, identification of the audience, eye contact, and using metaphors and figurative language within his speech.
PART 1:
ReplyDeleteLike many of you, I went to the Obama rally, and while I was very proud to have him at our campus, I don’t think he necessarily knocked it out of the park. Much of my disappointment came from the event planning in general, but some definitely came from the President’s speech content as well. In terms of the event, I think it was overcrowded and that students should have been given priority seating. Also, I thought the opening “acts” were very bland and did the opposite of pump people up. By that time, we just wanted to see the President speak.
In terms of the actual speech Obama gave, I must say that there were some things I thought he did well and some things he did poorly. I think he always has a very rhythmic voice, and this was no exception. His words almost sounded like poetry, and were especially powerful when he gathered momentum and got really passionate about his subject. He also did a great job seeming extemporaneous, as I rarely saw his look at a teleprompter or script. He used had gestures well and his vocabulary was eloquent, yet comprehensible.
PART 2:
ReplyDeleteI thought his metaphor about the ditch was very descriptive and fit his argument well, but I think it was inappropriately cynical of the Republican Party. Personally, I am a Democrat and do think his point was valid, but his approach was a little too condescending considering his audience. I don’t know if he expected this, but I think a lot of the students and locals alike who attended did so to be patriotic and proud Angelinos—not necessarily because they were Democrats; thus, I think he legitimately offended a lot of his audience. I think regardless of political affiliation a lot of Americans are tired of dirty politics and want to hear more about what candidates will do well, rather than about what they’re opponents do poorly. In general, I wish our President would have acted above dirty politics and talked more about pressing issues, but I suppose shit-talking is somewhat inevitable at a political rally these days.
TAKE HOMES:
1) his elocution was very rhythmic and smooth
2) he did a good job of seeming extemporaneous
3) BUT, he didn't read his audience well and wasn't very persuasive with the defensive approach he took
When attending the speech by president Obama, I got to experience something that not many people will be able to in their lifetime. Obma is known as one of the greatest public speaker, so it was valuable to be able to see him in person. He used easy language that his audience could understand. The crowd was mostly made up of Los Angeles locals and USC students. The locals were mostly Hispanic or African American. Obama catered to them by saying the phrase “si se puede” which means “yes we can” in Spanish. The audience seemed to love this. He also appealed to the audience of students by saying “fight on”. He also talked about how not everyone can afford USC and he wants to help everyone afford it. Obama also used a lot of metaphors in his speaking. The metaphors were easy to understand like describing our economic situation as a car in a ditch. He tried to keep the tone conversational and lively by throwing in jokes, and laughing every now and then. He even used slang like “nah that’s alright” and talked about slurpies. His listener relevance was that this is our country and we can’t go back to the past, this affects all of us. Of course, he seemed very comfortable in front of the crowd. He used pauses when necessary, and seemed calm but energized about the subject. Obama was the only speaker of the day that I did not get annoyed listening to. His charisma for me overcame the content of the speech. The other speakers were very biased and were trying to make the republicans look like the bad guys. I understand it was a Democratic rally, but with possible Republicans in the audience, it would have been advantageous to maybe persuade them by being inviting instead of isolating them.
ReplyDeleteSo my three take home points from this speech:
1. Obama is an awesome public speaker that is hard to not pay attention and listen to.
2. His content was easy to understand, and very catered to his audience.
3. He uses such a conversational tone that it seems like he is personally talking to you, which is a great thing.
I chose to compare the speech President Obama made on USC campus with his Address to the Students of America. The Address to the Students of America took place at a high school in Wakefield Virginia on September 8th 2009. Essentially the President asked the students of America to take responsibility for their education and to put pride in their work.
ReplyDeleteBoth of President Obama’s speeches were given at institutions of education and were geared towards America’s youth. His target audience was made clear through his diction. In both speech’s he said “students like you”, “you are the future of America”, “as youth, you must…” and other things of that nature. These statements acted as great listener relevance links and succeeded in engrossing me further into the speech. My generation is constantly being called anything from the Facebook, prescription pill to sextexing generation. Hearing your president say that you need to stay in school “so you can help us old folks solve our most difficult problems” is pretty inspiring. Furthermore he referenced USC by telling America to fight on and made a joke about the Virginian high school he was speaking at. Both of these comments were extremely well received. He understood his audience and catered to them effectively.
