I have just seen the film “The King’s Speech”, an excellent film which deserves to win lots of awards. It set me thinking about communication. The climax of the film is the successful delivery by King George VI of his speech on the outbreak of war in September 1939, rallying his people and calling on them to stand calm, firm and united in the dark days ahead, darker than anyone could have realised at the time. Listening to the real speech in the BBC archives one can see what a good job the actor Colin Firth did in portraying the King and his struggle to overcome his stammer. It also makes you realise the importance in government of good communication then, and now. King George and his Queen Elizabeth were only too aware of it, and those were the days before television.
Today, powerful communication is everything, for politicians and others in the public eye. They cannot succeed unless they are articulate and eloquent, if not charismatic. Fortunately the Queen has not been called on to rally her people in the way that her father had to; but we recall her speech on the occasion of another, very different national crisis, the death of Princess Diana. It is said that the Queen and Margaret Thatcher both learned to lower the pitch of their voices to ensure more commanding and pleasant speech.
More recently, the televised performances by the three party leaders was an important part of the 2010 General Election and indeed it is now hard to imagine any successful party leader with a speech impediment. This is unfortunate because a speech disability ought not to stand in the way of leadership, but I suspect that sound and appearance count for too much for this to be true. Relatively poor communicators such as Presidents Nixon and Bush suffered for it. Good communicators such as Presidents Reagan and Clinton were forgiven much and were regarded as inspirational. Most recently, President Obama is said to have restored his reputation by hitting exactly the right tone in his Arizona memorial speech to mark the deaths of those killed in the Tucson shooting. So essential to his presidency is his power of communication that he stands and falls by it. And of course the House of Lords has a well deserved reputation for high quality speeches, by well informed members, who in general do not speak for more than 8 or 10 minutes by the digital clock in the chamber. This ensures focused delivery of the message and no boredom. (Although there are occasions when a debate is deliberately prolonged, as is apparently happening in relation to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill.)
Appearance counts too. I was pleased that the BBC was reprimanded for sacking an older woman presenter, solely on the ground of her age. Such is the obsession with young women, that we rarely see older women presenting serious programmes on television. More on that in another blog.
To be honest I think Ed Milliband will suffer much in the sense of communication and lack of charisma. His concepts are what is needed but I`m afraid he’s not the leader to deliver it which is a great shame.
I`m not too sure that it was the right decision to reprimand the beeb in the instance to which you refer, it is after all a communication where looks matter. In the glossy world that is television, or has become tv an older woman may have a negative effect on viewing figures. There are of course programs that are made with the older{?) person in mind but I don`t think it wise for an outsider to control either.
lack of charisma Complete lack of.
it is after all a communication where looks matter. In the glossy world
It may not be. Camera work is everything.
I also reviewed the BBC archive of the actual Declaration of War speech and also the Gate of the Year Christmas 1939 speech. His hesitation is obvious, and clearly he had a problem with the letter ‘p’, and quite apart from that had a relatively common speech defect of a rolling tongue meaning not all consonants were articulated. But no agonising long silences.
The film is a good one, though somewhat amended from history. Churchill, of course, was not right at King George VI’s side at the abdication as he was still chasing the dead fox of King Edward VIII. The perspicacity of their majesties in recognising the awfulness of Hitler was not 100% at the time; the faux pas by Ribbentrop of the Nazi salute on greeting the King was seen as vulgarity, but the Queen and King clearly regarded the Munich Agreement in 1938 as a good thing, and invited Chamberlain onto the Buckingham Palace balcony, an error they did not repeat readily (V.E.Day was a legitimate occasion to have Churchill there, and rightly, but otherwise politicians have not graced the balcony). Of course, there were no huge crowds outside the Palace at 6pm on 3 September 1939, nor any balcony appearances then, but that was filmic historical licence, as was the apparent poverty of Lionel Logue who actually lived in better circumstances than suggested.
But overall a reasonable stab. They obviously decided that facial similarity to the real King George VI was less important than acting ability, and were proved right, though I thought Guy Pearce as King Edward VIII was a good stab, likewise Bonham-Carter as the Queen Mother.
An Oscar winner quite possibly. I wonder whether we will still think this is deserved in 10 years time.
And yet in the fullness of time, the man/woman
who writes as his form of power, rather than merely spouting, may well be better viewed by history than a loud politician, and even have more power over the minds and the memories of his fellow man.
