|
Katie says: I don't think a "brilliant" speaker gives speeches that need to be listened to more than once to understand, and they certainly don't give speeches that need to be explained or clarified by other people. She didn't speak directly to me - I had no idea what reasons she was giving. To me she sounded petulant and self-pitying. None of her metaphors made sense - "only dead fish go with the flow" and "a good point guard knows when to pass the ball" and "I'm a fighter, not a quitter."
I don't call that brilliant. I barely call that communicating. She may have the format down, it's the content and the delivery she still needs to work on. July 20, 12:26 PM
Kevin Seifert says: People don't think she's a bad speaker. They think she's an intellectual lightweight, undereducated, and incoherent. The speaking isn't bad; it's the "thought" behind it.
Sometimes, it's a stereotype for a reason.
Back when I was a math major, I recall a lot of kids adopted majors like "Communications" only because they weren't able to study anything else. It's a fluff degree.
Obama's background was in Constitutional law. Having a background in law, he's trained to be a lot more careful with his words. July 20, 10:51 AM
anabel says: Next he can explain, contrary to popular belief, why it is actually true that the moon is actually made our of green cheese. July 20, 10:22 AM
Jim says: This article gives us a a good example of an analysis by someone that has no practical experience. The article sounds like the author knows what he is talking about but the conclusions are so flawed its amusing. Palin's speech was a rambling mess, as she normally is. If you cant see this, you should not be in the communications field. July 20, 10:02 AM
|