OnSpeechwriting

An Interview with the New Editor of Vital Speeches

Vital Speeches of the Day has a new editor. David Murray, the former editor of Speechwriter's Newsletter and chair of Ragan Communications' annual Speechwriters Conference, has just been handed the reins at the most respected speech journal in the country. He was kind enough to give me an interview about the new position and his goals.

Murray's Background

Murray brings nearly two decades of experience to the position. He's covers speechwriting and executive communications out of Chicago where he lives with his wife and daughter. He also edits the weekly e-newsletter Executive Communication Report and writes and speaks widely on business communication.

If that isn't enough, he also covers politics, society sport and adventure for publications ranging from ESPN the Magazine to the Chicago Tribune and websites ranging from the Huffington Post to Vibe.com. For a look at his personal blog, check out Writing Boots.

As the new editor at Vital Speeches, Murray says in the interview below the personal writing may take a backseat as he gorges on his new job. But he does have time, energy and desire to read your speeches so be sure to send them to him.

The Interview

I realize you just  got the job, but do you see any changes ahead for Vital Speeches of the Day (VSOTD)?

You’re right, I’m just getting settled. I’m afraid to move anything, for fear that one of these great stacks of speeches might fall on me! More important than editorial changes is establishing Vital Speeches online.

I’m pouring all my extra time and energy into our new website, vsotd.com, and into social media surroundings like the herding speechwriters into our new Vital Speeches group on LinkedIn, shoveling historical and contemporary speeches onto our new You Tube channel and—yes—Tweeting.

I want to make Vital Speeches relevant to more than just the Baby-boomer-and-older policy makers, executives, academics and speechwriters who read it now, and the thousands of librarians who subscribe. I want to place Vital Speeches back where it belongs—as something that gets read by everyone who’s interested in what Americans are saying, and how they’re saying it.

As far as my editorial vision, I’m not changing the 75-year-old mission of the publication. I’m just determined to search high and low, as broadmindedly as possible, for powerful oral expressions on every subject, from every point of view imaginable. I want Vital Speeches to be more than the publication of rhetorical record. I want it to be a thrill to read every month.

There’s also now an international version of Vital Speeches. Are you involved in that?

Yep, I edit Vital Speeches International, too. Traditionally, Vital Speeches has focused on American speeches; Vital Speeches International gives us a chance to showcase great talks being given outside the States.

One of the best things about Vital Speeches is that it has always showcased not only important speeches from well-known people (like Presidents and legislators) but also brought readers some fantastic speeches from relative unknowns. Is that still a goal?

Not a goal, Fletch, a mission. Check the October issue—my first—for examples of my willingness to entertain speeches on odd subjects.

What makes a vital speech today and what can speechwriters do to potentially see their work in VSOTD?

As simply as I can put it: A Vital Speech is an authentic attempt by one person to make an audience understand something that’s important to all involved. Whether that’s about healthcare, stained-glass, free trade, dog-fighting or antique Cadillacs—I don’t care. Sincere attempts to communicate ideas to audiences. That’s what I’m after, and that’s what people will subscribe to Vital Speeches to read.  

What’s the biggest no-no for speechwriters hoping to get into VSOTD?

The most tried-and-true test of a speech is: Could any other speaker but mine have given this speech to any other audience but this, at any other time in history? If the answers to most of those criteria are “no,” you’re pretty much a shoe-in. If the answer to two or more is yes, the speech is probably headed for our shitcan. 

I saw something recently I thought I’d never see in VSOTD – slides. Is that recognition that speech giving is changing and technology like PowerPoint is more accepted now?  

Don’t look for many more slides. I do, however, believe our YouTube channel will be an increasingly important part of the Vital Speeches offering. The ability to read a speech—or read along with the delivery—this’ll be instructive to speechwriters, and more interesting for readers. So expect to see some YouTube URLs at the bottom of speeches we have video for.

Is a VSOTD print publication still relevant in an Internet-era and, if so, why?

Take it from the guy who searches the World Wide Web for speeches—there’s still no other central, reliable source of good speeches out there. So as relevant as speeches still are—and I think they’re as relevant as ever—Vital Speeches is still important.   Speeches are long and hard to read online. I don’t see The New Yorker going online-only, and I don’t see Vital Speeches going that way either.   The magazine is also important a big, fat, friendly physical embodiment of a broader community of influential people and the people who help them communicate. That community will probably thrive mostly online, and I hope very much that it grows to the point that we can even have Vital Speeches gatherings someday.  

VSOTD used to be bi-weekly and now it’s a monthly. Is that a reflection of the quality of speeches or simply a reaction to production and printing costs?    