The Guardian article on Saturday I had been looking for, for some time, an academic explanation of the US Tea Party.
Revisionism or Revolution? Is history bunkum or merely to be drastically revised? and what is the effect of history on memory?
NY Review of books reviews: Tea Party’s Revolution and the battle over American History. Jill Lepore Princeton Uni Press.
Of course here on the blog we cannot hear Baroness Deech pronouncing what she has written but I guarantee it would not have a regional accent. This is not to say she hasn’t one? Her acquired accent falls under a category called RP:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Received_Pronunciation
An accent can be an impediment to social mobility. The lack of a university degree can also be an impediment to political mobility because you need one to get into the Commons these days but not the HoL.
Hereditary peers are essentially very ordinary everyday people but what distinguishes all of them is that their parents, often at some great financial cost ensured they first acquired an RP accent and as an aside an education.
All this talk of acquiring university degrees is essentially an opportunity for voice coaching to acquire an RP accent thus opening the doors to social and political mobility. So why not take a note from a genre of people, the hereditary peers and simply provide state subsidised voice coaching and do away with this expensive and often irrelevant degree education.
In making these points I take inspiration from Lord Blagger whose compass never fails to point the way to parsimony. One can only presume he acquired an RP accent cost free from his mère?
The reason behind the unfortunate habit of relieving women of the employment once they grow to the age of menopause is because women are viewed in a sexual context. Men of a certain age are seen in a different light. They are considered distinguished and therefore desirable in their dotage.
Women passed the given age to reproduce are considered a turn off. And the BBC wants a turn on not a turn off.
If we follow this rule in electing our officials we should find older men more electable and younger women equal to them!
Younger men are overbearing and in general inexperienced, as are younger women. So, if the parties are smart this is the way to find equality at the polling booth.
I agree with Maude (gasp, shock, horror) – older people are regarded differently depending on gender. It was a great shock to me to find my mother’s hair was not jet black as I thought, yet she was not a vain woman and wore little make-up and was not in the public eye. So why did she dye her hair when men of the same age or older still did not?
But the main issue here in this thread is the one of oral communication. Gareth Howells may be right, but Cicero both wrote and spoke, and is still remembered (to those not brain-deadened by modern pap), but I doubt if a stammerer however fluent on parchment would have achieved such fame, nor one with a strong regional accent. Is being Welsh, or a Georgie, or a Brummie an impediment to reaching the top in politics, and if so why is a Morningside one not an equal such barrier. I suspect it is because, consciously or unconsciously, we attach a class label to those with Welsh, Georgie, or Brummie accents and a different class to a Morningside accent; and having ascribed a class to the accent, also attach a mindset view of capabilities. Yet we can all think of politicians from Edinburgh who were total ninnies, and quite astute politicians from other regions.
Gladstone had a Liverpool accent, and I believe Joe Chamberlain had a pronounced Birmingham accent. So it was not always so. When was it that certain accents were U and others non-U (that gives me away age-wise)?
Incidentally there is a new MP who has a noticeable speech difficulty but has mastered it, and the very hesitancy in his speech makes him more worth paying attention to.
Relatively poor communicators such as Presidents Nixon and Bush suffered for it.
Once again I’m struck by a realisation that other people don’t really live in my world.
President Bush won two elections. He communicated very, very effectively with the demographics that he wanted to communicate with — i.e. the people who kept voting him into office. That other people didn’t buy the folksy son of privilege veneer is neither here nor there. You cannot fool all the people all the time, and Bush 43 didn’t try. He fooled some of the people all the time.
One might not agree with the morality of the act, but to say he’s a bad communicator? Based on results, he seems to have done pretty well!
The problem with regional, or come to that illiterate accents, is being able to decipher what is being put across. Especially for the hard of hearing. My father spends half his time just trying to follow the gist of todays BBC presenters and has completely lost the thread by the time he has got the sentence correct. They seem to mumble or have such a thick accent it’s impossible to stay with them.
Of course this refers to both male and female reporters. Being unable to understand what they say is both irritating and a turn off. Which is why many people simply don’t bother to listen.
Baby talk is another. Many of the BBC reporters or presenters, especially female offerers, speak in an oddly nursery tone of voice. When this happens I promptly turn off as I have no intention of being preached at by what sounds like a half wit.
