art of speech writer

Westside Toastmasters is located in Los Angeles and Santa Monica, California

The art of speechwriting.

How good speechwriters find ideas that shine.

Just because you are a good speaker doesn't mean you are a good speechwriter. The advent of PowerPoint software has made the fully scripted paragraph an endangered species, replacing it with bulleted lists, catchy headlines and whiz-bang special effects. But good writing remains at the heart of good speechmaking, particularly when the intent is to inspire or motivate audiences. If you're among the fortunate few, you may have staff speechwriters or communications experts to help you craft that spellbinding speech. But most of us aren't that lucky, which means having to face down the terror of the blank computer screen on our own.

The Research Process

One thing these pros agree on is this: A speech is only as good as the quality of research and reflection put into it. To that end, Ken Askew, a freelance speechwriter who has written speeches for luminaries like President George H. W. Bush and Lee Iacocca, is constantly on the prowl for ideas to use in speeches, whether his writing assignment is next week or next year.

Askew's low-tech idea file consists of a large box into which he throws notes jotted on napkins, offbeat news stories emblematic of broader trends, intriguing studies or statistics and clever advertisements. This work usually pays off handsomely down the road. For example, he stumbled across a statistic mentioning the highway with the lowest average speed in the world: the Autobahn in Germany, which most would associate with having the fastest speed. Although people sometimes drive at speeds exceeding 150 mph, when there is an accident on the Autobahn - of which there are many - traffic is backed up and idling for hours, making for the lowest average speed.

"I tore that out and threw it in a box, thinking I might be able to use it down the road for a speech on the necessity of regulation," Askew says. "Good speechwriters need to be idea sponges. You can't be too critical when you spot something interesting. If it hooks your imagination, there's a reason for it, and who knows how you might be able to apply it in the future."

Hal Gordon, a former speechwriter for Colin Powell and the Reagan White House, is of the same mind regarding research. "Always collect more information than you can possibly use," Gordon says. "It's far better to have a mass of information and try to boil it down to 30 minutes than to not have enough and figure out how to pad the speech. If you have more information than you can use, then it follows that you are selecting the very best of that material."

Culling only the best data, anecdotes or humor - using only one sparkling example to support a point when you're tempted to use two, for example - is a key to brevity, the hallmark of good speeches. "Have you ever heard a speech that was too short?" asks Jane Tully, president of New York-based Tully Communications, an executive speechwriting company, in an article written for her web site. "I doubt it. But we've all squirmed through presentations that droned on well beyond the allotted time - and our most vivid memories of those occasions have little to do with the speaker's message."

One Word After Another

While elite speechwriters have varied writing habits, there is a recurring theme: Most suggest getting your core thoughts and ideas down in some form before putting your critic's hat on. The key is not to edit yourself too early in the process, lest you get stuck at the starting gate.

Askew writes his first drafts in the form of a relational database. Basic ideas and concepts are written on large Post-It notes, placed on a whiteboard and then connected with circles or lines. "I move the Post-its around as I think through the speech," Askew says. "I always include far more than I can fit in a speech by design, which makes editing a challenge. I usually end up pulling about 80 percent of the notes off the board."

Like many professional speechwriters, Askew often squirms when asked by clients to provide an outline before writing a speech. He prefers to write a one-page speech summary, what's known in the field as a

"destination" document. "It communicates the gestalt of the main point, the feel, tone and what it is you are trying to achieve with the speech, or the central metaphor you want to use," Askew says.

David Green, president of Uncommon Knowledge, an executive speechwriting firm in Haworth, New Jersey, compares a client asking a speechwriter for an outline to a book publisher requesting a detailed roadmap from a novelist. "Novelists I talk to often say they start out intending for their story to go in one direction, but their characters wouldn't let them go there, so they had to go a different way," says Green. "In the course of writing a speech, I often take it in directions I didn't expect."

Although many professionals opt for a more free-flowing, stream-of-consciousness approach in writing a first draft, some won't move forward until they've honed their first page or two to near perfection. Capture the audience early, this thinking goes, or prepare to lose them quickly.

"I am tortuous about the first page, super tortuous about the first paragraph and insanely tortuous about the first sentence or two of every speech I write," says Askew.

Green prefers to write out an entire speech, then reduce it to a series of talking points. He takes a cue from speech coaches, who believe speakers should start by creating six or so summary-type sentences - essentially one-liners - each with a compelling central point and story. Those statements can then be threaded together into a 30-minute speech.

"Good speakers are good storytellers, and that doesn't just mean having good stories or anecdotes," Green says. "It also means having a rhythm and sense of pace in the presentation, all of which comes from good writing."

When crafting speeches for executive clients, Marilynn Mobley, a senior vice president for Edelman, a public relations firm in Atlanta, also writes out her entire script word for word before creating summary statements. "The benefit is it allows the speaker to see the whole rhythm of the speech and the flow of it," Mobley says. "That overview helps the speaker use the bullet points to better capture the intended pacing and timing."

Mobley uses a color-coding method to help ensure she has the right mix of content in her speeches. Once she finishes an early draft, she marks each line with a different colored marker - red might be for facts and figures, green for anecdotes, and yellow for humor. She then spreads out the whole speech on the floor or tapes it to a wall to allow her to scan for wide swatches of red, green or yellow. "I'm not necessarily looking to achieve equal balance between the different types of information, but rather to determine whether I am going a long time just providing data or humor, for example," Mobley says. "I might rearrange some things, add in some more humor, look for other ways to explain data."

Don't think the terror of confronting a blank computer screen is limited to amateur or part-time speechwriters, says Green. Even veterans like himself experience writers' block. One key to overcoming it, he believes, is to simply get started, letting the first draft "pour out like cheap champagne" without being overly critical of what's appearing on screen. "When I first began writing, I had to make every sentence perfect before moving on to the next," he says. "It took me years to be able to write in a more organic, freestyle method." If a thought or idea occurs to you, Green suggests getting it up on the screen somewhere, even partially formed, with the knowledge that it will eventually get incorporated and revised in a way that makes sense.

Green also believes a change of scenery can do wonders for freeing up mental log-jams. "When I worked for an advertising agency in New York City, New York, I used to tell my boss, 'you should pay me to walk back and forth from the subway to the office, because that's where some of my best ideas come from.'"

Writing for the Ear

Mobley believes one of the biggest mistakes that novice speechwriters make is writing for the eye rather than the ear. She suggests reading out loud everything you write, since it not only helps refine rhythm but can unearth hidden problems. Mobley, for example, once wrote a speech that used the phrase "in an ironic twist." Upon speaking the line, however, she found it something of a tongue twister. "On paper it looked fine, but once I tried saying it, it was a different story, so I dropped it rather than risk stumbling over it."

In a blog written for the web site of Ragan Communications, Gordon stressed the importance of drawing pictures with your words. "The ear processes words more slowly than the eye," he says. "Accordingly, drawing a picture with words will often help the audience grasp the message that the speaker is trying to convey." For example, Gordon cites a famous remark associated with President Franklin Roosevelt: "I hate war." While the quotation is accurate, it has diminished impact as a sound bite removed from its context. Roosevelt's full statement read this way:

"I have seen war. I have seen war on land and sea. I have seen blood running from the wounded. I have seen men coughing out their gassed lungs. I have seen the dead in the mud. I have seen cities destroyed. I have seen children starving. I have seen the agony of mothers and wives. I hate war."

Says Gordon: "Simply saying 'I hate war' would have only been a catch phrase. After the word picture Roosevelt drew from his own experience, no one could doubt that his assertion, 'I hate war,' came from the depths of his heart."

Writing for the ear means capturing the way audiences speak, not how they write, Mobley stresses. In everyday conversation, people typically use contractions; when they write they usually don't. "Using contractions may not be proper writing, but it is plain speaking," Mobley says. "We should write like we speak."

The key, says Laura Lee, president of OverViews, an executive speechwriting company near Detroit, Michigan, is not to "create grandiloquent rhetoric, but to express your own personality, passions and perspectives in ways that those who know you best will say, 'Yes, that's him.'"

Avoiding the PowerPoint Trap

It's easy to fall into the trap of using PowerPoint, the omnipresent and user-friendly presentation design software, in a way many speakers do today: with bulleted lists and text-heavy slides serving as the centerpiece of a presentation. Yet because that's what many audiences have come to expect - speakers leaning heavily on PowerPoint as a crutch by "reading from the screen" - it also represents a missed opportunity. Green, for one, promotes more creative uses of speaker support as a way to help his clients' messages stand out from the pack.

In one 40-slide speech Green developed for a client on the value of innovation, some 60 percent of the slides featured one-liners making a provocative statement or question, and the rest contained optical illusions that enforced the idea of looking at things from different perspectives. "It allowed the speaker to create a break in the flow of his comments and create a sense of 'chapters' by having these interesting visuals," says Green.

In another speech, Green's mission was to highlight the difference between simplicity and complexity in product features. Rather than spelling out the distinction in a series of snooze-inducing bullet points, Green used the paintings of Jackson Pollack to represent complexity and those of Mark Rothko to represent simplicity. "You want your audience to have some kind of takeaway, and they're not going to be able to take away an entire 30-minute speech," Green says. "What they're most likely to take away is one or two compelling ideas or good lines."

In the Summer 2007 issue of the Claremont Review of Books , Diana Schaub, chairman of the political science department at Loyola College in Maryland, argued that use of bullet points has undermined the quality of speechmaking in the U.S. "Hierarchy may be antithetical to democracy, but it is essential to logic," she wrote. "The replacement of paragraphs with bullet points indicates the democratization of logic. But the equality of all sentences destroys the connectedness of thought. The scattershot technique of contemporary speechmaking can bowl you over if the speaker has sufficient force of personality, but it can't pierce your mind or heart, and it certainly can't do it as written rather than spoken."

Adds Mobley to the debate over the much-used software: "There's a reason you never see PowerPoint used during a eulogy."

The Golden Rule

Whatever process you choose to research, write or revise a speech, it pays to remember a golden rule of speechwriting: Audiences don't want to know how much you know, they want to know what they can do with the knowledge you've accumulated.

"The really great writers and speakers give us insight, not just ideas," says Mobley. "A good idea makes the audience say, 'I never thought of that.' But insight makes them say, I never thought of it that way. '"

By Dave _ Zelinski

3 Rules for Capturing Audience Interest

David Green, president of Uncommon Knowledge, an executive speechwriting company in New Jersey, offers three rules for virtually any speaking challenge - rules he says will help any audience sit up and take notice, for the right reasons.

Rule 1: Counter-program

The audience has expectations. If they've heard you before, they think they know what to expect. If they haven't heard you, they group you with other keynoters or speakers they've heard from your industry. Green says you have to break through their preconceptions. If everyone else is using text-heavy PowerPoint support, consider using dramatic photos. If everyone else is forecasting the future of your industry, focus on eye-opening lessons from the past. If your public persona is fire-breathing, use a more "fireside" style.

Rule 2: Speaker support should only support

You've seen them all. Text-flooded PowerPoint slides that look like pages of a book. Charts dense with information, with typeface reduced to barely readable size so it all fits on a slide.

Every time a new slide comes up, the audience stops listening to the speaker while reading the slide. Then there are those presenters who speak straight from their slides, adding few ad-libs or spontaneous thoughts.

People can either read the slides or listen to the speaker, but they cannot do both simultaneously. If you are simply parroting your slides, you've essentially made yourself superfluous, maybe even a nuisance. Hal Gordon, a former speechwriter for U.S. General Colin Powell, recounts the story of Jack Welch, former CEO of General Electric, attending a PowerPoint presentation given by a GE staff member. The speaker was reading directly from each slide, and finally Welch, fed up, called out, "Look, I can read as well as you can. If this is your presentation, why don't you just hand me your slides and we can be done with it."

If you must use PowerPoint, use it as an outline only to prompt your memory and give your audience a roadmap. After all, it's not your software giving the speech - it's you!

Rule 3: Play the Audience

A speech is live theater. You don't have to entertain, but you do have to tell a compelling story. The audience is not out to get you...usually. But they won't hang on your every word either, unless you lure them in.

So know your audience - and your speaking environment. The audience will expect something different from you as a conference keynote speaker than if you are leading a panel or having a face-to-face discussion with them. Then use your best sense of what they want from you - and give them something more, or something different, or something that bends their perspective.

View articles on similar topics

Westside toastmasters on meetup.

Rice Speechwriting

Beginners guide to what is a speech writing, what is a speech writing: a beginner’s guide, what is the purpose of speech writing.

The purpose of speech writing is to craft a compelling and effective speech that conveys a specific message or idea to an audience. It involves writing a script that is well-structured, engaging, and tailored to the speaker’s delivery style and the audience’s needs.

Have you ever been called upon to deliver a speech and didn’t know where to start? Or maybe you’re looking to improve your public speaking skills and wondering how speech writing can help. Whatever the case may be, this beginner’s guide on speech writing is just what you need. In this blog, we will cover everything from understanding the art of speech writing to key elements of an effective speech. We will also discuss techniques for engaging speech writing, the role of audience analysis in speech writing, time and length considerations, and how to practice and rehearse your speech. By the end of this article, you will have a clear understanding of how speech writing can improve your public speaking skills and make you feel confident when delivering your next big presentation.

Understanding the Art of Speech Writing

Crafting a speech involves melding spoken and written language. Tailoring the speech to the audience and occasion is crucial, as is captivating the audience and evoking emotion. Effective speeches utilize rhetorical devices, anecdotes, and a conversational tone. Structuring the speech with a compelling opener, clear points, and a strong conclusion is imperative. Additionally, employing persuasive language and maintaining simplicity are essential elements. The University of North Carolina’s writing center greatly emphasizes the importance of using these techniques.

The Importance of Speech Writing

Crafting a persuasive and impactful speech is essential for reaching your audience effectively. A well-crafted speech incorporates a central idea, main point, and a thesis statement to engage the audience. Whether it’s for a large audience or different ways of public speaking, good speech writing ensures that your message resonates with the audience. Incorporating engaging visual aids, an impactful introduction, and a strong start are key features of a compelling speech. Embracing these elements sets the stage for a successful speech delivery.

The Role of a Speech Writer

A speechwriter holds the responsibility of composing speeches for various occasions and specific points, employing a speechwriting process that includes audience analysis for both the United States and New York audiences. This written text is essential for delivering impactful and persuasive messages, often serving as a good start to a great speech. Utilizing NLP terms like ‘short sentences’ and ‘persuasion’ enhances the content’s quality and relevance.

Key Elements of Effective Speech Writing

Balancing shorter sentences with longer ones is essential for crafting an engaging speech. Including subordinate clauses and personal stories caters to the target audience and adds persuasion. The speechwriting process, including the thesis statement and a compelling introduction, ensures the content captures the audience’s attention. Effective speech writing involves research and the generation of new ideas. Toastmasters International and the Writing Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill provide valuable resources for honing English and verbal skills.

Clarity and Purpose of the Speech

Achieving clarity, authenticity, and empathy defines a good speech. Whether to persuade, inform, or entertain, the purpose of a speech is crucial. It involves crafting persuasive content with rich vocabulary and clear repetition. Successful speechwriting demands a thorough understanding of the audience and a compelling introduction. Balancing short and long sentences is essential for holding the audience’s attention. This process is a fusion of linguistics, psychology, and rhetoric, making it an art form with a powerful impact.

Identifying Target Audience

Tailoring the speechwriting process hinges on identifying the target audience. Their attention is integral to the persuasive content, requiring adaptation of the speechwriting process. A speechwriter conducts audience analysis to capture the audience’s attention, employing new york audience analysis methods. Ensuring a good introduction and adapting the writing process for the target audience are key features of a great speech. Effective speechwriters prioritize the audience’s attention to craft compelling and persuasive speeches.

Structuring Your Speech

The speechwriting process relies on a well-defined structure, crucial to both the speech’s content and the writing process. It encompasses a compelling introduction, an informative body, and a strong conclusion. This process serves as a foundation for effective speeches, guiding the speaker through a series of reasons and a persuasive speechwriting definition. Furthermore, the structure, coupled with audience analysis, is integral to delivering a great speech that resonates with the intended listeners.

The Process of Writing a Speech

Crafting a speech involves composing the opening line, developing key points, and ensuring a strong start. Effective speech writing follows a structured approach, incorporating rhetorical questions and a compelling introduction. A speechwriter’s process includes formulating a thesis statement, leveraging rhetorical questions, and establishing a good start. This process entails careful consideration of the audience, persuasive language, and engaging content. The University of North Carolina’s writing center emphasizes the significance of persuasion, clarity, and concise sentences in speechwriting.