That decision was made before my time, but my understanding is that the move didn’t affect the number of speeches we carry every month—just cut the frequency of publication, which did help with costs. I think it was a good move. One of the reasons I don’t subscribe to The New Yorker is that the darn thing stacks up on me. If you launched that magazine today, you’d never in a million years do it weekly. I think VS is a natural monthly.  

What else are you doing at McMurry to connect with speechwriters and speech givers?

I mentioned Vital Speeches is on Twitter and YouTube and LinkedIn sites. I also blog and podcast at VSOTD.com and we offer news, ideas and opinions on rhetoric there. We want Vital Speeches to be the hub the rhetoric community has never had.

I know you’re passionate about speeches but you also have a personal writing project you’re working on based on your recent motorcycle trip to the Canadian maritime islands. Tell us about that.

Yes, on my personal blog, writingboots.typepad.com I wrote a serial account of that trip, to explain to my five-year-old daughter, when she grows up, why her 40-year-old dad risked his life (and to some extent her childhood) by taking off on a 4,600 mile motorcycle journey. But that seems long ago to me now. I’m up to my ears in speeches, vital and otherwise—and happy to be here.

Clinton: When Seriousness is an Advantage

There’s an old adage about speechwriting that I always fall back on when I’m at a loss about style and tone: Above all else, know thy audience.

Which is why, in any other setting or at any other time, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s speech on Wednesday might have been a bust. But she and her speechwriters do their homework as well as anyone. They understand that speeches on similar subjects can sound different, feel different and produce different results depending on the audience.

Her speech was ostensibly to the Council on Foreign Relations. But the forum before this august group was simply a conduit to a wider audience—the general public—that would never get the entire speech but only excerpts filtered through the media. (Exceptions, of course, to the relatively small numbers of policy wonks, speechwriters like us, and foreign diplomats who actually do mince every word.)

So, why was that audience mindset so important? Because it allowed her to develop a speech that was forthright, pragmatic and built with the purpose of offering up a framework for the Obama Administration’s foreign policy without the burden of having to be entertaining.

Make no mistake: This was not necessarily an entertaining speech. Contrast this speech, for example, to a shorter and lighter speech given to employees of the State Department on roughly the same subject. That one is filled with more humor, is more personable and, perhaps, is even more pleasurable to hear.

This speech is not like that. That is not a criticism. The audiences are different, and they have different needs. Employees may need humor and cajoling. This audience—both the one in the room and the one receiving it via the media—needed easy-to-understand language about what the country’s foreign policy actually is: straightforward language in clear sentences.

Besides, I may be speaking heresy here, but not all speeches have to be entertaining. They have to hold the audience and deliver a message in a way that can be understood. But they don’t necessarily have to be entertaining.

This speech is a great example. It was a serious speech about a serious subject and it was crafted in a classical (and practical) problem-solution structure.

The problem: “…the international agenda today is unforgiving: two wars, conflict in the Middle East, ongoing threats of violent extremism and nuclear proliferation, global recession, climate change, hunger and disease, and a widening gap between the rich and the poor. All of these challenges affect America’s security and prosperity, and they all threaten global stability and progress.”

The solution: A five-step approach to rebuilding the country’s foreign policy that has, at its heart, “…a new era of engagement based on common interests, shared values, and mutual respect. Going forward, capitalizing on America’s unique strengths, we must advance those interests through partnership, and promote universal values through the power of our example and the empowerment of people.”

This is a very workmanlike talk. Short on humor. Heavy on policy. But, like most of her speeches, there was still room for some nice stylistic work that helped the audience—even with the seriousness of topic—pay attention.

A few examples:

•    The problem-solution structure is one easily recognizable by all audiences.
•    The five-step solution allows the audience to follow the progress.
•    Sentence variation—long sentences followed by short, staccato lines—throughout is handled nicely and avoids a sing-songy pattern.
•    She avoids jargon.
•    There are some simple declarative statements that reinforce confidence and control. Drumbeat statements like: “They are wrong” … “Here’s how we’ll do it” … “In today’s world, that’s global malpractice,” and “We cannot go back to Cold War containment or to unilateralism,” are powerful tools for speakers to demonstrate command.

Plus, she delivered it with characteristic strength. Forceful at the right moments. Using her hands—and pointing with her finger—to reinforce important lines helps tremendously.

The overall success of her speech must be gauged over time. But her address is a great example of how to use a broad forum to begin the process of framing the arguments and key messages for your audience.

Here's video from Council on Foreign Relations. Here's audio. 