If a person wants to be received as credible then it is important they adhere to the idea that those they want to reach are intelligent and not in need of being spoken down to.
Radio 4 has a propensity toward diversity in accent which ruins half of their broadcasts. As radio is audio and not visual a grasp of the speakers word is essential. So clarity is desperately needed in these situations. Both the Commons and the Lords should emphasize this, as it is imperative we know what you want to sell us.
Everyone’s got a regional accent. You just happen to think yours is better than mine. I don’t see why your prejudice should be reflected in policy.
Prejudice is an odd turn of word for preference, choice or desire.
I don’t think mine is better than yours at all. Unless, that is, you cannot get yourself to be understood. I comprehend everything you write here, so something is going to plan.
John Humphries has an accent I like because every word he speaks is easily followed. And his tone or timbre is seductive. No misunderstanding w word he says. After all, a presenters job is to communicate and unless you can do that clearly to choose such a profession is useless.
As a side bar, Bush was elected because of his hard right policies, not because of his communication skills. And wasn’t there a scandal in how he was elected in Florida? Didn’t the press liken him to Jack Kennedy’s fraudulent White House gain, said to have been paid for by his Father Joe.
“The problem with regional, or come to that illiterate accents, is being able to decipher what is being put across. ”
Maybe you don’t think it sounds prejudiced to conflate “not speaking RP” with “illiterate”. Some people go through life blissfully unaware of how tactless they are. I consider it a charitable act to be blunt right back to people. Consider it an education.
Also, saying “politician X was elected because of single factor Y” is always, in every case, incorrect through gross oversimplification. However, I think it’s pretty safe to say that one does not get to be a powerful politician in the 21st century while also being a poor communicator. And, if you look at the demographics who voted for Bush in the United States, they did not think he was a bad speaker. In fact, he was praised for his down home, folksy demeanor that made people feel like he was speaking to them, unlike the “elitist” John Kerry, who Europeans (notable for their inability to vote in US Federal elections) and Democrats liked but who managed to put people’s backs up in Idaho.
Frankly, if you’re the kind of person who thinks a mild Geordie accent or Ulster drawl sounds “illiterate” then you probably aren’t the kind of person who’s George Bush’s target demographic anyway.
McDuff: You make a lot of assumptions and most of them dubious.
Are you trying to say the BBC, which was my frame of reference in that post, does not use speakers who sound downright ‘illiterate.’ The friends of friends who can barely open their mouths wide enough for sound to ooze out. Or, the multitude of growling R rolling Americans selling their books or ideas they find hard to off load in the USA. And consequently feel, if they sell themselves to the ‘diverse’ BBC they will find feast rather than famine. Added to that the thick regional accents and the rest that are barely understandable to the human ear. What the public receive for their ‘license fee’ presently is a farce. Which means more are doing without the privilege offered. Something which the ‘glorious’ USA does not levy on its people, a license fee.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/451863
I wonder what you go through life with? Or, if indeed, you go through life at all. Your post sounds if you are at a standstill, not going through anything. Stuck in a PC world of self aggrandisement.
Being a politician is quite different from being a news presenter and so is being a comedian or novelty act. Communication has different values and levels. Being a presenter on the BBC requires clarity of speech, not down home folksy, do you feel comfortable, speak. Bush cannot do anything other than Midland, Texas. Even though he went to a preppy boarding school following his pops.
Politician G.W.Bush was elected by the Sarah Palins of the USA. (The equivalent here, as yet, unformed) As well as those about to make a great deal of money selling arms and seizing oil, as spoils of war. It was well rumored in US circles, war with Saddam was imminent if Bush won.
And, it was well documented the Florida results between Gore and Bush were very questionable indeed.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html
What, can you tell me, is wrong with received pronunciation? Are you some kind of English language hater? It’s value is in its clarity and expressiveness. And that value is universal.
If Richard Burton made an effort to use correct pronunciation, having started out with the thickest regional accent of all time, and thought it worthwhile to do so, why don’t you?
Are you trying to say the BBC, which was my frame of reference in that post, does not use speakers who sound downright ‘illiterate.’
What’s with the scare quotes, white man?