Starting with a Compelling Opener

A speechwriting process commences with a captivating opening line and a strong introduction, incorporating the right words and rhetorical questions. The opening line serves as both an introduction and a persuasive speech, laying the foundation for a great speechwriting definition. Additionally, the structure of the speechwriting process, along with audience analysis, plays a crucial role in crafting an effective opening. Considering these elements is imperative when aiming to start a speech with a compelling opener.

Developing the Body of the Speech

Crafting the body of a speech involves conveying the main points with persuasion and precision. It’s essential to outline the speechwriting process, ensuring a clear and impactful message. The body serves as a structured series of reasons, guiding the audience through the content. Through the use of short sentences and clear language, the body of the speech engages the audience, maintaining their attention. Crafting the body involves the art of persuasion, using the power of words to deliver a compelling message.

Crafting a Strong Conclusion

Crafting a strong conclusion involves reflecting the main points of the speech and summarizing key ideas, leaving the audience with a memorable statement. It’s the final chance to leave a lasting impression and challenge the audience to take action or consider new perspectives. A good conclusion can make the speech memorable and impactful, using persuasion and English language effectively to drive the desired response from the audience. Toastmasters International emphasizes the importance of a strong conclusion in speechwriting for maximum impact.

Techniques for Engaging Speech Writing

Engage the audience’s attention using rhetorical questions. Create a connection through anecdotes and personal stories. Emphasize key points with rhetorical devices to capture the audience’s attention. Maintain interest by varying sentence structure and length. Use visual aids to complement the spoken word and enhance understanding. Incorporate NLP terms such as “short sentences,” “writing center,” and “persuasion” to create engaging and informative speech writing.

Keeping the Content Engaging

Captivating the audience’s attention requires a conversational tone, alliteration, and repetition for effect. A strong introduction sets the tone, while emotional appeals evoke responses. Resonating with the target audience ensures engagement. Utilize short sentences, incorporate persuasion, and vary sentence structure to maintain interest. Infuse the speech with NLP terms like “writing center”, “University of North Carolina”, and “Toastmasters International” to enhance its appeal. Engaging content captivates the audience and compels them to listen attentively.

Maintaining Simplicity and Clarity

To ensure clarity and impact, express ideas in short sentences. Use a series of reasons and specific points to effectively convey the main idea. Enhance the speech with the right words for clarity and comprehension. Simplify complex concepts by incorporating anecdotes and personal stories. Subordinate clauses can provide structure and clarity in the speechwriting process.

The Power of Nonverbal Communication

Nonverbal cues, such as body language and gestures, can add emphasis to your spoken words, enhancing the overall impact of your speech. By incorporating visual aids and handouts, you can further augment the audience’s understanding and retention of key points. Utilizing a conversational tone and appropriate body language is crucial for establishing a genuine connection with your audience. Visual aids and gestures not only aid comprehension but also help in creating a lasting impression, captivat**ing** the audience with compelling visual elements.

The Role of Audience Analysis in Speech Writing

Tailoring a speech to the audience’s needs is paramount. Demographics like age, gender, and cultural background must be considered. Understanding the audience’s interests and affiliation is crucial for delivering a resonating speech. Content should be tailored to specific audience points of interest, engaging and speaking to their concerns.

Understanding Audience Demographics

Understanding the varied demographics of the audience, including age and cultural diversity, is crucial. Adapting the speech content to resonate with a diverse audience involves tailoring it to the different ways audience members process and interpret information. This adaptation ensures that the speech can effectively engage with the audience, no matter their background or age. Recognizing the importance of understanding audience demographics is key for effective audience analysis. By considering these factors, the speech can be tailored to meet the needs and preferences of the audience, resulting in a more impactful delivery.

Considering the Audience Size and Affiliation

When tailoring a speech, consider the audience size and affiliation to influence the tone and content effectively. Adapt the speech content and delivery to resonate with a large audience and different occasions, addressing the specific points of the target audience’s affiliation. By delivering a speech tailored to the audience’s size and specific points of affiliation, you can ensure that your message is received and understood by all.

Time and Length Considerations in Speech Writing

Choosing the appropriate time for your speech and determining its ideal length are crucial factors influenced by the purpose and audience demographics. Tailoring the speech’s content and structure for different occasions ensures relevance and impact. Adapting the speech to specific points and the audience’s demographics is key to its effectiveness. Understanding these time and length considerations allows for effective persuasion and engagement, catering to the audience’s diverse processing styles.

Choosing the Right Time for Your Speech

Selecting the optimal start and opening line is crucial for capturing the audience’s attention right from the beginning. It’s essential to consider the timing and the audience’s focus to deliver a compelling and persuasive speech. The right choice of opening line and attention to the audience set the tone for the speech, influencing the emotional response. A good introduction and opening line not only captivate the audience but also establish the desired tone for the speech.

Determining the Ideal Length of Your Speech

When deciding the ideal length of your speech, it’s crucial to tailor it to your specific points and purpose. Consider the attention span of your audience and the nature of the event. Engage in audience analysis to understand the right words and structure for your speech. Ensure that the length is appropriate for the occasion and target audience. By assessing these factors, you can structure your speech effectively and deliver it with confidence and persuasion.

How to Practice and Rehearse Your Speech

Incorporating rhetorical questions and anecdotes can deeply engage your audience, evoking an emotional response that resonates. Utilize visual aids, alliteration, and repetition to enhance your speech and captivate the audience’s attention. Effective speechwriting techniques are essential for crafting a compelling introduction and persuasive main points. By practicing a conversational tone and prioritizing clarity, you establish authenticity and empathy with your audience. Develop a structured series of reasons and a solid thesis statement to ensure your speech truly resonates.

Techniques for Effective Speech Rehearsal

When practicing your speech, aim for clarity and emphasis by using purposeful repetition and shorter sentences. Connect with your audience by infusing personal stories and quotations to make your speech more relatable. Maximize the impact of your written speech when spoken by practicing subordinate clauses and shorter sentences. Focus on clarity and authenticity, rehearsing your content with a good introduction and a persuasive central idea. Employ rhetorical devices and a conversational tone, ensuring the right vocabulary and grammar.

How Can Speech Writing Improve Your Public Speaking Skills?

Enhancing your public speaking skills is possible through speech writing. By emphasizing key points and a clear thesis, you can capture the audience’s attention. Developing a strong start and central idea helps deliver effective speeches. Utilize speechwriting techniques and rhetorical devices to structure engaging speeches that connect with the audience. Focus on authenticity, empathy, and a conversational tone to improve your public speaking skills.

In conclusion, speech writing is an art that requires careful consideration of various elements such as clarity, audience analysis, and engagement. By understanding the importance of speech writing and the role of a speech writer, you can craft effective speeches that leave a lasting impact on your audience. Remember to start with a compelling opener, develop a strong body, and end with a memorable conclusion. Engaging techniques, simplicity, and nonverbal communication are key to keeping your audience captivated. Additionally, analyzing your audience demographics and considering time and length considerations are vital for a successful speech. Lastly, practicing and rehearsing your speech will help improve your public speaking skills and ensure a confident delivery.

Expert Tips for Choosing Good Speech Topics

Master the art of how to start a speech.

Popular Posts

How to write a retirement speech that wows: essential guide.

June 4, 2022

The Best Op Ed Format and Op Ed Examples: Hook, Teach, Ask (Part 2)

June 2, 2022

Inspiring Awards Ceremony Speech Examples

November 21, 2023

Mastering the Art of How to Give a Toast

Short award acceptance speech examples: inspiring examples, best giving an award speech examples.

November 22, 2023

Sentence Sense Newsletter

• Find a Club
• Start a Club
• Toggle Search

How to Build a Speech

Structure, stories, and word choice are all key to crafting a compelling presentation..

By Ruth Nasrullah

There was a time when flowery, dense language was the standard for public speaking—18th-century North America, for instance. Here is the beginning of George Washington’s 1796 farewell speech:

The period for a new election of a citizen to administer the executive government of the United States being not far distant, and the time actually arrived when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person who is to be clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression ...

And that excerpt is far from the conclusion of just that first sentence. Imagine using language like that in a Toastmasters meeting!

Analyze why the opening of this august speech wouldn’t work today and two major problems quickly become apparent. First, it could have been cut down at least by half; and second, even after 20 seconds, the audience still doesn’t know much about the speaker’s purpose.

Fortunately for modern-day speakers, the Toastmasters educational program emphasizes the skill of speechwriting. Here are a few guidelines to mastering the art and technique of writing speeches.

My Kingdom for a Subject!

Need a speech topic? First identify your purpose. What do you want to do? Inform? Persuade? Inspire? Educate? Next, home in on a subject. You can select something most people can relate to—or most people in your audience can relate to—or something arcane that will require a little bit of research.

Step three: Start brainstorming.

What about your Ultimate Frisbee team? Your cat’s finicky ways? Your child’s piano recital? Your childhood dream of becoming president and what became of it? Holiday traditions in your country or region? Vanilla or chocolate? Cake or pie?

A word of caution: It may go without saying, but when it comes to controversial topics such as religion or politics, make sure you know the club policies governing such subjects—and the audience’s sensibilities.

Elena Paweta, DTM, is a member of Poland’s First Toastmasters club, based in Warsaw. She is also an organizer of TEDx events , programs in local communities that feature a diversity of speakers across several disciplines who address a variety of subjects. This gives her particular insight into crafting and refining speech topics.

“As we advance and become more experienced and confident, we can cover topics that may influence others,” Paweta says. “We can use this amazing tool [public speaking] to change people’s lives for the better.”

Deceptively Simple: The Structure

Ramona J. Smith is the 2018 World Champion of Public Speaking. Watch her winning speech and you’ll get a clue to what helps make it great: a solid, simple outline. She enters the stage and crouches down in a boxer’s stance, throwing punches in the air. She explains that we may get knocked down in life, but if we persevere we will be “still standing,” a phrase she repeats throughout, for emphasis. She then goes on to describe three events in her life that she had to fight through (extending the metaphor) and expands on each.

And how does she conclude the speech? With the phrase she offered in the beginning: “still standing.” It’s simple, yet so powerful.

To supplement that structure, Smith makes the speech come alive with vocal variety, exuberant body language (shadowboxing), and even a prop (a towel thrown to the ground).

Smith, President of the Cy-Fair Super Speakers Club in Cypress, Texas, says the key to writing a great speech is to keep it simple. “I start with the skeleton, then start to throw meat on the bones,” she says.

World Champion Ramona J. Smith says the key to writing a great speech is to keep it simple. "I start with the skeleton, then start to throw meat on the bones."

She writes speeches in three parts—introduction, body, and conclusion. In the body she identifies three points, just as in her championship speech. “Then I flesh out those three points, add transitions between each and then a call to action between the third point and the conclusion.”

Smith has another key piece of advice: Call on fellow Toastmasters for help. “Look in your club for writers,” she says. “There’s an English teacher or writer in every club—see if they can help you.”

Act Out—But in a Good Way

Toastmaster Wayne Lebowitz, a retired jeweler from Somerville, Massachusetts, always knew he wanted to be an actor. Although he ultimately found his career in the family business, he brings theatrical sensibilities to public speaking.

Writing a speech is like writing a script, he says. Start with an attention-grabbing device. For instance:

“How many of you have hunted a bear? Okay, I see by the lack of hands raised that none of you have. Let me tell you about bear hunting.” Using the bear motif, he demonstrates another approach: “I just found out that there are only three bears left in Somerville, Massachusetts. That’s three more than I thought we had.”

Lebowitz emphasizes that people remember stories. “I realize when I give a speech, I’ve got to entertain them. Otherwise, whatever my message is, it’s lost.”

He suggests the same format that Ramona J. Smith uses. “The body of your speech should consist of three bullet points,” he says. “And have a story to back up each point.” Lebowitz recommends closing the speech by reiterating those bullet points and tying together the closing and opening.

At a recent meeting of his club, Somerville Toastmasters, the first speaker gave a speech about a work situation by providing three points in the beginning, then elaborating on them, and returning to them again at the end. Because she used vocal variety and good details, the simple structure worked.

“Show, don’t tell” is advice often offered to writers whose work needs a little spark. The concept can also apply to speechwriting. Paint a picture for your audience with the language you use.

Jing Humphreys, DTM, a member of the Earlybirds Club in Butler, Pennsylvania, is a believer in the power of word choice.

“I like vivid word descriptions,” she says. “Like you can feel it happening in front of you because of the choice of words the speaker uses.”

Need a speech topic? First identify your purpose. What do you want to do? Inform? Persuade? Inspire? Educate?

Despite working in a highly technical field where there isn’t as much room for creativity with language, outside of work she is a proponent of conjuring up dramatic images to move the audience. (Example: “a big, vast ocean so clear you can almost see the bottom of it.”) This is also the message she imparts as a mentor and an evaluator: To tell a story, use powerful imagery, and don’t be afraid to provoke strong feelings in your audience.

“I just evaluated one of my club members,” she says. “I told him ‘Scare me and then save me.’ The audience needs to know why am I listening to you—why is this important to me?”

Don’t forget that you need to know your audience. If the venue is in a country with a nuanced culture and/or a culture that has significant differences from your own, make sure you’ve done your homework so you avoid potentially offensive gaffes. If you want to add jokes, try them out on others first to be sure your humor isn’t tone-deaf .

Include the Visual

Visual aids can be a powerful addition, and in some cases a necessary one, to a presentation. Technical presentations generally require the speaker to provide graphics, charts, schematics, etc., in order to fully explain the topic. Non-technical presentations, too, can gain a boost from props or visual aids.

Check that all your references are correct. Did Queen Elizabeth really give the Gettysburg Address or was your mind wandering when you wrote that?

A word about PowerPoint: Don’t read from the slides. The slides should supplement your words. In most cases, you can use words for the narrative, and the projector screen for ideas that are best conveyed graphically. The words you speak and the images you show should complement each other.

I am not a fan of PowerPoint, so when I did the “Get Comfortable With Visual Aids” project in Toastmasters’ old Competent Communication manual, I opted for a wig mannequin and demonstrated different ways Muslim women wear head scarves. It gave me the opportunity to personalize my speech and present something tangible, and it supported my discussion of why Muslim women wear head scarves.

Not So Fast!

Transitional statements help the audience easily follow you from one section of your speech to the next, or from one idea to another.

There is a wide range of transitions that serve different functions. Some keep the audience focused on the topic or time frame you are discussing; some provide examples of a particular subject area, reinforcing a point and introducing examples seamlessly. Here are just a few common transitions:

1. To tie your introduction to your first point in the body of the speech:

• Let me give you an example ...

• To get started, let’s examine ...

• First, I’m going to discuss ...

2. To move from one point within the body to the next:

• In the same way, this item tends to melt in the heat ...

• Let me show you something equally troubling ...

• This is similar to the kind of speech we’re studying ...

3. To begin the conclusion to your speech:

• All in all, this educational journey was …

• Looking back, I’m glad that I …

• To sum up, these three reasons are why …

If your speech feels or sounds awkward as you move through the main points, lead the listener with transitions, like those listed above. When in doubt, try reading that section aloud to someone else; if they are unclear about the connection between two ideas or two statements, look for a proper transition.

The Final Steps

Always do a final review of your writing before turning your attention to rehearsing. A few essential areas to look over:

• Double-check your grammar and pronunciation. This may seem like a no-brainer, but don’t assume you have it right. A great classic reference book to aid with this is The Elements of Grammar by Margaret Shertzer. Many other useful books—and grammar-related websites—exist as well, including The Elements of Style by William Strunk Jr. and E.B. White, Write Right! by Jan Venolia, grammarbook.com , and www.quickanddirtytips.com/grammar-girl .
• Examine your writing for continuity of theme; make sure you aren’t wandering from your main point. Remove or revise anything that takes your speech off track.
• Make sure everything makes logical sense. Sometimes you get so deep into your subject that you mention ideas only you can understand.
• Check that all your references are correct . Did Queen Elizabeth really give the Gettysburg Address or was your mind wandering when you wrote that?
• Don’t go overboard with quotes. They can be used to enhance a speech, but make sure the quote you use is pithy, brief, and very relevant. Be sure you’re citing the correct author of the quote (pro tip: Look somewhere besides social media to verify the source).

When you’ve done all you can do to polish the writing of your speech, you will feel confident and ready. The Toastmasters guidelines for speechwriting will prepare you well.

Share this article

Related articles.

Speechwriting

Speechwriting 101

Expert speechwriters weigh in on the basics of crafting a speech.

Mitch Mirkin

Communication

5 Easy Tips for Crafting a Speech

Start with the two basic concepts of construction and content.

Judith T. Krauthamer

Presentation Skills

5 Great Ways to Begin a Speech

Learn to hook your audience in 10 seconds.