The first major difference in Obama’s public speaking at these two event’s were in his delivery. During the Address to the Students he spoke in a far less dramatic and exciting way. He had fewer empowering patriotic statement’s followed by long pauses for applause and kept his tone more stagnant. The Address to the Student’s had very little of the extreme nationalism that seemed to define his speech at USC. One might argue that over emphasis of political pride in his speech at USC was to be expected because the event was actually a rally. In essence, it was a persuasive speech to get people to vote democrat. Hownever the Address to the Students was also a persuasive speech because its goal was to persuade kids to work harder in school. Never the less in his Address to the Students he took a more sophisticated approach by yelling less and telling personal stories about the struggles he and his wife had to endure for their education.
Finally the crowd at the rally was pretty obnoxious. Everyone was impatient and not terribly enthusiastic. Had I seen the speech from my living room and just recognized it as USC campus I may have enjoyed myself more. In conclusion, know your audience and cater to them, dramatic statements wont get you everywhere and personalizing your story really works.
For my speech observation, I saw President Barack Obama speak on campus on October 22nd. I went in knowing that Campus was going to be complete madness. People were already lined up the street waiting to get a good look at the President at 5:30 AM as I was on my way to practice. I could not really see the President during his speech, but I still felt like I was involved in something very important. I feel like there were two different audiences. One was USC students, and one was the other various “Community” members who don’t usually walk around USC. Mr.Obama tried to appeal to his audience by having Jamie Foxx, a young, famous, cool, Black actor introduce him. Jamie Foxx relates to black community members and college students. However I don’t think this worked in the way he wanted it to because I think Jamie Foxx was there to awe the audience, where actually he just came off as unimportant and cheesy. Obama him self did pretty well at audience analysis, especially because he had such a diverse audience. By adding lines like Si se puede!” to connect with the Hispanic community and “fight on!” to connect with SC students. He was also very good with his rhythm and tone, He knew just when to get his audience excited by talking faster and escalating his voice. He had a solid rhythm and used pauses for dramatic effect. I think the most important thing was his conversational and casual tone. His whole speech was about voting democratic, and after the initial shock of the president speaking at my school, he seemed relatable and I wanted to listen to what he had to say.
ReplyDelete3 main points:
1. He has great rhythm and use of pauses,that kept my attention and got me excited.
2. Conversational tone that made what he had to say relatable
3. Good attempt at audience relevance by adding “Flight on!”, using jokes and “si,se puede!”
I went to a Visions and Voices event called Calendar Oddities where Solomon Wolf Golomb of the USC Viterbi School, Noel Swerdlow, professor of the history of science and astronomy at Caltech, Arthur Benjamin, a professor of mathematics at Harvey Mudd College spoke.
ReplyDeleteThis presentation could have been one of two things, a very banal or a very complicated discussion. On the one hand you have the year with 365 days, etc… and on the other you have spatial relationships between celestial bodies. The speakers covered the whole spectrum.
Wolf Golomb, with his long white beard, was a pleasant guy to listen talk. He reminded me of a good grandfather should be like. Friendly and excited about the story he was telling. One of his eccentricities was that he used an acetate projector for his presentation and covered parts he hadn’t discussed yet with a piece of paper. Sometimes he would mess up, lose a slide, or fumble with the paper but all this was okay. The projector itself, with it’s head sticking up, blocking my view of his slide is what bothered me most. He spoke clearly, and simply, and it was easy to understand what he was talking about. He addressed relatively complicated scientific subjects in a very simple and straightforward way (perhaps too simply for a scientifically oriented audience, but there were all kinds of people at this event so I think his approach was appropriate).
Next was Noel Swerdlow. He used powerpoint, but he might have as well used the acetate projector, because he didn’t care to conceal anything in his slides. It appeared as though he just scanned dense textbook pages and projected them. We wouldn’t even really read what the slides said they were so small and technical. He basically repeated everything Golomb had gone over just a moment before but in intense scientific detail. Had I not just heard Golomb’s presentation I feel like I would have been completely lost. Furthermore, he spoke extremely quickly, and as thought we were students of his at CalTech (which we weren’t) so his air or arrogant superiority and intellectuality was somewhat annoying. Of course, I probably ended up learning the most from him but it was a little overwhelming.
Last to speak was Arthur Benjamin, who besides being a professor or math is also a performer and crowd charmer. He performed some tricks for the audience such as guessing the day of the week they were born based on the birthday and multiplying 3 digit numbers faster than a calculator. This was cool and all, but he really didn’t have that much to say about calendars. In the end he kind of skimmed over how he could guess (more like figure out) the weekday of people based on their birthdays but he was running out of time so I really didn’t get it very well.
Three points:
Don’t use acetate projectors. They can block the audience’s view with their head and your body.
Don’t overload your slides with useless information that the audience isn’t even going to grasp.