This article originally appeared at www.Ragan.com

Commencement Speeches: The Bad, the Horrendous, and the Inspired

Commencement season has largely come and gone at universities and colleges around the nation. And, once again, we’re left with the remains of speeches that ran the gamut from wonderful (thank you, Tom Brokaw.) to horrendous (think Ellen DeGeneres).

So, here’s a quick, non-scientific roundup of 2009 commencement speeches. By nonscientific I mean that these are the ones that popped up first on a Google search. (No Obama speech here – I’ve left that to others.) WARNING: IT’S A BIT LONG.

Possibly the biggest surprise is that most of these were pretty bad. If this year’s lot is typical, it’s no wonder why so few people remember their commencement speakers. Many of these speeches had potential but then ran into a variety of self-made traps. Overall, they provide us with a few key lessons.

First lesson: It’s not about you, it’s about the graduates.

Several speeches fell into this trap. For whatever reason, speakers feel that if they’re asked to speak, their life stories must be interesting to the graduates. Well, probably not. A commencement speaker’s first rule is to remember that it’s a day when the graduates are properly the center of attention.

A prime example of breaking that rule? The speech by Mokenge Malafa at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay. He gave his life story.  For 17 minutes. He used 59 “I” words and only 21 “you” words, a clear example that he forgot the rule. Compare that to Tom Brokaw’s speech which had only 21 “I” words and 43 “you” words. More about Brokaw in a moment.

Ben Bernanke’s speech at the Boston College School of Law was a little too ego-centric for my taste as well. He starts off well and gave a nice opening and self-deprecating laugh lines about being a commencement speaker. “A practitioner, like me, of the dismal science of economics--and it is even more dismal than usual these days--is not usually the first choice for providing inspiration and uplift.”

Then he took what he’s observed at the Fed and put it into a lesson for the graduates to carry away. At least, that’s what he promised when he spoke about the unpredictability of life. But then falls into the trap of telling too much about himself. I think he could have done better by telling them how to prepare for the random shocks he’s observed. Some practical advice would have been nice.

Second lesson: It’s not about your organization, it’s about the graduates.

This the equivalent of being asked to speak at the Detroit Economic Club and giving a 20-minute pitch for your company. You won’t be invited back. What these speakers forget is that the audience wants their insights, not an ad.

Wendy Koop of Teach for America fell into this trap. Her talk at Washington University offers a false promise by saying she’s there to “talk to you about your choices at this stage of your lives…” Then she delivers example after example culled from the Teach for America archive of marketing stories.

Another example? Rick Klaus of Google. Actually, he could fit into either of the first two categories. Did Klaus really think people want to know that Google indexes as much content every four hours as is in the U.S. Library of Commerce? How’s that for inspiring? Way too much about him and Google, not enough about the audience.

Jamie P. Merisotis, President, Lumina Foundation for Education, shows a better way to mention your organization but keep the focus clearly on the graduates. In his short talk at Spring Arbor University, he starts by thanking the graduates.

“You may not fully realize it now,” Merisotis says, “particularly on a day like today, which is properly focused on celebrating personal victories—but the degree that you've earned isn't just about you or even the loved ones who share this moment with you. It benefits all of us.” He explains his comment by sharing Lumina’s mission to promote college education. Then he quickly gets back to the graduates. Ten minutes and he’s off the stage. Good work.

Third lesson: Passion counts.

Paul Hawken is an environmental activist and author who gave the commencement address at the University of Portland. This is one of the better ones I found.

At first, I thought his speech fell a little too much into the commercial category. The second time through I tried to envision what it must have been like to hear it and came away with a far different perspective. For pure passion, give him an A+. But he does more than share his passion. “Don't be put off by people who know what is not possible. Do what needs to be done, and check to see if it was impossible only after you are done.” Ah, back to the graduates!

He’s brief – always a plus. And he includes a number of nice rhetorical devices. Rhetorical questions … quotes … sentence variation … and startling factoids like: “Think about this: we are the only species on this planet without full employment.”

This is one of the few where I wished I had been in the audience.

Fourth lesson: Humor has its limits.

For the life of me I can’t figure out why a university would choose to end a graduate’s career with coarse, inappropriate humor. Students spend tens of thousands of dollars and you reward them with a comic they could see on YouTube for free?

Point in case: Tulane University who asked Ellen DeGeneres to provide the entertainment … er, commencement … this year. Tulane needs to get its money back on this one.