Anne Barab, DTM, AS

Listen for Lessons on Crafting a Speech

In this ToastCaster podcast , Greg Gazin speaks with Toastmaster Freddi Dogterom, DTM, AS, from Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada. Dogterom, a professional speaker with more than 20 years of experience, offers up lessons on crafting your speech or presentation. Click the play button below to listen to this episode.

Learn more about the award-winning publication.

About magazine.

Discover more about the award-winning publication.

Magazine FAQ

Answers to your common magazine questions.

Submissions

How to submit an article query, photo, or story idea.

Meet the editorial team.

Rhetoric: The Art of Persuasive Writing and Public Speaking

Gain critical communication skills in writing and public speaking with this introduction to American political rhetoric.

Associated Schools

Harvard Faculty of Arts & Sciences

What you'll learn.

When and how to employ a variety of rhetorical devices in writing and speaking

How to differentiate between argument and rhetorical technique

How to write a persuasive opinion editorial and short speech

How to evaluate the strength of an argument

How to identify logical fallacies in arguments

Course description

We are living in a contentious time in history. Fundamental disagreements on critical political issues make it essential to learn how to make an argument and analyze the arguments of others. This ability will help you engage in civil discourse and make effective changes in society. Even outside the political sphere, conveying a convincing message can benefit you throughout your personal, public, and professional lives.

This course is an introduction to the theory and practice of rhetoric, the art of persuasive writing and speech. In it, you will learn to construct and defend compelling arguments, an essential skill in many settings. We will be using selected addresses from prominent twentieth-century Americans — including Martin Luther King Jr., John F. Kennedy, Margaret Chase Smith, Ronald Reagan, and more — to explore and analyze rhetorical structure and style. Through this analysis, you will learn how speakers and writers persuade an audience to adopt their point of view.

Built around Harvard Professor James Engell’s on-campus course, “Elements of Rhetoric,” this course will help you analyze and apply rhetorical structure and style, appreciate the relevance of persuasive communication in your own life, and understand how to persuade and recognize when someone is trying to persuade you. You will be inspired to share your viewpoint and discover the most powerful ways to convince others to champion your cause. Join us to find your voice!

Course Outline

Introduction to Rhetoric

• Define the term "rhetoric."
• Articulate the importance of effective communication.
• Summarize the history of rhetorical study, from the ancient Greeks to the modern-day.
• Identify the parts of discourse.
• Define the three modes of appeal.
• Identify tropes and schemes, and explain their use in composition.
• Compose an opinion editorial on a topic of your choice.

Civil Rights - Martin Luther King, Jr.

• Analyze Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream…” speech
• Define inductive reasoning and some of its associated topics
• Identify instances of inductive reasoning in writing and speech
• Define deductive reasoning and some of its associated topics
• Identify instances of deductive reasoning in writing and speech
• Recognize and evaluate the strength of an argument's refutation
• Apply the elements of rhetoric you have learned so far into the final draft of your op-ed

Gun Control - Sarah Brady and Charlton Heston

• Analyze Sarah Brady’s Democratic National Convention Keynote Speech.
• Analyze Charlton Heston’s speech on the Second Amendment.
• Define “inductive reasoning” and some of its associated topics
• Define “deductive reasoning” and some of its associated topics
• Recognize and evaluate the strength of an argument’s refutation
• Apply the elements of rhetoric you have learned so far in the final draft of your op-ed

Introduction to Oratory

• Describe the origins of the practice of oratory.
• Recognize ways in which orators tailor their writing for the spoken word.
• Describe techniques for effective public speaking, both prepared and extemporaneous.
• Brainstorm ideas for your own short speech.

The Red Scare - Joseph McCarthy and Margaret Chase Smith

• Analyze Joseph McCarthy’s “Enemies Within” speech.
• Analyze Margaret Chase Smith’s "A Declaration of Conscience" speech.
• Identify the modes of appeal and the logical reasoning of the featured speeches.
• Identify both common and special topics used in these speeches, like cause and effect, testimony, justice and injustice, and comparison, and begin to recognize their use in other speeches.
• Identify examples from these speeches of logical fallacies including the either/or fallacy, the fallacy of affirming the consequent, the argument ad hominem, the argument ad populum, begging the question, the complex question, and the use of imprecise language.
• Discuss the importance of winning and keeping an audience’s trust and the pros and cons of attempting to tear down their confidence in an opponent.
• Define for yourself the definition of "extremist rhetoric," debate its use as a political tool.
• Consider the moral responsibilities of those who would seek to persuade others through language.

Presidential Rhetoric - John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan

• Discuss how the audience and the desired tone for a speech can influence diction (word choice).
• Compare the effects of using passive vs. active voice, and first-person vs. other tenses in a speech.
• Discuss the effectiveness of the use of symbolism in writing and speech.
• Define hyperbole, antimetabole, and polysyndeton, and identify when these devices might be appropriate and useful in terms of persuasion.
• Describe techniques for connecting with your audience, including storytelling and drawing on shared experience.

Instructors

James Engell

You may also like.

Modern Masterpieces of World Literature

Examine how great modern writers capture the intricacies of our globalized world and how their works circulate within that world to find their own audiences.

Masterpieces of World Literature

Embark on a global journey to explore the past, present, and future of world literature.

Sikhism Through Its Scriptures

This course examines the Sikh scripture from a doctrinal and historical perspective by providing an overview of Sikh teachings as well as the historical context within which the scripture evolved and became canonized.

School of Communication Art of Speech Writing | American University Washington DC

You are here: american university media relations news the art and craft of speech writing.

202-885-5950

Fax: 202-885-5959

[email protected]

4401 Connecticut Avenue - 6th Floor, Room 1 on a map

Back to top

Communications

The Art and Craft of Speech Writing

Behind every great president, there is a great speechwriter. 

Richard Nixon had William Safire; Ronald Reagan had Peggy Noonan; and John F. Kennedy had Ted Sorensen. It is the job of the speechwriter to distill the politician’s thoughts into meaningful sentiments and policy articulations.

Sometimes it’s even the speechwriter’s charge to predict what the politician wants to say. "Political speechwriting is a constant balancing act," said Robert Lehrman, School of Communication adjunct professor and former speechwriter for Vice President Al Gore. “Sometimes there’s no policy until there’s a speechwriter.” In celebration of political speechwriting and in commemoration of Kennedy’s "A Strategy of Peace" speech at AU 50 years ago, SOC is hosting a panel discussion on March 20 , moderated by Chris Matthews, host of NBC’s Hardball . The event is free and open to all students, faculty, staff, AU community, and alumni.

Matthews, a former speechwriter for President Jimmy Carter, is also the author of the biography, Jack Kennedy: Elusive Hero .

MORE: The Legacy Of JFK's Speech At AU

The panel, titled "The Art and Craft of Speech Writing: Why the JFK commencement speech at AU lives on 50 years later," will delve into the mechanics of a good political speech. It will also dissect Kennedy’s speech to uncover what made it effective. Panelists will include Lehrman, journalist Marvin Kalb, who covered Kennedy’s AU speech for CBS, and Adam Frankel, former senior speechwriter for President Barack Obama. Frankel also served as an assistant to Sorenen, working with him on his 2008 bestselling memoir Counselor: A Life at the Edge of History . For Sorenson, Kennedy’s American University speech was one of the most important of his career. He was a pacifist who had registered as a conscientious objector and peace was his passion, said Dotty Lynch, SOC executive in residence and organizer of the panel. Because of that passion, Sorensen was able to animate the speech in such a way that its message has persisted. 

MEDIA: Books, Films About The JFK Era

"We’ll look at why that speech has lived on when other speeches have not. We’ll try to better understand the background of the speech and see what we can learn about presidential leadership today," Lynch said. During the panel the winner of the speechwriting contest "What Would a JFK Say Now?" will be announced. 

FACTS: Did You KNOW? JFK By The Numbers

AU students were asked to answer that question by writing a commencement speech no more than 1,500 words, which outlined what a president should say today on any broad world issue. Submissions were due March 6. The winner will receive a $500 prize.

Originally published on March 5, 2013.

Your browser do not have javascript enabled. Without it the site has limited functionality.

The Art of Speechwriting

Archived Course

Facilitated e-learning

11 November 2019

United Nations Institute for Training and Research ( UN Partner )

Course details

This course gives you the essential principles of the art and craft of speechwriting.

Throughout history, the speech has been one of the most powerful forms of communication. Technological, social and economic changes have enhanced that power. As digital communication has increased, speeches have had to become more authentic and honest. This course gives you the essential principles of the art and craft of speechwriting. After first defining why speeches matter, the course looks at the three golden principles of speechwriting, before moving on to how to make the content memorable and engaging. It then focuses on honing the participants writing and editing skills with specific exercises on hooking your audience and crafting media sound bites and quotes. Finally, it examines how to deliver a speech with confidence and conviction.      

Target Audience

The course targets mid to senior-level government officers in ministries preparing for and/or taking part in conferences in relation to climate change as well as staff of intergovernmental / nongovernmental organizations. It also targets entry-level and mid-career diplomats working in a multilateral setting. Private sector specialists and students whose work or studies are related to this subject are also encouraged to apply.

Learning Objectives

• Identify the elements of a good speech as well as the 3 golden principles;
• Apply principles of effective writing;
• Manage the audience's attention span throughout the speech;
• Get your message across to the media and on social media;
• Understand the principles of effective delivery and recognise the importance of non-verbal communication.

Gender analysis and digital inclusion

Self-paced e-learning

Offered by:

ITU , UN Women

SDG: SDG 5 , SDG 17 , SDG 17: Technology

Agenda 2030 para el desarrollo sostenible y la igualdad de género

Je connais le genre 1-2-3

Utilizing satellites to bring electricity to the most vulnerable groups

Microlearning

Camila dos Santos Gonçalves (Space Power, Founder) , Grace Chenxin Liu (Space Power, Editor-in-Chief)

SDG: SDG 5 , SDG 7 , SDG 13 , SDG 17 , SDG 17: Technology

Alternatives to Imprisonment for Women Offenders

SDG: Leave no one behind , SDG 5 , SDG 10 , SDG 16

Preventing Conflict Using a Human Rights Based Approach

SDG: Leave no one behind , SDG 5 , SDG 16

Speechwriting 101: Writing an Effective Speech

Whether you are a communications pro or a human resources executive, the time will come when you will need to write a speech for yourself or someone else.  when that time comes, your career may depend on your success..

J. Lyman MacInnis, a corporate coach,  Toronto Star  columnist, accounting executive and author of  “ The Elements of Great Public Speaking ,”  has seen careers stalled – even damaged – by a failure to communicate messages effectively before groups of people. On the flip side, solid speechwriting skills can help launch and sustain a successful career.  What you need are forethought and methodical preparation.

Know Your Audience

Learn as much as possible about the audience and the event.  This will help you target the insights, experience or knowledge you have that this group wants or needs:

• Why has the audience been brought together?
• What do the members of the audience have in common?
• How big an audience will it be?
• What do they know, and what do they need to know?
• Do they expect discussion about a specific subject and, if so, what?
• What is the audience’s attitude and knowledge about the subject of your talk?
• What is their attitude toward you as the speaker?
• Why are they interested in your topic?

Choose Your Core Message

If the core message is on target, you can do other things wrong. But if the message is wrong, it doesn’t matter what you put around it.  To write the most effective speech, you should have significant knowledge about your topic, sincerely care about it and be eager to talk about it.  Focus on a message that is relevant to the target audience, and remember: an audience wants opinion. If you offer too little substance, your audience will label you a lightweight.  If you offer too many ideas, you make it difficult for them to know what’s important to you.

Research and Organize

Research until you drop.  This is where you pick up the information, connect the ideas and arrive at the insights that make your talk fresh.  You’ll have an easier time if you gather far more information than you need.  Arrange your research and notes into general categories and leave space between them. Then go back and rearrange. Fit related pieces together like a puzzle.

Develop Structure to Deliver Your Message

First, consider whether your goal is to inform, persuade, motivate or entertain.  Then outline your speech and fill in the details:

• Introduction – The early minutes of a talk are important to establish your credibility and likeability.  Personal anecdotes often work well to get things started.  This is also where you’ll outline your main points.
• Body – Get to the issues you’re there to address, limiting them to five points at most.  Then bolster those few points with illustrations, evidence and anecdotes.  Be passionate: your conviction can be as persuasive as the appeal of your ideas.
• Conclusion – Wrap up with feeling as well as fact. End with something upbeat that will inspire your listeners.

You want to leave the audience exhilarated, not drained. In our fast-paced age, 20-25 minutes is about as long as anyone will listen attentively to a speech. As you write and edit your speech, the general rule is to allow about 90 seconds for every double-spaced page of copy.

Spice it Up

Once you have the basic structure of your speech, it’s time to add variety and interest.  Giving an audience exactly what it expects is like passing out sleeping pills. Remember that a speech is more like conversation than formal writing.  Its phrasing is loose – but without the extremes of slang, the incomplete thoughts, the interruptions that flavor everyday speech.

• Give it rhythm. A good speech has pacing.
• Vary the sentence structure. Use short sentences. Use occasional long ones to keep the audience alert. Fragments are fine if used sparingly and for emphasis.
• Use the active voice and avoid passive sentences. Active forms of speech make your sentences more powerful.
• Repeat key words and points. Besides helping your audience remember something, repetition builds greater awareness of central points or the main theme.
• Ask rhetorical questions in a way that attracts your listeners’ attention.
• Personal experiences and anecdotes help bolster your points and help you connect with the audience.
• Use quotes. Good quotes work on several levels, forcing the audience to think. Make sure quotes are clearly attributed and said by someone your audience will probably recognize.

Be sure to use all of these devices sparingly in your speeches. If overused, the speech becomes exaggerated. Used with care, they will work well to move the speech along and help you deliver your message in an interesting, compelling way.

More News & Resources

Measuring and Communicating the Value of Public Affairs

July 26, 2023

Benchmarking Reports Reveal Public Affairs’ Growing Status

November 16, 2023

Volunteer of the Year Was Integral to New Fellowship

Is the Fight for the Senate Over?

New Council Chair Embraces Challenge of Changing Profession

October 25, 2023

Are We About to Have a Foreign Policy Election?

Few Americans Believe 2024 Elections Will Be ‘Honest and Open’

Rural Americans vs. Urban Americans

August 3, 2023

What Can We Learn from DeSantis-Disney Grudge Match?

June 29, 2023

Laura Brigandi Manager of Digital and Advocacy Practice 202.787.5976 |  [email protected]

Featured Event

Digital media & advocacy summit.

The leading annual event for digital comms and advocacy professionals. Hear new strategies, and case studies for energizing grassroots and policy campaigns.

Washington, D.C. | June 10, 2024

About Hoover

Located on the campus of Stanford University and in Washington, DC, the Hoover Institution is the nation’s preeminent research center dedicated to generating policy ideas that promote economic prosperity, national security, and democratic governance. 

• The Hoover Story
• Hoover Timeline & History
• Mission Statement
• Vision of the Institution Today
• Key Focus Areas
• About our Fellows
• Research Programs
• Annual Reports
• Hoover in DC
• Fellowship Opportunities
• Visit Hoover
• David and Joan Traitel Building & Rental Information
• Newsletter Subscriptions
• Connect With Us

Hoover scholars form the Institution’s core and create breakthrough ideas aligned with our mission and ideals. What sets Hoover apart from all other policy organizations is its status as a center of scholarly excellence, its locus as a forum of scholarly discussion of public policy, and its ability to bring the conclusions of this scholarship to a public audience.

• Scott Atlas
• Thomas Sargent
• Stephen Kotkin
• Michael McConnell
• Morris P. Fiorina
• John F. Cogan
• China's Global Sharp Power Project
• Economic Policy Group
• History Working Group
• Hoover Education Success Initiative
• National Security Task Force
• National Security, Technology & Law Working Group
• Middle East and the Islamic World Working Group
• Military History/Contemporary Conflict Working Group
• Renewing Indigenous Economies Project
• State & Local Governance
• Strengthening US-India Relations
• Technology, Economics, and Governance Working Group
• Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region

Books by Hoover Fellows

Economics Working Papers

Hoover Education Success Initiative | The Papers

• Hoover Fellows Program
• National Fellows Program
• Student Fellowship Program
• Veteran Fellowship Program
• Congressional Fellowship Program
• Media Fellowship Program
• Silas Palmer Fellowship
• Economic Fellowship Program

Throughout our over one-hundred-year history, our work has directly led to policies that have produced greater freedom, democracy, and opportunity in the United States and the world.