It’s good to engage the audience but relate it back to the main topic otherwise what’s the point of entertaining?
I went to a Visions and Voices event called Calendar Oddities where Solomon Wolf Golomb of the USC Viterbi School, Noel Swerdlow, professor of the history of science and astronomy at Caltech, Arthur Benjamin, a professor of mathematics at Harvey Mudd College spoke.
ReplyDeleteThis presentation could have been one of two things, a very banal or a very complicated discussion. On the one hand you have the year with 365 days, etc… and on the other you have spatial relationships between celestial bodies. The speakers covered the whole spectrum.
Wolf Golomb, with his long white beard, was a pleasant guy to listen talk. He reminded me of a good grandfather should be like. Friendly and excited about the story he was telling. One of his eccentricities was that he used an acetate projector for his presentation and covered parts he hadn’t discussed yet with a piece of paper. Sometimes he would mess up, lose a slide, or fumble with the paper but all this was okay. The projector itself, with it’s head sticking up, blocking my view of his slide is what bothered me most. He spoke clearly, and simply, and it was easy to understand what he was talking about. He addressed relatively complicated scientific subjects in a very simple and straightforward way (perhaps too simply for a scientifically oriented audience, but there were all kinds of people at this event so I think his approach was appropriate).
Next was Noel Swerdlow. He used powerpoint, but he might have as well used the acetate projector, because he didn’t care to conceal anything in his slides. It appeared as though he just scanned dense textbook pages and projected them. We wouldn’t even really read what the slides said they were so small and technical. He basically repeated everything Golomb had gone over just a moment before but in intense scientific detail. Had I not just heard Golomb’s presentation I feel like I would have been completely lost. Furthermore, he spoke extremely quickly, and as thought we were students of his at CalTech (which we weren’t) so his air or arrogant superiority and intellectuality was somewhat annoying. Of course, I probably ended up learning the most from him but it was a little overwhelming.
ReplyDeleteLast to speak was Arthur Benjamin, who besides being a professor or math is also a performer and crowd charmer. He performed some tricks for the audience such as guessing the day of the week they were born based on the birthday and multiplying 3 digit numbers faster than a calculator. This was cool and all, but he really didn’t have that much to say about calendars. In the end he kind of skimmed over how he could guess (more like figure out) the weekday of people based on their birthdays but he was running out of time so I really didn’t get it very well.
Three points:
Don’t use acetate projectors. They can block the audience’s view with their head and your body.
Don’t overload your slides with useless information that the audience isn’t even going to grasp.
It’s good to engage the audience but relate it back to the main topic otherwise what’s the point of entertaining?
Part I
ReplyDeleteAs I walked along 34th street behind Leavey library at 7:30AM on October 22nd, I experienced a sharp pang in my stomach as I witnessed a swiftly forming line waiting for the arrival of President Obama. Was I really going to miss the opportunity to listen to the President of the United States speak on my very own college campus? Sadly, yes. Although, I was still headed to the Davidson Conference Center for a conference with some enormously successful individuals who would cover two issues that have been at the forefront of President Obama’s presidency, Health Reform and the Economy.
This conference, eloquently titled “Health Reform and the Economy: Are They Good for Each Other?”, was packed with many speakers ranging from health plan provider CEOs, Pharmaceutical CEOs, renowned economists, etc. My focus, however, is on the man who I consider to be to the most memorable speaker of the event, for both positive and not so positive reasons. Leonard D. Schaeffer is a man of extraordinary accomplishment, serving as the current Judge Robert Maclay Widney Chair and Professor at USC, acting as the former Chairman and CEO of WellPoint (the nation’s largest health insurance company), and serving on numerous committees of high acclaim. His presence as he approached the podium is best described as “jolly”. An older man, with a white-grey beard and plump rosy cheeks, I was immediately drawn to this strangely familiar character… although the content of his speech would not leave the audience with any sense of joy. Mr. Schaeffer spoke about the impact of Health Reform, and the potential dangers involved with such a large, sweeping piece of legislation. He made sure to present his information in very understandable and descriptive terms, which was extremely helpful to me considering the fact that I was one of eight undergraduates in a room filled with PhD students, physicians, health insurance brokers, researchers, CEOs of every shape and kind, and even a Nobel Laureate.