That is exactly and precisely what I am saying. Illiterate means unable to read or write. Literally, without letters. I happen to know for a fact that you cannot get a job at the BBC if you can’t fill in several application forms of varying degrees of complexity, so we can state with a degree of pretty high certainty that the people working there can, in fact, read and write, like most other people with regional accents. By definition, their accents cannot be those of illiterate people. If you think they sound like that, I can only advise you to adjust your conception of what an illiterate person sounds like.
The friends of friends who can barely open their mouths wide enough for sound to ooze out. Or, the multitude of growling R rolling Americans selling their books or ideas they find hard to off load in the USA. And consequently feel, if they sell themselves to the ‘diverse’ BBC they will find feast rather than famine. Added to that the thick regional accents and the rest that are barely understandable to the human ear.
See, what you have here is a basic category error. You’re assuming that “you” are “everybody”. You’re not. If you can’t understand regional accents you may rest assured and relaxed that you are in a startlingly low minority. Particularly the sort that ends up on the BBC, coarse and uncultured though it may sound to your easily-offended ears, tend to be middle class twangs and brogues.
I wonder what you go through life with? Or, if indeed, you go through life at all. Your post sounds if you are at a standstill, not going through anything. Stuck in a PC world of self aggrandisement.
Does this have anything to do with anything? I believe that failing to find a reasonable point and resorting to slimy character smears is known as an ad hominem in logical terms, and in polite society it’s known as being a bit of a wrong un. We lower orders, of course, have many more interesting words for people who do that, but I cannot use them on this website because the Lords has strict standards about that sort of thing.
What, can you tell me, is wrong with received pronunciation? Are you some kind of English language hater?
There is nothing wrong with it whatsoever, aside from its sometime tendency towards campness. There is, on the other hand, a great deal wrong with stuck up, pompous trolls who assume that anybody who has some pride in their region and who does not want to modify their accent to remove all trace of their origins must therefore be unable to read.
Can you countenance the difference between my having a problem with RP and having a problem with people who are pompous, arrogant buffoons who shoot their mouth off in ways that manage to insult pretty much every anglophone on the planet who is not a child of privilege from the Home Counties?
There are a lot more of us provincial types than there are of you sniffy posh yahoos, and we can all understand each other just fine, thank you very much. If you don’t like the way we talk, can I suggest you toddle off back to your inherited land and practice shooting clay pigeons in waxed jackets or whatever the inbred classes do to amuse themselves these days?
Bush cannot do anything other than Midland, Texas. Even though he went to a preppy boarding school following his pops.
Bush can do upper class Yalie quite well, actually, as videos of his earlier political career, particularly his campaign for the Texas Governorship, will tell you. His accent and diction changed dramatically during his run for the Presidency. Either he picked up the Texas drawl pretty much overnight, or he made a conscious decision to change his accent. Either way, it worked.
Politician G.W.Bush was elected by the Sarah Palins of the USA. (The equivalent here, as yet, unformed) As well as those about to make a great deal of money selling arms and seizing oil, as spoils of war. It was well rumored in US circles, war with Saddam was imminent if Bush won.
You know what they say. Believing everything you read on the internet and treating 50M people with sniffy snobbery will buy you one cheeseburger, as long as you add a dollar. I’m sure that Bush was as corrupt as the day is long, but the US electoral system is easy to game that way and he’s hardly the only one to do it. Plus, there was that little matter of the popular vote.
And, it was well documented the Florida results between Gore and Bush were very questionable indeed.
Nonetheless, it was close enough to come down to a draw, although Al Gore was from Tennessee so there’s a chance that all the nice polite Americans who vote in ways that appease the sensibilities of pompous British Hoorah Henries just stayed home that day in despair.
Further, might I direct your attention towards the year 2004. It’s been behind you clearing its throat for several minutes now and I’m sure it would like a word with you about whether or not someone with an accent like George Bush can win an election in the USA outright.
Good day to you.
Possibly Baroness Deech was referring to President G H W Bush who was not re-elected, and not – so far as I am aware – regarded as a great communication.
I don’t know who believes that ‘acquiring university degrees is essentially an opportunity for voice coaching to acquire an RP accent …”. In my case I took with me to (my northern) university my RP (or perhaps more properly a Kensington accent) and managed to sand off some of its excesses. I observed no closing of salon doors as a result. Perhaps effective communication is not simply, if at all, one of RP, but clear pronunciation coupled with sentence structure, articulation and the construction of a logical and coherent argument.
Gosh forsaken html! My kingdom for a backslash!