• Determining America’s Role in the World
• Answering Challenges to Advanced Economies
• Empowering State and Local Governance
• Revitalizing History
• Confronting and Competing with China
• Revitalizing American Institutions
• Reforming K-12 Education
• Understanding Public Opinion
• Understanding the Effects of Technology on Economics and Governance
• Energy & Environment
• Health Care
• Immigration
• International Affairs
• Key Countries / Regions
• Law & Policy
• Politics & Public Opinion
• Science & Technology
• Security & Defense
• State & Local
• Books by Fellows
• Published Works by Fellows
• Working Papers
• Congressional Testimony
• Hoover Press
• PERIODICALS
• The Caravan
• China's Global Sharp Power
• Economic Policy
• History Lab
• Hoover Education
• Global Policy & Strategy
• National Security, Technology & Law
• Middle East and the Islamic World
• Military History & Contemporary Conflict
• Renewing Indigenous Economies
• State and Local Governance
• Technology, Economics, and Governance

Hoover scholars offer analysis of current policy challenges and provide solutions on how America can advance freedom, peace, and prosperity.

• China Global Sharp Power Weekly Alert
• Email newsletters
• Hoover Daily Report
• Subscription to Email Alerts
• Periodicals
• California on Your Mind
• Defining Ideas
• Hoover Digest
• Video Series
• Uncommon Knowledge
• Battlegrounds
• GoodFellows
• Hoover Events
• Capital Conversations
• Hoover Book Club
• AUDIO PODCASTS
• Matters of Policy & Politics
• Economics, Applied
• Free Speech Unmuted
• Secrets of Statecraft
• Pacific Century
• Libertarian
• Library & Archives

Support Hoover

Learn more about joining the community of supporters and scholars working together to advance Hoover’s mission and values.

What is MyHoover?

MyHoover delivers a personalized experience at  Hoover.org . In a few easy steps, create an account and receive the most recent analysis from Hoover fellows tailored to your specific policy interests.

Watch this video for an overview of MyHoover.

Log In to MyHoover

Forgot Password

Don't have an account? Sign up

Have questions? Contact us

• Support the Mission of the Hoover Institution
• Subscribe to the Hoover Daily Report
• Follow Hoover on Social Media

Make a Gift

Your gift helps advance ideas that promote a free society.

• About Hoover Institution
• Meet Our Fellows
• Focus Areas
• Research Teams
• Library & Archives

Library & archives

Events, news & press.

Secrets Of Statecraft: Peter Robinson On The Art Of Writing Ronald Reagan’s Speeches

If you have ever been asked to deliver a speech in public (or even if you haven’t), listen to a master of the genre Peter Robinson speak of the humor, honesty, and honing involved in writing over 150 speeches for a U.S. President. 

Ronald Reagan was famously known as The Great Communicator. But who helped the Great Communicator communicate? One of them was Hoover Institution Research Fellow Peter Robinson, who wrote Reagan's “Tear Down This Wall” speech — one of the most famous speeches of the twentieth century. If you have ever been asked to deliver a speech in public (or even if you haven’t), listen to a master of the genre Peter Robinson speak of the humor, honesty, and honing involved in writing over 150 speeches for a U.S. President. 

To view the full transcript of this episode, read below:

Andrew Roberts: Peter Robinson was a speech writer for Ronald Reagan, but he's also the author of How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life. Peter's a fellow of the Hoover Institution and the presenter of uncommon knowledge. He understands more than almost anyone else alive today Ronald Reagan's secrets of statecraft. Peter, you say in your book, How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life, that speech writing is one third research, one third writing, and one third staffing. Please can you tell us a little about each of those stages in the process?

Peter Robinson: Oh, sure. Speech writing in the Reagan administration, it varies from White House to White House of course. But so what I learned very... The first third, research, I joined the staff of vice president as he was then George H.W. Bush before going to work for president Reagan. 25 years old I was, and they hired me only because they needed somebody really fast. They were going to hire someone more senior to me eventually. As it happened, they never did because the vice president and I hit it off. But in my first speech meeting with him, I walked in, sat down across the desk from him. As he would do, never when there was a woman present, he was a kind of old fashioned gent, but as he would do when it was only men, and it was just him and me, he'd lean back in his chair and put his feet up on his desk, and he said, "Okay, what have we got?" And I went down. I said, "Next week, you're speaking to such and such a group, and the week after that, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the week after that such and such." And so I sat there with my legal pad and my pen poised over my legal pad, and he said, "Okay, the first, National Association of Manufacturers," and I said to him, "Well sir, what would you like to say?" And the vice president looked at me and said, "I don't know. What do you think?" And I saw, of course emergency thinking, because it had never crossed my mind. I happened to go through a very unusual sort of, it was a kind of emergency interview process. They needed somebody fast, and your former guest, Christopher Buckley, recommended me, and they leaned on that recommendation. In any event, I hadn't been told what it was to write speeches for him, and it never crossed my mind that he'd ask my advice. I thought I'd go in and take notes. Well, that was typical of him to be rye and humorous and gentle all at once. That was his way of saying I'm busy. You're the speech writer. You take the first draft. You take a shot, not only at the first draft language but at the first draft thinking. What's the group? Get in touch with the... Fast forward. This is what I learned of course quickly, get in touch with the representatives of the group to which the, then the vice president or president would be speaking. Think through what policy. Is there news that anybody wants to make here, talk to some policy people, and you do some... Or I'll give you one other example. 1984, we're getting ready for the president's reelection campaign, and the polls indicated, partly because the Reagan Economic Program had kicked in by then, in 1980, when he ran in 1980, the economy was the top issue, double digit inflation. By 1984, the economy is falling as an issue because it's booming, and inflation is down into low single digits, and one issue that was rising was education, and I got assigned to write the big education speech for the president to deliver in Indianapolis. It was some sort of association of school principles. So, I telephoned a man called Terrel Bell, who was the secretary of education, and I couldn't get through to him, and the assistant said, "Well he's on vacation now, but he'll draft something from the beach." So I waited a couple of days and I got this semi-literate, he just, clearly he had just dictated it, and it was mush. He talked about this program, that program, spending more here, spending less there, and I made a kind of emergency telephone call to a man called Dick Darman who was then the communications director, and Darman's very busy and very curt and I described what had happened and he said, "So you're telling me we don't have an education policy?" And I thought for a moment and I said, "Well yes, that's right," and then Dick Darman said, "Then make one up," and he hung up on the phone. He hung up on me. Okay.

Andrew Roberts: So, you're 25 years old and you've been given the job of making up America's education policy.

Peter Robinson: Right. Yes. Yes. Welcome to American politics Andrew. By then I was 27-ish. But, so I then, I went into emergency. I called around friends of mine who paid attention to education and I discovered this man called William Bennett who was then at the National Endowment for the Humanities, and he and I had two or three lunches and working sessions, and lo and behold I did sort of devise a six or seven point education policy. Education did not actually play as dominant a role in that campaign as people thought for a moment or two it might, and thank goodness because in some ways I had pulled together the education policy. But that was quite typical, that the speech writer... It's not quite as wild as it sounds because there's staff who look at the... Oh, we come to staffing next. Then of course you write the darned thing, and that takes a while. For me, not for you of course. You'd have knocked these... You're a man who [inaudible]-

Andrew Roberts: I don't know about that. But how did you feel, how did you get into Ronald Reagan's sort of speechifying techniques? Because if you're writing for somebody, you have to sort of almost be them, don't you?

Peter Robinson: Yes, you do, and you have asked the question of questions. There's this terrible paradox, and I always get hung up on it when I'm trying to explain speech writing in those days to anyone because we speech writers did write most of the speeches. The most I ever saw the president rewrite a speech was the Westminster Address in 1982, the Houses of Parliament, which was a very important speech, and there he rewrote, the documents in the Reagan library show he rewrote about a third of that speech in his own hand, but only a third of the speech. Even at that, only a third of the speech. So-

Andrew Roberts: So were there some speeches which he didn't change a word of? Or-

Peter Robinson: He changed almost nothing on the Berlin Wall Address for example. Now, and yet these were all his speeches. That is the truer statement. That we wrote them is incidental. That they were his is the true and important point. Now, how could this possibly be? One clue is that over the course of eight years, there were 14 of us who at one point or another, couple served for all eight years, many for fewer than that, 14 people who held the role of speech writer to the president, and yet every Ronald Reagan speech sounds like Ronald Reagan. How can this possibly be? Well, we read up, we read the speeches he'd written before he became president. We looked at his 60... Every piece of film we could. It was the rule in the Reagan White House that if you wrote the speech, you would go see the president deliver it. So you'd go to the east room or you'd get in the motorcade and go to the hotel ballroom, and so you could see what he did with your material. We studied this man, and it is furthermore very important, very important, A, that all of us agreed with him. I'm sometimes asked, "Well, could you write a speech for a Democrat?" And I suppose maybe. The notion is this like being a lawyer? Could you take on a defendant without concern for, just to make the best case you could, whatever the case might be, whether you believed in it or not? That never arose in the Reagan White House. Every single one of us was conservative, and this in some way may be the most important point of all although it sounds, I don't know, you tell me how it sounds, we all loved him. Now-

Andrew Roberts: I tell you, I think that sounds like an absolute prerequisite for the job, frankly.

Peter Robinson : Yeah. Does it? Good.

Andrew Roberts: The idea of not- Oh, yeah.

Peter Robinson: All right. All right.

Andrew Roberts: If despised him or didn't like him, you would not have been able to have done such a job.

Peter Robinson : Bill Sapphire, you remember William Sapphire?

Andrew Roberts: I do. Yeah. Great man.

Peter Robinson: All right. So Bill founded a club for presidential speech writers during the '80s, and for a number of years we met and he gathered up all former presidential speech writers. When the club started, there were even two writers from the Truman years, two or three writers from the Truman years-

Andrew Roberts: Wow.

Peter Robinson : ... who were joining us? Clark Clifford came. George Elsey, who was a Truman aid, attended in the early days, and we Reagan speech writers quickly discovered a strange and totally unexpected, by me at least, affinity with another table of speech writers, and that was the Kennedy writers. We had almost, the Kennedy writers, the whole Democratic party had moved left since the administration of John Kennedy. None of them voted for Reagan. They all disagreed with him on policy, but here's what we had in common. The Kennedy writers and the Reagan writers both loved their president. John Kennedy was the biggest thing that had ever happened to Ted Sorensen, and Ronald Reagan was the biggest thing that had ever happened to me. That kind of thing. So we really tried to inhabit his mind in some way.

Andrew Roberts: And you read out his speeches in his voice, in-

Peter Robinson: In his voice.

Andrew Roberts: Yeah.

Peter Robinson: We had to. We all, Reagan... I'll draw one contrast. As I said, I wrote for the vice president for about a year, George Bush, George H.W. Bush, for about a year and a half before joining the president's staff, and although the vice president was much more accessible and he and I became quite good friends and all I would have to do to his, I'd say to his secretary, "I need to see him." No questions asked, I never had to wait more than one day to see the vice president, talk things over with him face to face. Still in all, he was harder to write for than Reagan, because with Reagan you had your voice that was so distinctive. You knew what he sounded like, and so you could read a speech and we would all, "Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon and welcome to the White House. Nancy and I..." So you read a speech and you could tell whether it would work for Reagan. George H.W. Bush as a speech giver, he was a wonderful man in all kinds of ways, but he didn't have a distinctive voice. You couldn't hear him in your mind's ears so to speak as you were writing. Reagan you could

Andrew Roberts: Tell us about the staffing third of the job. I found that absolutely fascinating in your book.

Peter Robinson : Did you find it fascinating? I found it infuriating. Almost-

Andrew Roberts: No, but it was fascinating how infuriating it must have been.

Peter Robinson: Every single time. So here's what's... This was the typical staffing process. Typical staffing process runs as follows. Head speech writer, there were always five or six of us on staff. Chief speech writer makes the assignments. Speech writer gets the assignment. In the Reagan White House, one speech writer would write one speech. The only exception to that was the State of the Union Address, which it was a kind of quilt. I'd write education, somebody else would write another, and it would get stitched together. But aside from that, the notion here was unity of voice, one writer to one speech, as distinct, for example, from George W. Bush's White House, where typically three speech writers would work on a piece altogether in one room, shouting, trying out phrases on each other. I can't imagine working that way. They did. All right. Speech gets written by speech writer, goes to the chief speech writer. He marks it up. The speech writer whines and says, "You can't change this, you can't..." And the chief speech writer, there's a little negotiation that takes place, and then it goes out to staffing, and there's a piece of paper that's stapled, and it has names, and the staff secretary, this is an individual, a human being, barely human as far as we speech writers were concerned but a human being all the same, a specific human being, and he would tick this speech goes to the vice president, this speech touches on foreign affairs. He goes, "Secretary of defense, secretary of state," and so there would be at least half a dozen, and in some speeches more than that, offices, or they were individuals, but the secretary of defense did not read a speech. The secretary of state didn't read a speech. They'd hand it to staff and the staff would mark these things up, and then they would come back to us speech writers, and then things became quite... I can remember you'd spread these things, or I would, I'd spread these things out across my desk and often enough they would disagree with each other, state would-

Andrew Roberts: And this would be on policy? I mean, the state would say, "This is going against state policy." Defense would say, "This is not defense policy."

Peter Robinson: It was trickier than that. It was trickier than that because we speech writers, we were, A, anonymous, and B, really quite assertive. Now that I look back on it, and I think how young I was and how little I knew, now I'm old and still ignorant but then I was young and ignorant, and so they'd say this isn't policy and we speech writers would say, "Well, but we represent the president," and you could sometimes... Fundamentally what it came down to was that as a speech writer you learned quickly who had to be listened to, whom you could ignore, and then that tricky and time consuming bit of where negotiations could take place, and here's why you wanted to negotiate, because it is then in the nature of writing, as you know better than almost anyone else on the planet, that one wants to make the argument tight and...

Peter Robinson: One wants to make the argument tight and persuasive and in politics quite often... So the speech writers want something, they want vivid language, they want persuasive tight arguments, and they want consistency of policy because that's the way writers think. If you're Jim Baker and you're trying to get deals done on the Hill, sometimes you don't even want an argument made because you think you can stitch together a coalition. They'll all vote the same way, but for 25 different reasons. So you'd really rather not...If you're the State Department, almost never. Excuse me, I take that back. Never, not once did the State Department strengthen any language. Not once did it take something that was colorful and make it still more vivid. Always the bureaucratic mind, always without exception was to water down, to turn wine into water, if I may. It's an almost blasphemous image.

Andrew Roberts: Could we take as a case study the famous, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall," speech that you wrote because... And actually, and you must tell us also about how it at one stage was "Führer Gorbachev, bring down the wall," which is fascinating. Let's take that as the case study for the staffing process. What happened to that speech after you'd written it between you writing it and Ronald Reagan delivering it in Berlin, so historically?

Peter Robinson: There are two exceptions to the usual staffing process on that speech. One... This won't go on and on, but one-

Andrew Roberts: I don't mind if it does. I'm totally fascinated. [inaudible] me as well. No, it's one of the great speeches in history.

Peter Robinson: The one exception was that we all recognized it was a big speech. Now, not a historic speech, but it would be in the top 10 speeches the president gave that year. UN address, big speech, State of the Union Address, big speech. And then we all recognized that because of setting moment, there would be half a dozen other big speeches. And I got it by the way. I was assigned that speech just because it was my turn to write the next big one. I've written a lot of little stuff. Okay.

Andrew Roberts: Not because you were a foreign policy expert or you were experts on Germany or communism or the Cold War.

Peter Robinson : No, no, no, no, no, no. Actually the speech-

Andrew Roberts: [inaudible] rank principle really.

