cruising for librarians

Music: The Townhouses: Backyard (2012)

Another teaser from my public speaking textbook in progress. This is a tickle from the chapter on researching your speech.

In 2008 and 2009, President Obama's administration launched a number of rather large policies designed to reform the health care system. Because the policy changes in Obama's health care bill were so numerous and complicated, his administration encouraged federal congresspersons to sponsor "town hall meetings" in which their constituents at home could discuss the proposed changes and ask questions. At one such meeting in Dartmouth, Masschussetts, congressman Barney Frank was confronted by a woman who argued that health care reform was akin to Adolf Hitler's Aktion T4 program, which authorized euthanasia for the "incurably sick." In a manner of speaking, Frank's response to her is a reason for reading this chapter:

WOMAN: I think the administration is missing something in these town hall meetings, which is that it’s not just one group. The economy is collapsing. We have 30 percent real unemployment. Forty-eight states cannot balance their budgets. And they are cutting programs to the bone. This is the context under which the Obama administration has said we need health care reform.
(Applause) I’m not done. The reason why is because [sic] they say we need to limit Medicare expenditures in order to do that, in order to reduce the deficit. That’s the origin of this policy. This is the T4 policy of the Hitler, of a Hitler policy in 1939, where he said certain lives are not worth living. Certain people we should not spend the money to keep them alive . . . . So my question to you is why do you still support this Nazi policy? Why are you supporting it? [We need] a real solution?

CONGRESSMAN BARNEY FRANK: I will, when you ask me that question I am gonna to revert to my ethnic heritage, and answer your question with a question: On what planet do you spend most of your time? You want me to answer your question?

WOMAN: Yes.

FRANK: You stand there with a picture of the president defaced to look like Hitler, and compare the effort to increase health care to the Nazis. My answer to you is, as I said before, it is a tribute to the first amendment that this kind of vile, contemptible nonsense is so freely propagated. M'am, trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table. I have no interest in doing it.

Frank's somewhat humorous response to the woman was perhaps not politically savvy, because in general politicians should not appear frustrated in public; moreover, the video ended up circulating on the Intertubes for months (an important issue for public speakers that we'll take up later in the book). Even so, Frank's frustration illustrates the profound need for research in public speaking: nothing that the woman claimed was actually true. Frank was verbally frank in responding to her, and the woman was also booed and heckled by the audience assembled in the room. Why? Even though her brief, impromptu speech was articulate, her claims were too shocking to take seriously. She offered no evidence to support her claim that Obama's health care reform ideas were inspired by Nazi policies.

This chapter is about how to go about researching your speech. It is also, however, about more than how, but also addresses the question why? Why does a speech need to be researched to begin with? Not all speeches do, of course (such as a toast at a family gathering, for example). But for speeches in which you are making factual claims or judgments, it is important to make sure what you argue is based on truth, your you may appear crazy. In most instances of speaking publically, appearing crazy is not what you want!

TRUTH FAILURES IN POSTMODERNITY

Before we look at the resources available to you for researching your speech, we should take a moment to think about why research is important. Pragmatically, speeches are more credible when they appear to have been researched or seem based on evidence from reliable sources. For example, it was later revealed that the crazy woman with which this chapter opened was a follower of Lyndon LaRouche, a life-long conspiracy theorist who is holds strange political views based on fabricated evidence—hardly a credible source.

Ethically, however, researching one's speech is also a standard cultural expectation based on trust. Think about it: when a stranger is speaking, do you automatically regard what she says with suspicion, or do you listen with the presumption that what she says she believes to be true? Of course, there are always exceptions, but most of us tend to give new speakers we encounter with the "benefit of the doubt"—we'll hear 'em out, so to speak. All of this is to say that the default setting of public speaking is that one speaks the truth.

"Truth," of course, is a vexed word and introduces a complexity to public speaking most folks don't normally consider. The question "what is truth?" sounds like something a philosopher would ask, but if you think about it, we all tend to assume an answer at some level of our consciousness. Whether you believe in absolute, capital-T "Truth!" or relativism, the fact remains that to get on with your day-to-day living you must assume, for example, that it is true your vehicle needs gas, or that if you don't eat something you may get sleepy, or if you bathe you will start to stink.

The basic assumptions that we make about the truth-telling of speakers is clearly illustrated, again, with the Obama health care reforms of 2009: similar to the crazy woman's claim about Aktion T4, a rumor began in political discourse that the reforms included the formation of "death panels," staffed by federally appointed medical personnel, who would make decisions about the life or death of sick people. Political figure Sarah Palin made speeches in which she warned the public about these death panels, and Iowa Senator Charles E. Grassley also spoke publically about the menace of federal euthanasia programs. The fact remains, however, that there was no proposed legislation for setting up "death panels" in the reform policies proposed. This means, consequently, that hundreds of thousands—if not millions—of U.S. citizens were potentially misled, and precisely because we tend to assume our public speakers have "done their homework." In our postmodern times, unfortunately, many public figures—sometimes deliberately but often unwittingly—don't do their research and end up spreading untruths.

It should be mentioned, finally, that the character of our mass-mediated environment seems to almost encourage the communication of untruth, confusing opinion and fact. Think about this: how many times have you heard someone say the phrases, "well, that's just my opinion" or "you're entitled to your opinion?" Chances are these are familiar phrases, and they have something to do with the incredible, democratizing effects newer media technologies, such social networking and . . . .