GreekChat.com Forums  

Go Back   GreekChat.com Forums > General Chat Topics > News & Politics
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

» GC Stats
Members: 329,739
Threads: 115,667
Posts: 2,205,088
Welcome to our newest member, aellajunioro603
» Online Users: 2,180
0 members and 2,180 guests
No Members online
 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #12  
Old 01-20-2009, 12:43 PM
KSig RC KSig RC is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Who you calling "boy"? The name's Hand Banana . . .
Posts: 6,984
Quote:
Originally Posted by AGDee View Post
I remember long discussions about Reagan being elected SOLELY because he was such a good speaker, so our experiences in that regard are quite different.
See, the 'issue' (or rather, disconnect) is that, when we say "he's a great speaker/orator/lover/decider/whatever" we're not simply judging based upon some singular set of metrics.

Reagan was a very good speaker, and had great speechwriters - he was also photogenic and relatively attractive, and had a very 'attractive' (sexy?) background. He looked and sounded like a President. All of these things are contextual to the listener - you can't separate them from the speech, and they all come into play when determining whether he is a great orator. The parable of Nixon's first appearance on television, after repeated radio speeches, is a great example of how context operates. I guess the point is that anyone who claims Reagan was 'solely' elected on his speaking style is really saying something more complex than 'he's a great orator' because it is nigh-impossible for anyone to judge something that relies on charisma without their own biases becoming evident.

Along the same lines, you can't separate Obama's race from his speaking style - people are going to filter their opinions through the lens of his race (and his attractiveness, and his timbre, and his family, and...).

One example: watching Obama's speech on election night was moving for me personally, but that was mostly because of the context of it being historically important. Reading the speech on paper the next day, it didn't hold nearly the same power, and seeing sound bites later, they seemed stilted and unnecessarily 'preaching' in tone, although otherwise fine.

I'm kind of rambling, I realize, but I feel like it's important to be complete, and I think it explains something about the disconnect. It's important to realize that things like attractiveness, gender, race, etc. all matter when judging credibility, charisma and speaking quality. More specifically, expectations matter. If you expect Bush to say something sloppy or dumb, you'll look for that and won't excuse missteps.
Reply With Quote
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Poll: More disapprove of Bush than any other president jon1856 News & Politics 22 05-05-2008 11:00 PM
Panhellenic President and National/Internl President AGDLynn Greek Life 9 01-05-2007 01:58 PM
Poll: Cultural Diversity Month or Black History Month? AKA2D '91 Alpha Kappa Alpha 17 02-13-2006 12:29 AM
Indiana University Appoints 1st Black President CrimsonTide4 Delta Sigma Theta 0 06-05-2003 09:49 AM
Poll Time ... who you guys pairing up with for Homecoming/GreekWeek 2001 queequek Greek Life 9 07-05-2001 11:00 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.