Peter Robinson: That's exactly correct. That's exactly correct. And I'll steal that image next time I tell this story, that's a lovely image. Anyway, I went to West Berlin to research the speech. In a moment, I'll tell you why that turned out to be important. So I talked to the ranking American diplomat on the ground, a man called John Kornblum, who was full of ideas about what Ronald Reagan should not say. His main argument to me was, "Don't make him sound like an anti communist cowboy, and don't have him talk about the wall. They've all gotten used to it." And I went to the site where the president would speak. I flew over the wall in a US Army helicopter so I could see what I... And as you will know, from the air, the wall looked even worse than it did from inside West Berlin because from the air, you could see what lay on the other side, the dog runs guard towers and so forth. And then in the evening I broke away from the American party and went and had dinner in the home of some Berliners who'd put together... We hadn't met, but we had friends in common in Washington and they put together about 15 or so Berliners so I could chat with people. And that's where the hostess... I asked them about the wall. It was clear that they had stopped talking about it to each other every day, but if you asked them it was clear, they still hated it. They hadn't gotten used to it at all. And the hostess, lovely woman, Ingaberg Else said, "If this man Gorbachev is series with this talk, glasnost Perestroika, he can prove it by coming here and getting rid of that wall. Okay. That goes in my notebook. The second departure was from the usual staffing... Oh my goodness. I still feel sheepish describing this. This is now 1987. My boss, Tony Dolan, has been in the administration since Reagan took office in 1981, 6 years on. I, myself have been in the White House for five years. We'd learned a thing or two. And I went straight to Tony and I told him the story I just told you. I said, "I think I want to build this speech around a call to tear down the wall. And Tony liked that immediately, but immediately began thinking, we're going to need cup. So we marched... There and then we got up from his office and walked over to the West Wing and pitched this idea to Tommy Grissum, who is the director of communications and our boss. If you truly are interested in this, there's an important piece of this, of the staffing story, which is that Don Regan had been fired, oh, only weeks earlier. And former Senator Howard Baker had come in as chief of staff and Howard Baker had brought a number of his people with him, including Tommy Grissum, who was then in his thirties, I'm quite sure. I don't think he was older than 37 or 38, who'd been a newspaper reporter in Tennessee and then become Howard Baker's press secretary. The point of this is that Tommy Grissum knew a good line when he heard one and he wanted press for the president. So he said, "Yes." Okay. I write a bad draft in the first week and rewrite it in the second week. All Tony Dolan and I. We later realized was giving me cover for all this and preventing me from meeting the State Department... John Kornblum had produced a draft of his own and the State Department thought they'd somehow or other get their draft past us and have the president use that. Tony didn't even let me know this was going on. And then on a Friday afternoon, as the helicopter lands on the south lawn to take the president to Camp David for the weekend, and we send over a packet of speeches, including my draft of the Berlin Wall address and say to the new staff secretary who'd come over with Senator Bakers, we always called him, even though he's chief of staff. The president has a lot of speeches to get through. There's quite a few speeches on this trip to Europe. Why don't you give them to him now so he can look them over at Camp David and get a head start on it. And this new staff secretary was just that he was new, he wasn't quite certain about the procedure. I wasn't there when this handoff occurred, but I am told that he resisted a bit and said, "Wait, I think this should go to staffing first." And then the president walked in on his way to the helicopter. We're in the diplomatic reception room on the ground floor of the White House and the president looked and said, "Oh, well, what have you got for me?" And the staff secretary handed him this batch of speeches. What I'm saying, Andrew, is that we speech writers pulled a fast one to get the draft to Ronald Reagan before it went out to staffing. As far as I can recall, this happened on only three or four speeches in all eight years, but we did it. We pulled a fast one and it was important that the Baker staff weren't quite sure what they were doing. They were good people. They learned quickly. I don't mean to suggest incompetence, but they were brand new in the job. Okay. So we meet the president the following Monday. He's read the speech and singles out the passage in discussion in front of staff, singles out the passage about tearing down the wall as a passage he particularly wants to deliver.Then the speech goes out to staffing and it's three weeks from that moment in the Oval Office to the day the president delivers it. And for all three weeks, the National Security Council and the State Department fought the speech on a number of grounds. It was naive. It would raise false expectations. It might put Gorbachev in a difficult position with regard to the right-wingers in the Politburo, who would say to him, "You see, you try to do business with Ronald Reagan and he just insults you in public." Howard Baker... I give Howard Baker a lot of credit for this because years later he told... In any event, Howard Baker said he just didn't think it felt right. It sounded unpresidential. Years later I found myself in a conversation with him and he said, "I've never been so glad about being totally wrong before." Okay. And so this goes back and forth and back and forth and what Tommy Grissum keeps getting... My notes record that the state and the NSC submitted seven alternative drafts. Seven times they wrote a draft of their own on this, that or another pretext. But the passage to tear down the wall was missing from every one. And a new draft would get submitted. And Tommy Grissum would call me over. And he'd had me sitting right in front of him, have me look over their new draft. And then, "Are there any concessions you can make here?" "No, I want to stick with the original draft." And this is why it was important that I... I was 29 when the speech was assigned and 30 when it was delivered. So I'm still... And speech writing in the White House was the first full-time job I'd ever had. This is appalling in some way, but I thought to myself, "I was in Berlin. I saw the wall. It's horrible." I talked to people who have to live with it. That evening when I was talking to Berliners and I said, "I'm told you've forgotten about the wall." And one man raised his arm and pointed. And he said, "My sister lives just a few kilometers in that direction, but I haven't seen her in more than 20 years. How do you think we feel about that wall?" So I had done... What is the... I had encountered, let's say first order reality, and the State Department and the National Security accounts, these were people who made up their opinions by talking to each other and talking to West German diplomats. So I just thought... But they came after me because Ronald Reagan had already... Had this gone out to staffing first, it would've been smothered. It was critical that it went to the president and that he singled it out because they all had second thoughts. Nobody really wanted to play the scene with Ronald Reagan himself in which they said, "We know you're the nation's leading anti-communist, but we sort of think this is too much." But if they could talk the speech writer into changing his mind... If I wrote a memo to the president saying, "On mature reflection, sir," blah, blah, blah, he might have backed down. Okay. So I didn't back down. And then I'm told that on the... So they took off... To finish the story, I was not part of the traveling party. And I learned afterwards what happened, that Ken Duberstein who just died a couple of weeks ago, Deputy Chief of Staff Duberstein, the fighting goes on and on and on. It continues. Secretary of State, George Schultz, objects to the speech again in Italy, which is where they stopped first. And Duberstein thought he had no choice but to take it back to the president and Duberstein told me that he brought the central passage, he explained the state and NSC objections. And then he had the president read the central passage and they talked about it for a while. And then Reagan got that characteristic, little twinkle in his eye and he said, "Now I'm the president, aren't I?" "Yes, sir. We're clear about that much." "So, I get to decide whether that line stays in." "Yes, sir. It is your decision." "Well then, it stays in." Boom. So the day-

Andrew Roberts: Did George Schultz ever say to you that he was wrong and you were right?

Peter Robinson: He did not. He made it clear that he did not care to have the subject raised. We did not discuss it.

Andrew Roberts: [inaudible] just admitting it-

Peter Robinson: But I will, very much to his credit, Tommy Grissum told me. It had this weird quality. I do think it still strikes me as strange all these years later. They all fought the speech. Tom Grissum told me that after the president delivered it, the American party, George Schultz is up on the platform behind the president because he's a major dignitary, but there's staff milling around. The president then moves to the motorcade. They all begin to move to the motorcade to go onto the next event. And George Schultz scans the crowd and Tommy Grissum sees Schultz's big blue eyes, those laser beam eyes of George's settle on Tommy and George Schultz makes his way through the crowd to Tommy Grissum. And Tom said he had never been so frightened in his life. He was about to receive a dressing down from the Secretary of State about... Okay. George Schultz got to him and looked at him and said three words, "You were right."

Andrew Roberts: Ah.

Peter Robinson: You were right.

Peter Robinson: So it had this strange quality that it seemed that there were serious people, professionals to whom this seemed all wrong right up until the moment they heard it. And then it seemed right.

Andrew Roberts: There's something that you... I mean, it's a key moment in the Cold War, obviously. And there's something you have in the book, which I thought was fascinating. Was it Tony Dolan who said to you, "Actors get used to alternative endings?"

Peter Robinson: Yes, yes, yes.

Andrew Roberts: Now, go into that. Unpack that because I think it's very interesting your theory of Ronald Reagan and the Cold War with regard to alternative endings.

Peter Robinson: Yes. By the way, Andrew, I could yak on for days.

Andrew Roberts: Good, good.

Peter Robinson: And I'm conscious by the way that I'm following... I just listened to the podcast you recorded with Victor Davis Hanson and I feel as though I'm coming on stage to tap dance after a performance by Pavarotti. I'm just conscious that... So, you just, you just move me along here as I-

Andrew Roberts: No, no, no, no, no. I'm enjoying this thing, but tell us about this actors get used to alternative endings.

Peter Robinson: Right. Tony's point was that when Ronald Reagan went to Hollywood in the thirties, I've forgotten the numbers now. I believe it was in his first three years he appeared in 17 movies and the president himself used to say of Hollywood, "They didn't want them good. They wanted them Thursday." In other words, in those days, they were just making product. And it was quite typical for the actors on the sound stage- For the actors on the soundstage, to get ahead of the screenwriters. So they'd finish a scene. There would still be an hour left. Everybody's under contract. The lights are up. They were in their makeup, they were in their costumes, but they just finished what the screenwriters had produced. And Reagan got a reputation for being quite good at ad-libbing, and trying out different scenes, so they'd lay down a few scenes. They couldn't get too far ahead of the script writers, but they'd try things out. It all struck me as very odd, but even in the '80s, even with Ronald Reagan in the White House, there's a kind of grimness about the conservative outlook. Whittaker Chambers writes, in his book Witness, that when he left the Communist party, he did so in the consciousness that he was leaving the winning side to join the losing side. Jean-François Revel, what year would that have been, '85 maybe? Jean-François Revel produces a book which turns into a bestseller, and it's called How Democracies Perish. Okay. So somehow, or the whole underlying premise of détente and coexistence, of the Nixon, Kissinger, Ford policy, is that the Soviet Union's going to be here essentially forever. It's a great power. We have to deal with it. All we can do is manage the relationship. This is just the way things are, and they're going to continue to be that way. That always struck me as very strange, because nobody really could say, when he woke up in the morning, what would happen that day. Isn't that right? Isn't that the way human life is? We understand, in our own lives, the open-endedness of life, but somehow, when people try to think through future history, so to speak, if they think forward in history, they think some strange way, it's predetermined.

Andrew Roberts: Well, and especially to do with communism, because essential to communism is this concept of the inevitability of the [inaudible]

Peter Robinson: Correct.

Andrew Roberts: ... of the proletariat, so we were, in a sense, even the conservative movement was sort of buying into the [inaudible]

Peter Robinson: Exactly so.

Andrew Roberts: ... what is essentially a Marxist concept.

Peter Robinson:  That is exactly so. We had made an intellectual concession, it was a very serious concession, without even realizing what intellectual ground we had ceded. That's the way I read it now. And Ronald Reagan's mind just didn't work that way. There's a famous moment, told to me by Dick Allen, to whom it happened. The year is '73, I think. Reagan is now a... No, it's '77. Reagan's now a former governor of California. He's run for the Republican presidential nomination and lost to Gerald Ford. Ford in turn lost to Carter, so Reagan is, for all anybody knows, a washed-up politician. Carter's just been elected president, and Dick Allen stops by Reagan's place in Pacific Palisades to give him a... Dick Allen, foreign policy professional, who would later become Reagan's first national security advisor, and he spends the morning giving Reagan an overview of world affairs. Mrs. Reagan brings them sandwiches, and over lunch, the former governor says, "Well, this is all very interesting. Would you like to hear my view of the Cold War?" Dick Allen said, "Well, of course sir. I would, governor. I'd like to hear your view of the Cold War," and Reagan replies, "Well, some people call me simplistic, but there's a difference between being simplistic and being simple. My view of the Cold War is we win and they lose."

Andrew Roberts: Magnificent.

Peter Robinson: It is, isn't it? I mean, it is- Here they are over sandwiches and potato chips in Pacific Palisades, but he's making the most... Nobody thought that... Dick Allen's made the point that he'd trained under Kissinger, and there was just no one in American politics who could have uttered such a statement, except Ronald Reagan. So he had, with your... I know that you've just recorded a podcast with this person, and he is in all kinds of ways a genuinely great figure, Henry Kissinger. My impression of watching him, listening to him, reading his books is that he has a mind... He knows immense amounts of history, and he applies to that history very close calculations. You look at the pictures of Kissinger and Nixon in the Oval Office, and you can almost hear the tumblers turning in both of their minds, as they make constant calculations of power, correlation of forces, and so forth. And Reagan wasn't like that. Again, I don't mean to... I'm not denigrating that turn of mind. Reagan had a different turn of mind, and he had just a kind of moral imagination, what's right, what's wrong, and he could imagine, he could actually picture a world without the Soviet Union, at a time when no one else could do that.

Andrew Roberts: It was happening in England a bit with Margaret Thatcher in the late '70s as well, and the interaction between those two, intellectually, I think is something of great interest. You say in your book that after the assassination, after Hinckley's assassination attempt, Reagan emerged a larger man. What did you mean by that?

Peter Robinson: This is tricky territory, but it's very much a piece of the man, and in my judgment, it's impossible to describe him in whole without getting into this territory a bit, but it's religious in nature. He says this to a few people, and he records it in his diary. I have heard, from people who heard it themselves at second or third hand, that he said that Mother Teresa visited the White House a couple of times, and she said it to him and he said it to her, that he had the feeling... By the way, Reagan's religion, very, very difficult to get at. He's not a man who wears his religion on... Actually, he wears very little on his sleeve. He doesn't wear his religion on his sleeve. Doesn't even go to church all that often, but I had long talks with, among others, Bill Clark, Judge Clark, who did get to know Reagan extremely well, and told me how often Reagan was in prayer. All right, the notion is simply this, that he felt, after the assassination attempt, that in some basic way, he had been spared, for some higher purpose. Now, who else had a feeling, although he hadn't survived an assassination attempt? I might suggest to you the title of a recent book, called Walking with Destiny. Churchill felt... Is it not the case that the-

Andrew Roberts: In retrospect, the number of times that Winston Churchill escaped close brushes with death, and assassination attempts is almost a sort of oversight.

Peter Robinson : Yes. Yes, yes.

Andrew Roberts: It's extraordinary that he didn't... I mean, actually, one suffragette did try to push him in front of a railway, oncoming railway-

Peter Robinson: Oh, is that so?

Andrew Roberts: ... train. Yeah, so under some circumstances, you might call that an assassination attempt. Nonetheless, yes, and he also very much felt that the almighty was saving him for a greater purpose, as a result of surviving all these close brushes with death. And what you're saying is that Ronald Reagan had that-

Peter Robinson: Yes. Yes, and what it meant was that from that moment on... Now, you could see this in the... You could sense it in him, but from that moment on, all kinds of things that matter a great deal to most of us just didn't matter to him anymore. They didn't matter. His reputation, this diplomatic maneuver, that diplomatic maneuver, somehow or other, he was just firmly focused... "Firmly focused," that's not the right way to put it, but the notion of freedom and liberty, and also, this doesn't get picked up on terribly much, I don't think, he really hated nuclear weapons. So the notion that he was a warmonger, like so many attacks on these great people... You and I have discussed this... It's so often the case that the press not only gets things wrong, but gets things exactly wrong. Not just a matter of nuance, but off by 180 degrees. For example, here's one of those moments, and I just don't know how he would have... if this moment would have taken place before the assassination attempt. There's a meeting in the... This is not in the book, oddly enough. I couldn't find a place to put it in. I don't know why. In any event. Speechwriters in the Oval Office, can't remember what speech we were discussing, but the big issue in Washington at the moment was the Strategic Defense Initiative, so-called Star Wars, and the question was, is Reagan serious about this, or is this, as all the calculating minds supposed, a bargaining chip? [inaudible]

Andrew Roberts: Or a gigantic bluff, of course.

Peter Robinson: Or a-

Andrew Roberts: That's the other thing-

Peter Robinson: Exactly. Does he mean it, or is it a bluff, or something to be dispensed with at the... All right. The president goes off, and he begins by telling us a story that we'd all heard before, that when he was in college, he got a job washing dishes in a sorority, and the punchline was, "It wasn't the worst job I've ever had, washing dishes in a girls' house," so we chuckled, but we'd all heard this joke before. And then he continued with something we'd never heard before, and actually, I've never heard anyplace else or seen anybody else write about. He said one evening, he and another fellow were... One of them was washing the dishes and the other was drying, and they were chatting as one would in that circumstance, and the other fellow said, "Well, airplanes mean that in the next war, we'll win it by just dropping bombs on the enemies' cities," and I can still picture this. Reagan said... He's describing a conversation that happened decades before, but you could still see his kind of look of shock and bewilderment on his face. "I told him, 'No. No, we could never do that. We were Americans.'" That was all he said, but of course, all of us were thinking Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, and at that moment-

Andrew Roberts: If he's-

Peter Robinson: Sorry.

Andrew Roberts: ... 17 or so, what year would that have taken-

Peter Robinson: This would have been-

Andrew Roberts: ... place?

Peter Robinson: He would have been 18, 19. Let's see, he was born in 1911, so this would have been 1911 plus 20, so we had 30, the early '30s, the early '30s.

Andrew Roberts: Well, exactly. Before the Nazis started bombing Rotterdam, before even Guernica was bombed, it was a very powerful moral concept, that it was a war crime to bomb innocent civilians in cities, so-

Peter Robinson: True. All that is true. My point is that here he is, repeating that concept in the 1980s, in the Oval Office, and at that moment, we understood the Strategic Defense Initiative is not a bargaining chip. He really wants to use our technological advantage to discover a way to protect the American people from nuclear weapons. That was my point there, Andrew, about the-

Andrew Roberts : You talk about him... It's very interesting in your book, where is he lucky? Is he unlucky? You put forward the ideas that he had been lucky, especially in a couple of moments in politics, but then you say his father was a drunk, his first wife divorced him, and when he was in his 40s, his acting career was ending. I mean, those are huge, all three of them, punches in the face to take.