Maybe it’s me. The audience laughed, as you can see here. But I can’t imagine a more insulting commencement speech. Not insulting in a racial or ethnic way. But could there be anything more offensive than to be at the pinnacle of your educational career and having to listen to your commencement speaker talk about “boobies” and “knockers.”

Those of you who know me also know I'm not a prude. Far from it. But is this what a celebration of higher education has come to?

Consider this bit of wisdom: “I guess what I'm trying to say is life is like one big Mardi Gras. But instead of showing your boobs, show people your brain, and if they like what they see, you'll have more beads than you know what to do with. And you'll be drunk, most of the time.” Ugh.

Fifth lesson: If you want class, ask classy people.

The cream of the crop came from Joe Biden and Tom Brokaw who both provided model speeches.

They both followed roughly the same outline: Offer congratulations … open softly with self-deprecating humor … put the world into perspective … tell the graduates how they can help. It really is that simple.

Brokaw spoke at William and Mary and put the events of the day into perspective better than anyone: “So we know that these are difficult times, but these occasions are reaffirmation of the American dream. And for all the graduates and families and those of us who are privileged to be guests, this (commencement) is a sense of renewal.”

“We may not have given you a perfect world,” Brokaw says later, “but we have given you dynamic opportunities for leaving a lasting legacy …. So where to begin? That's a decision you are best prepared to make. And it will be the most rewarding for you if it is rooted in a personal passion and carried out with purpose, even if the first steps are small.”

He also gave us some of the nicest one-liners. Consider these:

• This may come as a surprise to some of you, but you'll not get a Google alert when you fall in love. … all the search engines in the universe cannot compete with the first kiss.
• It will do us little good, in other words, to wire the world, if we short-circuit our souls.
• It's a lot tougher to make a make a buck these days, but making a difference has its own rich reward.

Joe Biden’s talk at Wake Forest is equally pleasing – a true stand-out. Biden begins by gaining instant rapport and credibility by mentioning he is a father of three. He delivers some good laugh lines and then provides a touching nod to Tim Russert who was originally scheduled to provide the commencement.

I’m sure he meant every nice word. But he was also smart enough to know he could borrow some credibility from Russert. Not a bad idea because he used the entire Russert tribute as a nice segue into his main points.

Biden talked about the world's problems. And then turned to the graduates: “Throughout the span of history though, only a handful of us have been alive at times when we can truly shape history. Without question, this is one of those times, for there's not a single solitary decision confronting your generation now that doesn't yield a change from non-action as well as action.”

And later: “As corny as it sounds, this really is your moment. History is yours to bend. Imagine. Imagine what we can do.”

He also performed a nice trick of picking a few graduates to highlight. Most touching was his story of Fred Hastings who was graduating at age 76.

Best of all, perhaps, was his closing. He took his time and he made it count: “You are the possible. That is not hyperbole. You are the possible. We are the possible. And we have at once finally come to it. So seize it. Seize it. Because if you do not, it will slip from our grasp and determine the world you live in while you sit idly by.”

Commencement speeches aren’t difficult to write if you can remember the lessons above. Remember the occasion. Remember the audience. Use humor wisely (and briefly). Set the table by giving your perspective on the world. And leave them with something to chew on.

Obama Gaffe Highlights One Risk of 'Light-hearted' Interviews

Every communicator who was watching winced at the same time. As soon as the words came out we all – at least those of us not in the White House – grimaced and said, “Glad it wasn’t my boss.”

The words came last week from President Obama when he tried to joke about his bowling deficiencies with Jay Leno. “It was like the Special Olympics or something,” the President quipped. Here's a link to the entire transcript. Here are links to YouTube videos.

And with one line, the real purpose of his visit – to bolster support for his budget and bailout plans – was overshadowed. It may not be fair but that’s still a part of our PC-heavy world. One slip of the tongue and even the most well-reasoned PR strategy gets second guessed.

And this was on top of the criticism that the appearance with Leno trivialized a very important subject. “At times,” Alessandra Stanley wrote in the Washington Post after the fact, “he may have seemed a little too removed (from everyday worries).”

After events like this, two questions naturally arise:

1) Are opportunities like this worth the risks?
2) What can we do to make them a success?

The answer to both rests with your expectations and your definitions of success.

Like any event, there should be a stated goal to measure success against. With public speaking, I often break the goals down into one of five areas: Informing, Creating Understanding, Reinforcing Values, Changing Attitudes and Eliciting Action.

With a goal in mind, you can determine what type of public appearance or speaking event will help you achieve that goal. You must surrender to the event and work within its limitations. If your goal were to simply Inform an audience, for example, an appearance on Leno probably wouldn’t work. There’s simply not enough time to deliver details in that kind of light environment. That’s not why the audience is there.