Part II
ReplyDeleteIn addition to explaining certain measures of the reform in very feasible and fluid terms, Mr. Schaeffer had an EXCELLENT power point, which he used as an effective supplementary tool to his speech. Certain points he made about cost projections were beautifully demonstrated by graphs and subtle animation (all of which he explained to the audience, so that we could grasp the importance of what was being shown). Additionally, when dealing with topics such as health reform and the economy, it is very easy to overwhelm one’s audience with information (especially considering the level of intelligence of the speakers throughout this conference) and bore one’s listeners to death. However, Mr. Schaeffer was an extremely engaging speaker who entranced the audience with his booming and somewhat uniquely sounding voice, while naturally injecting humor as a means of keeping his listeners engaged.
Two slightly disconcerting areas of his speech have to do with his tone and the intention of his speech. While, for the most part, Mr. Schaeffer maintained a conversational rhythm and aurally-pleasing tone, there were points in his speech during which he took on a slightly condescending tone… as though, if only the policymakers in Washington had listened to him, the nation wouldn’t be starring down the barrel of a shotgun, i.e. the immeasurable amount debt that will ensue as a product of Health Care Reform. And while his projections weren’t necessarily wrong and appeared to be quite logical, perhaps his approach was a bit too abrasive for the more liberal members of the audience. Finally, the intention of Mr. Schaeffer’s seemed to border between persuasion and information. In addition to his brilliant presentation of facts and projections, Mr. Schaeffer’s speech seemed to have a strongly opinionated undertone which was quite easy to pick up on: he simply did not agree with the organization of the Health Care Reform Bill. Perhaps, as one of the speakers of the 1st annual Schaeffer Center Conference, he felt somewhat entitled to infuse his opinion into this speech. Although, the unclear distinction of the nature of this talk may have cause some individuals to perceive Mr. Schaeffer as “preachy”.
Part III
ReplyDeleteOverall I believe that Mr. Schaeffer left the audience with a message that both liberal and conservative listeners could agree on: Health care reform in the United States was overdue and inevitable, however, with such a massive act of reform it is essential to understand the cost implications. Members of differing viewpoints must come together in order to develop the most cost-effective, quality care possible for the greatest amount of people, because if we cannot work together under a humanistic approach while maintaining a sense of realistic terms, drastic cuts may ultimately be left up to future governments which may wind up hurting more people than the reform has actually helped. Overall his speech was engaging and effective (at least in my case), and his public speaking abilities were something to be admired and hopefully emulated someday.
Three take-away points:
1. Despite how much you may know about your topic, it is always best to explain potentially confusing concepts in understandable and descriptive terms (you can never assume the extent of what your audience may already know).
2. Power point can be an extremely effective tool as long as you take the time to describe what is being displayed on the power point, and effectively balance your time between speaking and explaining. Also, the visual aides on your power point must be well crafted!
3. Refrain from injecting your own personal bias into a speech when you have not established the type of speech being given. Informative speeches should allow for the audience to piece together the information being presented and form their own thoughts/opinions. Whereas, the audience won’t be so “put off” by the inclusion of bias, if they are aware that the presenter is intentionally giving a persuasive speech.
OBAMA speech analysis
ReplyDeleteI attended Obama’s speech that was held in front of Doheny Library on USC’s campus. I was incredibly excited to have the opportunity to see our very own president give a speech to our student body… or so I thought. The only awareness I had of the event was through the emails sent out to students advertising his appearance as a “speech”. What I observed and heard from blasting speakers was not a speech, but rather a Democratic rally in support of Barbara Boxer and all other Democratic candidates that incorporated bashing of the Republican party. Although I am a strong Republican, I consider myself a moderate and was disappointed at the democratically slanted content of the rally and speech, for Obama blatantly ignored any sort of audience analysis.
I will first comment on Obama’s presence. I observed the speech on the small grassy knoll outside Annenberg and was fortunately lucky enough to see Obama come out of VKC and run around the crowd and up to the podium. With his sleeves rolled up, he came into the speech grounded and on the same level as the audience. His delivery and ability to incorporate a varied tone with select pauses was nearly flawless. His style was more conversational, which applied to the content of the speech that I was not aware of: a Democratic Rally. However, he completely failed to properly address the student body of USC and any sort of Republican students that came to see him speak. Phrases such as “the Republicans drove Washington D.C. into a ditch” made it seem like he was bashing the party as a whole which aggravated me because he was not speaking of the good of the country, but rather the good of a political party. Lastly, I felt that his speech was slightly discredited due to the rally prior to his speech that included loud “Whoop Whoops and Si Se Puede”.
To compare this, I watched Obama’s speech on Education, which was addressed to students aging from Kindergarten to 12th grade. His excellent delivery was prevalent and he used audience analysis correctly by giving examples pertaining to youth and using appropriate language and vocabulary. He connected with his audience by using his personal life as an example of starting from nothing (he was raised by a single mother in poverty) to attending college, law school, and now US Presidency. Following that, he used a similar story about his wife, Michelle who grew up in poverty and attended college as well. His main point of the speech was that our current youth is the future of America and a successful future is only obtainable through education. His flow of thoughts was very good and throughout the speech he remained calm and collected.