Peter Robinson : Yes, they are.

Andrew Roberts: And yet, later on, you depict a man with immense serenity. He's calm before the state of the union. He didn't curse, or mope, or shout. He was a man of tremendous serenity. You've mentioned, of course, his religion, but where else does this come from, this serenity?

Peter Robinson: How do we describe these things, Andrew, without... You and I labor under this burden that in one way or another, we're situated in the world of academia and media, where one is never meant to talk about really deep things, because they're just not allowed. It's just against the rules in some way, right? But I just came to... It was a deep, deep faith, but it was beyond faith, it was almost a kind of just knowledge that this was a man who had encountered reality through suffering, and come to the conclusion that the whole Judeo-Christian, the base message, was true. Good is the primary reality. Evil is a distortion of that reality. History, in one way or another, it is not for us to know in our time, but history, in one way or the other, lies in the hands of a just and merciful providence, and in some basic way, things are going to come out all right. Honestly, this had become just a fundamental part of his outlook.

Andrew Roberts: And you say also his happy marriage is something that gave him-

Peter Robinson: Oh, yes.

Andrew Roberts: ... serenity as well.

Peter Robinson: Yes.

Andrew Roberts: Tell us a little bit about that, because she also... Nancy Reagan has been horribly ill-treated by people. Horribly ill-treated by people, commentators, especially on the left over the years. Tell us a bit about that.

Peter Robinson: She was difficult for us, Andrew, even at the time. I can tell, there was one moment of, I think it lasted about three weeks when, since I was the junior speech writer on the staff, I was told that I was now going to be writing speeches for Mrs. Reagan. It took me about three weeks to wriggle out of that and persuade Mrs. Reagan that they needed to go hire a full-time speech writer on their own. But I have in my files, I have, I think it was three pages. I don't think she ever gave anything longer than about three, but I have a speech for Mrs. Reagan in which Mrs. Reagan with a blue felt tip pen has drawn a line through every line on every page.

Andrew Roberts: The ultimate nightmare for a speech writer.

Peter Robinson: The ultimate. Every single word I wrote. And that came back to me. What, what, what?

Andrew Roberts: Did that ever happen to you at all your entire career?

Peter Robinson: Never.

Andrew Roberts: You wrote 150 speeches in your first year as a speech writer.

Peter Robinson: Nothing like that. Nothing like that ever happened. That was not just a rejection, that was a rejection in detail. She wanted me to know she'd considered every word and found it wanting. All right. So she was a difficult, tricky lady, but there's a moment in his life, a couple of people told me this, even one of them is still alive. Two people, when I was writing that book, I went to major people, people who'd known the president longest. And a couple of people told me using almost exactly the same words, which suggested to me that they had heard it in those words from Ronald Reagan himself, but they both said that the breakup of his first marriage was the worst event in his life.

Peter Robinson: He told them that, and they did not want to go on the record saying so, out of respect for him-

Andrew Roberts: And her perhaps.

Peter Robinson: And her as well. He starts dating one starlet after another. There's a moment for the first and only time in his life where there's a kind of recklessness that enters in. He's showing up at nightclubs. He's drinking. He's dating one starlet after another. His career is not going terribly well. It isn't over the way it would be after the ... I beg your pardon, his career is already beginning to fade. Career as an actor. You can see this, the way we thought about it in the White House, there were two people ... Reagan was the older of the two, but Peter Lawford this genial Englishman who married one of the Kennedy sisters and had a quick rise, quick early rise in his career, and then it stalled out and he got divorced and he was a lovely man known around Hollywood. He lived in Malibu and he would throw parties and he would be constantly drunk and high. It just threw away the second half of his life. You could see Ronald Reagan moving in that direction for a moment or two. Then he meets Nancy and she takes him in hand. She takes him in hand and she gives herself to him. She's not a nobody. She's a starlet. She has some standing in town, because her mother was an actress for many years. Nancy Reagan really knew Spencer Tracy. She knew major figures in Hollywood because her mother had been an actress. This is not a nobody. It just turns Ronald Reagan around. In later years, as I got to know Mrs. Reagan. I got to know Mrs. Reagan better after the White House. In fact, we had this conversation once. I took her to lunch at the Hotel Bel Air, where she had her own table and they knew without asking to bring her a very finely chopped Cobb salad of which she ate almost nothing. She ate like a bird. And we discussed, she wouldn't want this repeated, and I don't mean to make it sound as though it's denigrating anyone, but the difference between what she and Ronnie did in Washington and what George and Laura Bush were doing. She made the point that she got to Washington and she did in Washington, just what she did in Hollywood. She looked around and said, "Whom do I need to charm to help my husband?" She became very good friends with Katharine Graham. We speech writers always disliked this, that Mrs. Reagan was making friends with the liberal establishment. She was doing it because she understood the way people operate. She knew how towns worked. You get that. You get someone who loves him totally and unconditionally. You get someone, if Mrs. Reagan is the one who's tough on staff, never on a policy matter, but you had to prove to Mrs. Reagan, that you put his interest first. Her default position was you're here to take something from us or to use him. You had to prove, of course, for speech writers, we labor long years for not much money in those days. Eventually, we became all right. Although she was always worried that we put something in that would embarrass him. But all of this for the good of Ronald Reagan. I realized when you're president of the United States, everybody who walks through the door of the Oval Office wants something from you. We speechwriters wanted something. We wanted more of his time. Everybody wanted more of him. Nancy Reagan was the one. His children wanted more of his time and attention. And Nancy Reagan was the one who didn't want anything from him. She just wanted his own good. That was absolutely basic to him.

Andrew Roberts: I love that story of you being put in your place by her with the speech. There's also a lovely story of Michael Deaver, putting you very much in your place as a young speech writer.

Andrew Roberts: Why don't you tell our listeners that.

Peter Robinson: Well, as I say, the general rule was in the Reagan White House, that if you wrote the speech, you went to hear the president deliver it. I'd written a speech. I can't remember. But it was to be delivered in Washington in some big hotel ballroom, and the motorcade lines up. There's the armored limousine drawn up on the South Lawn Drive, just outside the Oval Office, and we're waiting for the president, and then behind the limousine, there's a secret service vehicle. Then there are six, seven sedans. I think they were Chryslers in those days or government vehicles. I was the lowest ranking member of the staff. I knew that without being told. I walked to the last sedan and climbed into that. The other sedans all filled up with staff who outranked me. I sat in this last sedan alone. I could see Deaver looking down the rank of sedans. We're waiting for the president. And Deaver's gaze comes to rest on me. Lowly speech writer. First of all, speech writers were lowly in his view. I was the most junior member of the speech writing staff. So I see Deaver motion to an aide of his and point to my car and say something to the aide. Then the aide comes over and says, "You're out of the motorcade. Mr. Deaver doesn't want to devote an entire vehicle just to a speech writer. You're out." I mean, the humiliation of getting out of my car and walking past all these staffers. I'm pretty sure that if one or two other staffers had joined that sedan, I would've been all right.

Peter Robinson : But a speech writer by himself, with taxpayers money on gasoline? Not a chance. Get out of there.

Andrew Roberts : I've got a couple of Reagan stories that I think might amuse you. Both of them told me by Frank Johnson who was a great friend of mine. He was the Daily Telegraph-

Peter Robinson: Oh. Yes. I know. Yes, yes.

Andrew Roberts: Who a great journalist and a great friend. And he was [inaudible]

Peter Robinson: I took him to lunch once at the White House mess.

Andrew Roberts: Did you?

Peter Robinson: Yes, I did do.

Andrew Roberts : Oh, all right, you'll have heard both of these jokes, but some of our listeners might not have though. In 1976, he covered the run against Ford.

Peter Robinson : Yes.

Andrew Roberts: And he had a chance to speak to Ronald Reagan who said, "Is it true that in California, they're running all my old films?" And Frank said, "Yes, yes. I love them. I've been watching them last few days." And Ronald Reagan said, "Those Democrats they'll stop at nothing." And the other one he said to Frank was, he said, "I was never big in England. My movies. I put it down to your innate British good taste."

Peter Robinson: Notice, notice-

Andrew Roberts : That's the kind of charming, self-deprecation-

Peter Robinson: Yes. Yes. Yes.

Andrew Roberts: You'd never get a politician doing that kind of thing today.

Peter Robinson: No.

Andrew Roberts: It's just against the lexicon, essentially.

Peter Robinson: The humor was always-

Andrew Roberts: To use that self-deprecating humor.

Peter Robinson: The humor was always self-deprecating. Reagan signed a piece of legislation, I don't think there was money involved, but somehow or other, it was a recognition that the internment of Japanese during the Second World War was a terrible error. The audience is filled with old time Japanese-Americans who'd been interned, many of them. I'd done my research, and I had discovered, manna from heaven for a speech writer, that Reagan at the time, as an actor in Hollywood, had spoken out against the internment. All right. I have him, he's giving the speech and he quotes one Japanese figure, Japanese American, and mispronounces the name horribly. He realizes as he gets to the text. Now we put these things in phonetics, but for some reason he hadn't ... well he almost always went over a speech in his mind before delivering it, but he just butchered the name. Then there was another quotation from another Japanese American, and he gets that name, he pauses, and he's awkward on that name as well. Then he comes up to the quotation in which he's quoting himself. And he said, "And now a quotation from someone who was an actor in Hollywood at the time. "He reads the quotation and then he pauses and says, "And I hope I can pronounce this name correctly. Ronald Reagan."

Peter Robinson : And they all just ... it was a kind of apology and a moment of charm and humor all at the same time. You could just see the audience fall for him. Just fall for him.

Andrew Roberts: And what you call in your book, a certain lightness of touch.

Andrew Roberts: Which obviously is true, both of Ronald Reagan and of speech writing. We have spoken for an hour.

Peter Robinson: Oh, Lord. I'll leave you alone.

Andrew Roberts: I rather feel we could have spoken for at least five, Peter, but thank you very much indeed, Peter Robinson for this truly fascinating insight into the process of speech writing for the person who I believe to be the greatest American peace time president of the 20th century.

Peter Robinson: Thank you, Andrew. You have a dinner party?

Andrew Roberts: Yes. I've got a dash now. Apologies. Exactly.

Peter Robinson: Okay. Dash.

Andrew Roberts: On the next edition of Secrets of Statecraft, I'll be talking to Bibi Netanyahu, presently leader of the opposition, and already the longest serving prime minister in Israel's history.

Speaker 1: This podcast is a production of the Hoover Institution, where we advance ideas that define a free society and improve the human condition. For more information about our work or to listen to more of our podcasts or watch our videos, please visit www.hoover.org.

View the discussion thread.

Join the Hoover Institution’s community of supporters in ideas advancing freedom.

• Corporate Services

• Blog editing
• Your Happy First Draft
• 8 1/2 Steps to Writing Faster, Better

Online courses

• How to Hire an Editor
• Extreme Writing Makeover
• Banish Your Fear of Writing

Group support

• Get it Done

Stand and deliver: The art of speech writing

Word count: 725 words

Reading time: Less than 3 minutes

While writing always involves putting words on paper, speech writing requires a few rather specialized strategies. Read on to learn more…

I lead workshops and give speeches regularly  but haven’t made them a core part of my business because I have three school-age children. (But, hey, my triplets graduate in June!) I enjoy presenting and have never suffered from the kind of public speaking anxiety that cripples many others. Perhaps it was my background in high school debating that saved me. Anyway, a few months ago, subscriber Lawrence emailed to ask for advice on how to prepare and present speeches, so here goes:

Just as you should never start writing until you know exactly how many words are required,  you can’t possibly plan a speech or a presentation until you know the length of time you have. If it’s 20 minutes or less, be aware that the typical human speaks at somewhere between 125 and 150 words per minute and plan accordingly.

(If you’re given MORE than 20 minutes, recognize that most audiences will likely be bored no matter how brilliant and scintillating you are. Long speeches MUST be broken up with activities or Q&A sessions. The days when an audience of farmers could listen to Abe Lincoln for three hours are long gone!)

To begin your speech, start with a  mindmap   and look for stories, anecdotes and examples that address or illustrate the topic you’ve been given. These should form the  core  of what you deliver. Why? Because (a) you won’t have to write them out word for word as you’ll remember them more or less automatically, and (b) audiences adore being entertained by stories. Try to avoid giving too many numbers or simply reciting facts. Your audience won’t remember that stuff anyway!

When you’ve finished your mindmap,  review it to see if you can identify three points (or better, stories) you can speak about. To my mind, just about every speech should focus on no more and no fewer than three points/stories. Here is how your speech might look depending on its length:

LENGTH     Intro       Point 1        Point 2      Point 3      Conclusion  5 mins          1 min          1 min             1 min.          1 min           1 min 10 mins        1 min          2.5 min         2.5 min       3 min           1 min 15 mins        1.5 min       4 min            4 min           4 min           1.5 min 20 mins        2 min          5 min            5 min          5 min           3 min

If you’re speaking for more than 20 minutes,  some of the timing may become less predictable. For long presentations, I suggest you over-prepare and identify certain segments (or activities) that can be jettisoned if time runs short.

Try to avoid writing your entire speech word for word.  But do write the intro and conclusion to get it perfect. Use simple, concrete words and strong imagery.

If PowerPoint is part of your presentation,  please promise me you’ll never prepare slides filled with words. Instead, look for  photos  to illustrate your points. In that way, the images will ENHANCE your speech rather than detract from it. (There are plenty of free or inexpensive photo sources such as Flickr, istock photo or fotolia.) Best of all, if you practice thoroughly, you may be able to deliver your presentation without a single note –- the images will remind you of what to say next.

Speaking of practice,  be sure to do enough of it. I took a terrific workshop last fall (thanks Jeremy and Jennifer!) where I heard the expression “Professionals practice in private; amateurs practice in public.” This is so true. It can be hard to force yourself to practice, however, so to make your goal more measurable, I suggest you tape yourself with a video camera.

Furthermore, try practicing in front of a  real  audience.  If you’re going to be speaking to a large audience, try it on a smaller one, first. (Family and friends are better than nothing but see if you can make it slightly more realistic than that. Does your office have a Toastmaster’s club, for example?)

When speaking make sure you are smiling,  breathing properly and looking your audience in the EYES. If it’s a large group of people, your eyes should flit over each quarter (or eighth) of the room in relatively quick succession. If you’re a newbie for whom that’s just too much, look just over the tops of everyone’s heads and it will appear as though you are looking them in the eye.

Finally, as with any type of writing,  your speech will improve with practice. So, practice.

Writing For An Audience Of One: The Art Of Speechwriting With Rob Noel

When you ghostwrite a speech for someone else, it means you only have that person as your audience. It can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on which angle you look at it. On the one hand, you only have one person to impress. On the other, you really have to know what that person believes for your words to truly resonate with them and in turn, resonate with their real audience. That is probably the greatest challenge that  Rob Noel  has had as a speechwriter for some of the biggest political and corporate figures out there, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, US Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Tom Donohue, Undersecretary Keith Krach, and US Senator and Presidential candidate Mark Rubio. An award-winning speechwriter and executive communications advisor, Rob is also the President of the  Washington Writers Network . Join in as he let us take a peek inside a day in the life of a speechwriter in this conversation with Dr. Diane Hamilton.

I’m glad you joined us because we have Rob Noel here. He’s the President of the Washington Writers Network , and he writes speeches for some of the biggest politicians out there. It’s going to be a fascinating show.

Watch the episode here

Listen to the podcast here

Rob Noel is an award-winning speechwriter and executive communications advisor who’s worked with senior corporate and government leaders, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, US Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Tom Donohue, Undersecretary Keith Krach, and US Senator and Presidential candidate Mark Rubio. He’s the Founder and President of Washington Writers Network , an agency that connects clients across sectors to a growing network of more than 80 professional writers in the DC area.

It’s so nice to have you here, Rob .

Nice to be here. Thank you for having me.

I found you because I noticed Keith Krach had responded to something that you had written on LinkedIn and I have done a lot of different things with Keith. From being on the board of advisors at DocuSign or to Global Mentoring Network, and he wrote the foreword of my last book on curiosity. He’s such an impressive guy. I was excited to see who impressed him and you obviously did. I’m curious to find out a little bit more about your background. I’d like to know how you met Keith and what you’ve done with him.