Likewise, it’s probably not a good place to Elicit Action, either, because the audience needs a lot of preparation before they can act.

My guess is that the White House wanted to achieve a goal that fell somewhere in the middle. They either wanted to Reinforce the belief that the President’s financial plans were in line with American values or wanted to Change American’s perceptions that the plans were less than what was promised on the campaign trail, a growing concern. And much of that could be achieved by tapping into Obama’s deep reservoir of credibility and admiration and even borrowing credibility from Leno himself.

The goal itself is questionable, however. Most Americans seem willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt and give him room to work. Since they don't need reinforcement - perhaps their polling says something different? - the risks were high.

A more important consideration for us, however, is how can we use this episode to make better decisions for our own speakers. Are the risks worth putting your speaking into a light-hearted interview session such as this? Is it appropriate to joke when serious issues abound?

Here are a few things to consider:

1. Know and agree to the format ahead of time – It always amazes me to see guests on the Stephen Colbert Show who clearly have never seen his satirical interview style. Do the due diligence ahead of time. Know what you’re getting into.
2. Understand the limitations – Every opportunity has its advantages and limitations. Leno is great for reinforcing values but terrible at Creating Understanding. A speech at the Chief Executives Club of Chicago may be great for Creating Understanding but not very good at basic Informing.
3. Focus on one or two key, easily understandable messages – In any environment, choose your key messages appropriately. Resist your speaker’s temptation to “tell the whole story.”
4. Go for a feeling, not a message – Sometimes the best you can do is go for a feeling. Just showing up says a lot about the speaker’s character and that’s fine. Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell is a master of this. He is good at “surrendering to the joke” and using his appearances on Colbert and other places to reinforce an impression that he “gets it.”
5. The messenger is as important as the message – Not every speaker can pull off a light-hearted interview. They’re often stiff and humorless and sometimes don’t even know it. Bottom line: don’t ask them to do something they can’t.
6. Use it to fortify, not supplant, more traditional communication vehicles – These types of events should always be considered “add-ons” to your strategy, not in lieu of the basic plan.
7. It’s all about credibility, baby – At their core, appearances like this are all about reinforcing credibility and core values. The audience needs to come away with the belief that the speaker “is one of us” and shares their interests.

So you can succeed. These types of “lighter” appearances can be helpful. But they must be chosen with the right goal in mind. Resist the temptation to over-reach. Keep in mind it’s just one part of the overall plan, one more drop in the bucket. And even if your speaker commits a “Special Olympics” gaffe, you have a deeper and more robust strategic plan in place to overcome it.

Barnes Speech Does a Lot of Things Right

Most often here I like to ferret out speeches you might not see elsewhere, examples of good (and not-so-good) speechwriting to move us all forward. But every now and then I run across a speech that someone else has found that just begs for more attention. Such is the case with a speech by Craig Barnes, who is alternately described as an author, playwright, essayist, trial lawyer and negotiator. 

I first read his speech – A Second American Revolution – in the February issue of Vital Speeches. So a tip-of-the-hat to Editor Tom Daly for alerting us to it. It's a post-election speech subtitled: Good Men and Desperate Times are Ripe for Change.

Simply put, this is one of the best speeches I’ve read in some time.

What makes it so good? A lot of stuff done right.

• He begins with a story – which sets the tone and flows into the thesis
• He gives a solid structure – a classic 1, 2, 3 structure that’s tailored for the audience to follow
• There's ample use of anecdotes, quotes and research – I am tempted to say they were spread throughout the speech but it’s more like they’re sewn into the speech and help tie it together. These help keep it interesting.
• Barnes relies on a variety of source material – Perhaps because of his diverse background, Barnes pulls on poets, current commentators and pundits, Adam Smith, Genesis, historical references, Winston Churchill, Greek philosophy and more.
• His arguments are sound - stated plainly and solidly supported without being too heavy.
• His use of rhetorical devices is great.
• The language is fresh, imaginative and engaging  – “To say it another way, for thirty years at least, we have been guided by myths that greed is good, strength comes from guns, and the world is divided between good and evil. These metaphors are not dead, but at the end of 2008, they are gasping, writhing on the ground.”

There’s more, but you get the picture.

This is a speech to make you think, to question your assumptions and to engage your intellect. On top of that, it's also entertaining. I imagine it would have been a knock-out with the audience.

Check it out when you have a good 25-30 minutes to read through it. If you have more time, keep perusing his website for other commentary and speeches. It’s time well spent.