Three main points to take home:
1. Obama's delivery is generally excellent regardless of the situation or speech topic.
2. In certain situations, such as a political rally, Obama fails to recognize audience analysis and his party favoritism is very obvious.
3. Obama generally gives off a casual and comfortable vibe when speaking to others which is good because it sets him on common ground with his audience.
I went to see president Obama speak on October 22, 2010 in front of Doheny. I was pretty excited to hear him seeing that traffic was stopped around campus for an eternity. I have seen him multiple times on television and because my dad is a huge fan of him, he always tells me I need to improve my public speaking by watching president Obama. The crowd was a blend of USC kids who did not go out on Thursday night and a bunch of locals. Although I am not he biggest supporter of Obama's policies, I do respect his presence and leadership capabilities, and his speech bordered on the "rally" side. His use of Spanish was not so intriguing to me as a SC student. Of all schools in California, USC probably has more republicans, but since LA and the college crowd is his future, he had to muster up a speech to give us. Saying "Fight On" probably gave us a little connection through pathos. If that didnt, Jamie Foxx, the songgirls, and the USC marching band should have. With that said, I do believe Obama chose the wrong audience to appeal to, because I as a college student understand a little more than the basics of his fundamental preaching.
ReplyDeleteObama was a little too biased for the democratic party. His opening statements talking about his first race in Chicago was kind of a rant and did not get straight to the point. His speech was generic and not tailored to the USC crowd. His several related points were his talk about tax breaks on education and he gave examples about schools having budgets cut. People chanted USA USA USA, but did he know that he was at a private institution? I would love to cut tuition but just because Obama is elected, it doesn't mean that USC will be cheaper. Public education is a important aspect to California and that is currently spiraling downhill. He definitely bashed on the Republicans a bit and using "Proud to be American" to justify his points. He called the Republican campaign an amnesia, which is a little harsh, with a bunch of Republicans in our student body. As a president who preaches on unity between parties, he sure does sound demeaning to the Republicans.
Main Points:
1) Obama has a great tone and dictation to his presentations. His command over his word and voice is unparalleled.
2) His goal is his speech to USC was clear, but his choice of wording to a premier college crowd was poor and we are not average people who have no knowledge of his campaign. He could have made it more relatable by not dumbing it down.
3) His casual conversational tone is comforting and right for the mood.
1)
ReplyDeleteI went to see president Obama speak on October 22, 2010 in front of Doheny. I was pretty excited to hear him seeing that traffic was stopped around campus for an eternity. I have seen him multiple times on television and because my dad is a huge fan of him, he always tells me I need to improve my public speaking by watching president Obama. The crowd was a blend of USC kids who did not go out on Thursday night and a bunch of locals. Although I am not he biggest supporter of Obama's policies, I do respect his presence and leadership capabilities, and his speech bordered on the "rally" side. His use of Spanish was not so intriguing to me as a SC student. Of all schools in California, USC probably has more republicans, but since LA and the college crowd is his future, he had to muster up a speech to give us. Saying "Fight On" probably gave us a little connection through pathos. If that didnt, Jamie Foxx, the songgirls, and the USC marching band should have. With that said, I do believe Obama chose the wrong audience to appeal to, because I as a college student understand a little more than the basics of his fundamental preaching.
2)
ReplyDeleteObama was a little too biased for the democratic party. His opening statements talking about his first race in Chicago was kind of a rant and did not get straight to the point. His speech was generic and not tailored to the USC crowd. His several related points were his talk about tax breaks on education and he gave examples about schools having budgets cut. People chanted USA USA USA, but did he know that he was at a private institution? I would love to cut tuition but just because Obama is elected, it doesn't mean that USC will be cheaper. Public education is a important aspect to California and that is currently spiraling downhill. He definitely bashed on the Republicans a bit and using "Proud to be American" to justify his points. He called the Republican campaign an amnesia, which is a little harsh, with a bunch of Republicans in our student body. As a president who preaches on unity between parties, he sure does sound demeaning to the Republicans.
Main Points:
1) Obama has a great tone and dictation to his presentations. His command over his word and voice is unparalleled.
2) His goal is his speech to USC was clear, but his choice of wording to a premier college crowd was poor and we are not average people who have no knowledge of his campaign. He could have made it more relatable by not dumbing it down.
3) His casual conversational tone is comforting and right for the mood.