I told him I was coming on your show and he sent me the foreword that he did for your book on curiosity. It made me buy the book. It’s good and in fact, it gave me a lot of thoughts on speech writing which we should get to at some point. I started as a communications assistant for Rubio in the Senate. I volunteered to do some writing because I enjoyed it. Started out with blog posts and eventually graduated to op-eds and video scripts. They tried me out on a speech. I didn’t know it at the time but that was coming from the senator. They said, “Want to try this guy out.” I passed the test. They made me the speechwriter. I did that for about three years.

I then went to the US Chamber and wrote for Tom Donohue, who was a completely different person, a different type of writing. Marco came from a blue-collar background. His mom was a maid in hotels, his dad was a bartender in hotels, they were both Cuban refugees. Tom Donohue made $10 million a year. He was driven around in a black car with tinted windows, Brooklyn, and tough as nails. It was great getting to write for a different style of person. I learned a lot about the craft and making that shift.

I then interviewed with Pompeo when he was at the CIA, and I was originally going to work for him there. When I went in to meet with him, that was the day that he was nominated for Secretary of State. He said, “Why don’t you come with me to State?” That’s what I did. That’s how I met Keith. I got to know him when I was at the State Department writing for Pompeo. I was working on his speech about Keith for his swearing-in ceremony. He had been confirmed as Undersecretary.

The secretary at the last minute had to end up canceling that but as I was writing that speech, I went and met with Keith in his office and we both hit it off. He eventually ended up inviting me to come work for him and I took him up on it even though I was, in a sense, demoting myself going from writing for his boss to writing for the undersecretary but I liked Keith. I felt that we thought fairly similarly, which is more than nice to have. It’s foundational to a creative partnership, which is what speech writing is but also, of course, I wanted to start my business and who better to learn from but Keith.

I don’t think there’s a person alive who met Keith who didn’t like him. He’s the most interesting, down-to-earth guy, and a billionaire who has done everything and yet he seems so approachable in many ways. That must have been fun to work with him. As you were talking about him, I’m thinking about adjusting to each person’s style. That’s going to be challenging. How do you do that? How do you know how to sound in their voice?

That’s the job. Take Keith for example. As you said, he’s a unique guy by government standards. He’s the opposite of a bureaucrat. He’s not a politician. He’s this tech CEO with this massive personality. His mind works in a special way. He didn’t care about upsetting the status quo. In fact, he preferred to go against the grain, which is interesting to watch in the Federal government because it’s by nature, constrictive and bureaucratic but he viewed it as a public service rather than as a career move.

He would tell me, “I don’t care if the President fires me for this. We’re going to do it this way.” That this is an aside but that’s not to say he had nothing to lose. People don’t realize he gave up a lot to take the job. He had to divest all of his stake in DocuSign and then while he was at State, DocuSign stock tripled because of the pandemic. Keith effectively gave up probably $1 billion or more to join the government but he didn’t care.

He already had enough money and he knew that what he was working on at that time, during the pandemic especially, which was securing PPE from around the world, which was in short supply at that time. Ten million masks from Bangladesh. One billion gloves from China. Ventilators, medicines, getting them back the frontline health care workers. He knew that was literally life-saving work. He was uniquely well-equipped to do it because it didn’t just involve diplomacy. He had to enlist the help of a lot of American companies.

Keith would call the CEOs of FedEx and UPS. They both sent fleets of aircraft to these foreign countries to help airlift the medical supplies back to the States. He then had to have the distribution networks in place once the planes landed. Companies like Cardinal Health, McKesson. It was a massive operation. It was a whole government operation but Keith played a critical role that I don’t think anyone else could have played.

To answer your question, the best part about speech writing is getting to work closely in a personal capacity with exceptional people who are uniquely successful necessarily or else they wouldn’t need a speechwriter. It’s a privilege. When you’re working with Keith or anyone else on their communications, I view it as a character study because my ability to write for them always comes down to my ability to understand them.

I talk about this a lot with the younger writers in my business. It’s not a good idea to view speech writing as an opportunity to express their views. You may see this a lot in political speech writing. People think this is my chance to inject my opinions into the debate. You’re going to fail if you do it that way because the only way to write a good speech is to write something that the person truly believes and that resonates with them on a deeply personal level. When they deliver, they deliver it with feeling. If they believe it, the audience will feel it as a result. I like to say that the job of a speechwriter is to write for an audience of one person, and that’s your boss.

It’s got to be challenging if you write things and then they think. I’m sure you get feedback. You have to because everybody is going to have their own little unique things that maybe they don’t want you to say this or that. How is that on your ego sometimes? You think you’ve written the perfect thing, then maybe they have some corrections. Is that hard? I would think it would be a little hard.

It’s definitely hard. A lot of writers, there’s a natural pride in authorship and what you’re doing and why you want it to reflect well on yourself. There’s a component of your own creativity that’s involved as a speechwriter. If you take the same principles say Keith or Barack Obama and you give 100 speech writers equal access to him and the exact same topic and parameters to write a speech on, you’ll get 100 different speeches and they’ll range in quality. The best one is whichever one he likes the most because the principal is the only person that matters. It’s not the audience, which is what a lot of people think. It’s not what another speechwriter would think based on the technical merit of the speech. It’s all about the principle and jiving with their personal way of looking at the world.

I guess you would also have to worry about anybody critiquing from the public if they don’t like the message to some extent or the way it was said. Have you had to deal with that as a writer? How do you handle that?

It’s a consideration, particularly with political writing. If you’re working for a candidate but I tried to not make that my concern because with an audience of one. It’s your risk tolerance. Whatever the person you’re writing for is risk tolerances and a lot of the job, particularly the higher-level principle you’re writing for, there’s a lot of people reviewing the speeches. It’s everyone from political consultants, attorneys, to policy experts. A lot of the job is fighting to keep things out, fighting to keep things, then that’s particularly difficult with the edgy stuff. Edgy material is what people remember in a speech. It’s important to maintain some risk tolerance when you’re writing.

It is hard just because I give my own talks and do my own things like this and write books and I know that there’s a lot of us who have content knowledge but maybe it’s hard to write it in the best way or speak it in the most effective way. Do you see a lot of that in Washington that there are these people who have such great ideas but it’s hard for them to get it out in the best way possible? Unless they hire somebody like you.

There’s a component of that to it I’m always hesitant to say that it’s like these people that you’re writing speeches for are less talented in some way than you, and you’re being called in to make them sound better than they otherwise would because in most cases, they’re where they are because they’re extraordinarily gifted at communicating their ideas. A lot of it is saving them time. For high-level people, it’s not worth their time to be sitting at a keyboard clacking away on a speech when they should be writing legislation or on the phone with like the King of Jordan or something like that, which is the case with Pompeo. It’s saving them time. The best compliment that you can ever get from someone that you’re writing for is, “That’s exactly what I think and you said it as well or better than I could have.” That’s what you want to hear.

Don’t you have to go sit down with them and figure out what they want to say? How do you get the content that you’re going to need to write?

That depends. Ideally, you want to get as much time with them as you can, particularly on the front end, when the relationship is just starting. You want to get to know them in a relaxed setting, almost interview them the way you would for a podcast. You ask them questions even that are tangential to the topics you’re going to be writing on because you want to know their background. I mentioned with Rubio, the family story. That was incredibly integral to the way that he thought about policy, the way that he communicated and message this idea.

If you wrote for the son of immigrants from Miami, parents who only spoke Spanish, the same way that you wrote for Tom Donohue at the chamber or for Mike Pompeo. He came from a working-class background as well but he was in West Point at 18, officer training. Born to lead people. You’re going to fail if you treat everyone the same. Spending that time with them to get to know them is where your work on curiosity interests me because you have to take almost like a therapist’s or a psychologist’s approach to sitting down with someone where you’re taking a professional, detailed interest in them. A lot of it is letting them talk, letting the conversation go where they want it to go, and being curious about the way that they organize their thoughts, the way that they think about the world, and all of that. It’s a challenge but it’s the fun of the job, in my opinion.

When I talked to Keith, that’s why I wanted him to write the foreword because as you said earlier, he was so against the status quo. That’s what I was getting at with developing curiosity was getting out of status quo thinking. I know he credits a lot of things to his mother. He called her Mama Croc. I’m sure that came into play when you’re thinking of his influences and different things. You’re dealing with him because he’s, as you talked about and I talked about, a big leader in the business world so you don’t just write speeches for politicians. You’ve got professional writers in the DC area working for leaders too, other industries?

Speech writing is as important in the corporate world at the Fortune 500 level, but even down from that to midsize companies, it’s like what I was saying, it’s not worth their time usually. If you’re leading a company, you’re managing a staff and a few thousand people. You’re dealing with profit concerns and all sorts of things. You want to have a thought partnership with someone that you can trust that understands the way that you think, who can save you time, who can help you craft persuasive, powerful on-brand content for you and for your company. It’s like Keith always says, the CEO is 50% of the brand of a company. It’s a worthwhile investment for a company to make to get the right person in there to work with their executive.

In the political realm, I’m curious as you’re watching some of the speeches either you wrote or other people have written and you’re watching people deliver them. How often did they go off script? Do you sit there and look for those kinds of things and go, “That can’t be in the script?”

Yes, and it’s great when someone goes off-script. In fact, in some ways, I take it as a compliment when you craft an argument that gets them so excited that they have something else to say about it they go off from their excitement to elaborate on a point. That’s often where the gold is. I like seeing that audiences generally respond well to it. It can get you in trouble sometimes, but most of these guys are savvy enough to speak carefully at a podium but you do see that a lot and that’s a good thing.

Do you put in things that you think, “I want this to go down in history,” like ask not what your country can do for you kind of things? Are you thinking, “This could be a cool soundbite forever posterity or whatever?”

The goals are always different. For the secretary, we were writing with an eye towards history and the way that the policies of the administration would be remembered, and the impact that they would have. For a corporate client, sometimes you’re writing an earnings call script. In those cases, it’s better to be straightforward, fact-based, someone in a dime in the presentation because it can swing your stock price if you hit too hard or anything like that. For others, the concern is the media. You want to have lines in there that can make for a headline or else the speech isn’t likely to be covered. If it’s not covered, you are wasting your time because the thing has to have legs after it’s delivered, or else your audience is limited to whoever was in the room.

Are you looking for controversy then? Is that a part of it?

Sometimes you are. We don’t want to get into politics but you saw this a lot with Trump. He was good at understanding the way that media responded to certain things. He was an entertainer and a showman. That’s reflective of a broader trend and content creation society where we have so much content competing for our attention at any given moment more than ever before in history by far. The message has to be authentic. It has to somewhat sizzle so that people talk about it. You’ve got some water cooler talk on it.

The media, it’s not their fault, they’re a business and they’re chasing clicks and chasing viewers like everyone else. They want to cover the things that are going to make you click on them. I watch this carefully myself when I’m browsing Google News or any other compendium of news. I’m clicking on things that are controversial or make me curious and interested. There is some of that but it all comes back to understanding your principle and the goals that they have and staying within the fences that they built for you.

I’m curious how thick their skin is after they give these speeches and then things are taken out of context or written about them in a negative way. Are they used to it being in politics that they’re expecting it or does it sting?

There’s as much diversity and personality at the top as there is at any other level. You’ve got a lot of thin-skinned people. That’s part of their ambition. The fact that they care a lot about what people think about them and the way they’re perceived. You then also have a lot of people who are gunning and going for it. They want to upset a certain portion of the public or the audience because they see an appeal in that. There’s a big variety.

A lot of people reading this aren’t in politics and they want to write a great speech. How can they learn from what you do to craft a presidential equality type speech? What are some of the things that you can share with them?

The key is authenticity. This is, of course, a word that you can’t escape from. It’s been hijacked by a lot of sleazy PR types and sort of corporate holiday and brown bag lunches where they’re teaching on this stuff but everyone defines it differently. I’m convinced that the biggest signature of authenticity, at least in the context of speechwriting, is a certain kind of risk-taking. It’s a willingness to say what you mean even if it might alienate a subset of people and the reason.

This is because back to your earlier question, it’s the primary way that I can tell whether a speech was written by a ghostwriter or by the person actually delivering the speech. When you see something that shoots from the hip in a powerful way with a lot of thoughtfulness and emotion and energy, it’s probably coming from that person because a speechwriter, in many cases, is writing to please the boss. There’s a certain risk aversion inherent to that because you don’t want to look stupid sending the boss something that goes out too far on a limb. Risk doesn’t mean that you’re being unnecessarily edgy or intentionally controversial because that’s not authentic either. People can sniff out phoniness. People have a sixth sense for that sort of authenticity. It just means that you’re confident in your message and you’re willing to throw every persuasive tool in your toolbox at it within reason.

Do you need to be a great storyteller to be a good speechwriter?

That’s a big key. Stories are what people remember much more than your three points on policy or whatever else. It’s the anecdotes. This has been studied. There’s a direct correlation between the vividness of the language, the relatability of what you’re saying, and how it casts someone in a human light. Vulnerability is a powerful tool for speakers and it’s another signature of authenticity. Telling the right stories, telling them tightly, you don’t want to lose people. Sometimes the people will wind on and drone about things that are tangential or uninteresting to the thesis of the speech but generally, storytelling is huge.

That’s a challenging thing for people. I’ve had a lot of Hall of Fame speakers on the show a lot of them I’ll speak to him after the show or even on the show about what they do and their storytelling. Some say they write down things that happened to him and then they make them bigger and more dramatic. How do you get to be like that? How do you hone that skill?

With experience, writing for various people and then going and seeing the speeches that you’ve written and delivered, which can be a painful experience. It’s not always enjoyable to watch your speeches because it always sounds different in your head when you’re writing it on the page.

They may put a different emphasis somewhere than you expected, that kind of thing?

That kind of thing, you’ll write in an applause line, you’ll even bracket it, and make clear to the speaker that this is something to emphasize here, with some emphasis but sometimes they’ll flub those things, little tepid applause or something like that and it makes you cringe. Other times, they nail it. When that happens, you learn a little bit about the way to write it, the way to keep each sentence propulsive, moving the argument forward, and moving the speech in a new direction that keeps people interested.

I like to think about attention spans. This is another thing about our culture, partly a product of the technology that we have now, where attention spans are much shorter. This has been studied where at the turn of the century. Years ago, it was something twelve minutes which is pretty short. There’s probably a time not long before that, it was twenty minutes. Now, they say it’s five minutes and online it’s six seconds. If you think about scrolling through Instagram or Facebook, you’re not spending more than six seconds on an Instagram post before you’re like, “What’s next?” You got to be careful about not losing an audience that’s hard to do. Tight writing is important, punchy writing is important, vivid language is critical.

As you were saying about the tone and things not coming out, the jokes not landing. It reminds me, I had Dion Graham on my show, who’s an actor. In the First 48, he’s the voice behind that. He does a million voiceover things for books and stuff, so I had listened to him. I listened to Neil deGrasse Tyson’s book Death by Black Hole . I thought it was Neil at first and I then realized it was Dion. What I appreciated was how he got Neil’s sense of humor. I would love to get Neil on the show to see if he did because it seemed like he punched it right when I would think it would be punched in that thing.

You’re talking about some of that stuff. If someone wants to make sure that you capture their intent, you can’t listen to past speeches without knowing what you’ve written because they don’t give credit to you in their speech. How do you get people knowing that’s yours? Is it like a ghostwriter where they don’t want you to say you wrote it? Is it the thing where you can go to clients and say, “This is what I’ve written? What do you think?”

I’m careful about that. I tried to consider it a principle and a respect thing when you’re working with someone you don’t advertise that you’re ghostwriting for them. There can be a stigma with it. Confidentiality is important. I’m always happy to sign NDAs with clients if that’s something that they request. If I want to share a writing sample with another client, I always ask permission first. With someone like Pompeo or Keith, there’s an expectation. They have a speechwriter. It’s on your LinkedIn. People know who you are. It’s sometimes reported who’s writing what. There’s less of a concern there.

I’m generally not in it for the credit. I’m in it for the joy of getting to know these people, the honor of getting to know them, and getting to work with them in such a personal capacity. It’s special. You learn a lot beyond speech writing. I mentioned Keith. It was one of the big reasons I decided to jump from Pompeo to him. I was like, “This is a guy I want to learn from starting my own business,” and how extraordinarily successful he’s been at almost everything he’s done. It’s great.

He does a similar thing, and that he surrounds himself with people who know a lot of things. On the Board of Advisors I was in, there were hundreds of us on there. There were amazing people to interact with. The more people like that, you learned much. As people are reading this, and they’re thinking about developing their both written and oral skills, do they form partnerships with you at all to have you help them? If Keith had to write his own speeches from now on, he would have a different way of going about it because of what he learned from you? I’m curious how that partnership works.

Keith is nice enough to become a client of the business. I’m still working with him on things. I’m sure he wouldn’t mind me sharing that but it’s different for each person. For someone who’s looking at. “How can I improve my communications? How can I take my speeches to the next level?” You have the keyword there, which is partnership. Viewing it as a partnership rather than as a chance to farm out your content on someone then be totally hands-off.

That is a frustration for me when I’m working with clients and they don’t seem willing to invest the time and the energy upfront in building the relationship because it’s hard to deliver what they need if you don’t get to know them first. Having a thought partner is critical for everybody. It doesn’t have to be something that you pay for. It can be your spouse or business partner but someone that you can sit down within a way that’s relaxed and you don’t feel like you’re having to overthink everything you’re saying.

Let the conversation flow and let the person both bounce your ideas off of themselves but also the other way around, throw things in like, “Have you thought about it this way?” There’s a natural evolution to ideas when they’re brought out of your head and put into conversation with someone. With a professional writer, the skill that you’re paying for is the ability to have someone who will capture that and take the appropriate notes. Do the in-depth thinking after a phone call or a meeting like that to flesh out and develop each of the arguments into something that’s consistent with what you already believe in the guidance that you’ve already given. It can be useful for almost anyone who’s speaking publicly with regularity.

Another thing I’ll flag and I found this to be important for the business during COVID when there’s not a lot of speeches to be given for obvious reasons, there’s a lot of other forms of ghostwriting. There’re op-eds which are incredibly valuable. When I speak with clients about op-eds, I’d like to remind them, “If you were to run an ad in the Wall Street Journal, you’d be paying $80,000 for an ad. For an op-ed, it’s free in terms of the journal.” You got to pay for the writer, the pitching, and the placing cost but it’s much less than $80,000. You get incredible exposure.

No one is sharing an ad on Twitter. People will share op-eds, though. They’ll spread. People will be interested in them. That’s an equally powerful way as a speech to get a message out. It’s equally important that the writing be good and tight. There’s somewhat of a formula to it that’s different from the formula for speeches, to the extent that there is one for speeches. It’s an art form but it’s valuable. Also, there’re blogs. There’re books. There’s a lot of other forms of writing that a ghostwriter can offer.

As you’re saying that, let’s say somebody is reading this, and they’d want to create an op-ed to get published in Wall Street Journal. How likely is it that you can help them get in there? The competition for that is going to be huge. Do you help them pitch it? Do you help with all of that or do you help them write it? How much of that do you do?

We do handle the pitching and placing. Not everyone does but I like to offer that service because it aligns my incentives with the client. It’s one thing to take a client who’s not an expert on op-eds. They ask you for something and you give them what they asked for. In the back of your mind, they’re never going to get a place because it’s not what opinion editors at these publications are looking for. When you’re doing the pitching and placing, it gives you more leverage to talk to the client directly and say, “Here’s why that approach would not be as successful as this other approach. Here’s what I recommend.”

There’s also a lot of value in knowing the opinion editors having some relationship with them. Our business has people who have been doing this for four years, pitching and placing client op-eds, news stories, and other things. They have deep contacts. It’s a triangulation between the relationships that you have and the content of the piece. It needs to be news-y. It needs to be focused on something that is in the headlines and relevant to the discussion. Something that is a broad think piece that could be published as easily a month from now as it could be now. That’s less likely to be competitive for placement in a publication, but particularly one as prestigious as the Wall Street Journal. There’s a wealth of outlets now including online-only outlets that can be valuable too.

The third issue is the authorship of the piece. It’s not always the right thing to have the CEO or the top-level person at the organization that’s hiring you to sign the op-ed. Quite often, if their goal is to talk about a trade issue that’s impacting their industry, it’s better to have a small business owner who you’ve never heard of before but who has an intensely personal story to tell about how that issue has impacted their business. That’s more appealing to many opinion editors than someone from a so-called elite background or high-profile name.

I have a lot of people who read this show who have written books. They would like to somehow get featured in The Wall Street Journal. For nonfiction authors who were speech givers but aren’t as good at writing for those kinds of things, what kind of advice would you give them?

The first would be read the opinion pages of whatever publications you’re targeting regularly. See the kinds of things that they publish, the style of the pieces that they like. Every publication is different. You mentioned the Journal, I’ll say about them that they’re right-leaning in their political perspective on their opinion pages, at least not the newsroom so much. It is smart to have a tie-in to some political or cultural issue that is in the news and to say something smart and original on it that is unique to you that makes sense for the author of the piece to be writing on.

If you’re a business leader, maybe it’s not the best idea to get into political philosophy, and vice versa. That’s important. There are other little quirks. The Wall Street Journal likes to have almost a reporting quality to their op-eds. Citing lots of sources, quoting. A lot of times, you’ll see in the first paragraph, they’ll quote Janet Yellen or something like that and then go into an argument about what was said and why it’s right or wrong. You can think as a journalist and gain some credibility that way.

I know when I would write pieces for Forbes, they would check, “Do you have a relationship to this person that you’re citing,” and different things? Do they do that in the Wall Street Journal, those types of magazines? Do they care in those kinds of pieces?

No, if the person is a public figure that you’re quoting. You don’t need to know them personally. If you do, better yet, you can note that in the piece. That can help.

They don’t want you to have an association. I noticed they say, “Are you going to get any credit for this? Are you making any money for it?” That’s what they’re more worried about that you’re citing something that’s a business relationship, is that a problem?

There is a general allergy among opinion editors to anything that’s too promotional. A lot of PR firms are asked by their clients to place op-eds about whatever issue the client is trying to run a PR campaign on. That can be difficult because opinion editors can sense that there’s some angle at play here, and they don’t want to be used to advance something. It’s got to be about the argument and about communicating a message that’s unique and interesting. If you make it about yourself too much, or in a way that’s not relevant to the thesis, if you’re shoehorning in some self-congratulatory saying, or if you’re name-dropping without a real purpose, that’s probably not going to help your chances.

Since we’re talking about content, I want to get back to the speech writing just for a second because that gets confusing to a lot of people. I’ve had people on set saying, “It’s all about the beginning and the hook,” others say, “You got to have a great outline,” or they’re saying, “Tell them what you’re going to tell them.” Is there a formula? What advice would you give somebody about how you set it up?

There isn’t a formula. There are various formulas. Secretary Pompeo was adamant about beginning speeches with a story and he’s not wrong. If that’s his preference, that’s legitimate. That’s a good way to engage someone right out of the gate with a speech but that’s not a hard and fast rule. If you’re speaking to an in-person audience, “Why is COVID wind you down?” It’s smart to include acknowledgments upfront that is personal, funny, engaging. There’s a prominent speechwriter who said once, and I thought this was a great idea. It was Churchill.

Churchill likes to weave in acknowledgments throughout the speech, which when I heard that I thought, “That is a good idea,” because it’s an interesting way to keep the audience on their toes. When you’re five minutes into the speech and you call out someone who’s there and you say, “This person did a great job.” All of a sudden, it tied that. That can be a great thing to do. There’s no one formula. There are lots of tips and tricks that we could spend hours getting into. If there’s one hard and fast rule, it’s authenticity. It’s got to be you.

Not everyone has a dynamic sense of humor, so trying to force jokes in for someone who’s not going to deliver them correctly. It’s only going to create awkwardness, so that’s not always the right thing to do. Some people are more cerebral, calm, and thoughtful. That can work well for them if you write it in a way that’s natural to them. Whereas someone like Keith who’s extremely dynamic. He wants to tell a lot of stories, wants to get out from behind the podium and do the sort of TED Talk, tech keynote style of engaging, directly moving the hands around, engaging directly with the audience with a lavalier mic. Everyone’s got a different style. The one thing that you’ve got to always remember is to capture that style of the person.

That’s important. That was part of his vision with that global mentor network that I’m part of that he started. It’s getting everybody’s unique perspective out there. It’s hard to mentor people in a global way, virtually. I learned a lot from him in that respect. As we talk about some of these talks, the way people communicate, and all the things that you mentioned before, having tight, punchy, vivid. I’m trying to remember the words you used in your writing. There’s content overload. For me, when I’m writing some of my speeches. They’re so long and I got to cut this out. I end up changing it a million times. The first time I gave it, it looks completely different from the 10th time I’ve given it. Do you find that’s what happens a lot? How do you make it tight?

Brevity is a good rule. There are exceptions to it. It depends on the goal of the speech. If you’re trying to capture the attention of an audience that’s in-person, brevity is a good idea. Sometimes, you’re asked to give a keynote, and you’re given 45 minutes. In those cases, 20 to 25 minutes speech can be okay as long as it never dies on the person, as long as it keeps moving. It doesn’t have long lulls of getting into some granular detail on one particular point, just keep it moving.

After that twenty minutes, when you’ve got a longer time, it’s a good idea to do Q&A because that tends to be more engaging and a good way to keep people involved in what you’re doing and more participatory. It’s a good point that you make about how the speech evolves the 10th time you’ve given it. That’s exactly how it should be you. You hone and hammer it like the blade of a sword and get it sharp. Each time you see how an audience reacts to something, and you say, “This joke kills it, so I’ll move that one up and start with that,” and this is the nature of a stump speech which you hear about mostly in the context of politics. I tell our corporate clients, “You should have a stump speech because you want to have that time to sit down.”

Define stump speech for those who don’t know.

In the case of politics, it’s a speech that’s 10 to 15 minutes generally, it can be shortened and expanded as needed. A speech that you give over and over again. If you’re on the campaign trail, and you’re in Iowa, one afternoon, and then the next morning, you’re in New Hampshire, and you’re speaking to a different audience every time. You don’t need to craft a different speech each time. You want to have something that works that captures the essence of your message and your brand.

For a corporate client, you can think of it like an extended elevator pitch. You’ve got your go-to way of talking about your core issue. It’s been crowd tested and focus group tested without actually using focus groups. That’s the way to do it. Ronald Reagan had a quote that I like where if I’m saying it for the 10th time, you’re hearing it for the first. If people feel shy about repeating things over and over again like they’re somehow cheating an audience. It’s not the case because people have a bad habit of thinking that everyone saw that tweet they put out. No one saw the tweet. You can say things over and over again.

These guys are so good because they’ve given the same thing 100 million times. Once you’ve said something, you feel like it’s old but for them, it’s the first time. A lot of the best speakers have told me that sometimes they modularize things in their heads. They know they’ve got time. This story takes five minutes, I could fit that here. If you start running out of time, you can cut this because it’s five minutes and you start to modularize things in a way.

It’s interesting that you use that word because that’s the word Keith likes to use. I’ve never heard anyone else use it for speech writing. The modular approach makes a lot of sense where you can almost think of it as a Word doc with a table of contents. At the top, you’ve got a section for jokes, and you’ve got these jokes that work. You’ve got a section for anecdotes. You got a section for arguments. In the case of Keith, China policy and other sections for business arguments, you can pull from those and assemble a speech based on different parts of things and you know each part works. You got to weave it together. There’s got to be seamless transitions and things like that. It can save you a lot of time. It can also increase your confidence in what you’re saying because you know you’re using things that work.

I like to think that way. For me, I talk too fast sometimes. Sometimes I’ll need to add extra content. If I forgot something or left a part out, it’s nice to know you have a module and I can add that here. That helps me a lot. Anything that I think like Keith, I’ll take as a huge compliment. This is all helpful to people who are reading. Everybody has to communicate. Everybody’s challenged. A lot of communications happening virtually with Zoom. Everything’s changed. Do you have any final comments for people about what you think they could be doing to communicate better in this complicated time?

Knowing your audience is important. I write for an audience of one that’s true from the speech writer’s point of view but for the speaker’s point of view, you’re always thinking about what is going to land and what isn’t with a particular audience that you’re in the room for. In some ways, it’s harder, the more specific the audience is. If you’ve got a general audience, you can go to your points and keep it broad and high level.

Taking the time to understand who you’re going to be speaking to, or writing too if it’s an op-ed. Making a phone call to the organizer of an event, or to someone a little lower level, who’s going to be in the audience, and not so much saying, “What do you want me to talk about?” Saying, “What do you think about these issues? I’m excited to speak to you. Here’s kind of how I think about it,” and make it a conversation and see where it goes if it gives you any ideas. That can be a good rule of thumb and a great exercise.

A lot of people are going to want to know how they can find out more from you or follow you. Is there a website or something you’d like to share?

We have WashingtonWriters.com . The business is called Washington Writers Network. What we’ve done is we assemble together 100 or so freelance writers who are all hard to find on their own. They’re not branding themselves. They don’t, in many cases, have websites and they’re working their personal networks to find clients. We put all these people together under one roof sharing economy approach, where they’re all independent contractors in relation to the company. What we do is matchmaking and that’s what we pride ourselves on. Learning about you, finding that perfect fit for you, that ideal creative partner, sending you some options and taking it from there, and handling the contract and the paperwork. They can check out the website and reach out anytime. We’d love to hear from anybody.

Although you’re in Washington, if Keith’s still using your services, he lives in San Francisco, so I assume you work throughout the United States. Anywhere else?

The writers are in Washington. It’s funny I incorporated the company as American Writers Network because at some point, I would like to expand it to other writers and things. We work with clients all over the country, all over the world. We’ve got some international clients. It’s a thrill getting to know people from all different backgrounds, different locations, and different industries. There’s no wrong candidate for this service.

Thank you so much, Rob. This was helpful to so many people. Thank you so much for being on the show.

Thank you for having me. This was a lot of fun.

It was and you’re welcome.

Thanks, Rob for being my guest. We get so many great guests on the show. If you’ve missed any past episodes, you can catch them at DrDianeHamilton.com . You could also find out all the stations where we air and you can read the show because we transcribe it on the blog. Everything is there that you need to know. I hope you enjoyed this episode and I hope you join us for the next episode of Take the Lead radio.

 Important Links:

• Rob Noel – LinkedIn
• Washington Writers Network
• Keith Krach
• Dion Graham – Previous episode
• Death by Black Hole

About Rob Noel

Love the show?  Subscribe, rate, review, and share!

• Here’s How »
• DrDianeHamilton.com
• Dr. Diane Hamilton Facebook
• Dr. Diane Hamilton Twitter
• Dr. Diane Hamilton LinkedIn
• Dr. Diane Hamilton YouTube
• Dr. Diane Hamilton Instagram

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Speechwriting in Perspective: A Brief Guide to Effective and Persuasive Communication

February 25, 1998 – April 12, 2007 98-170

The frequent delivery of public remarks by Senators and Representatives is an important element of their roles as community leaders, spokespersons, and freely elected legislators. Congressional staff are often called on to help prepare draft remarks for such purposes.

Writing for the spoken word is a special discipline; it requires that congressional speechwriters’ products be written primarily, although not exclusively, to be heard, not read. Speeches are better cast in simple, direct, and often short sentences that can be easily understood by listeners. Rhetorical devices such as repetition, variation, cadence, and balance are available to, and should be used by, the speechwriter.

It is important for speechwriters to analyze audiences according to factors such as age; gender; culture; profession; size of audience; political affiliation, if any; and the occasion for, and purpose of, the speech. Most effective speeches do not exceed 20 minutes in length.

After researching a topic, speechwriters should prepare an outline from which the speech will be developed. They should strive to maintain a clear theme throughout the speech. Most speeches will have a three-part structure consisting of an introduction, a body, and a conclusion.

The accepted style of contemporary American public address is natural, direct, low key, casual, and conversational. This puts listeners at ease and promotes a sense of community between audience and speaker.

Punctuation should reflect the sound structure of the speech, reinforcing the rhythm and pace of actual speech. Clarity of expression is as important a consideration in speech grammar as rigid adherence to rules for written language.

Effective delivery can greatly improve a speech. Congressional speechwriters should make every effort to become familiar with the speaking style of the Member for whom they are writing, and adjust their drafts accordingly.

A wide range of speechwriting resources are available for congressional staff from the Congressional Research Service and other sources.

Topic areas

Domestic Social Policy

• Introduction

Writing For The Spoken Word: The Distinctive Task of The Speechwriter

Repetition and variation, cadence and balance, rhythmic triads, parallelism, alliteration, sentence variation, rhetorical questions, sentence fragments, inverted order, suspension for climax, use of conjunctions, audience analysis, demographics, audience size, degree of political affiliation, occasion and purpose, information, entertainment, time and length, time of day, how many words, speech research, speechwriting resources, policy resources, additional resources, speech preparation, building blocks: suggested principles, the speech outline, thematic clarity, three-part structure, techniques of persuasion, attention-problem-solution, this or nothing, contemporary style and tone, pitfalls to be avoided, punctuation, grammar and syntax, speech presentation, analysis of lincoln's farewell to his neighbors, general observations.

Writing for the spoken word is a special discipline; it requires that congressional speechwriters' products be written primarily, although not exclusively, to be heard, not read. Speeches are better cast in simple, direct, and often short sentences that can be easily understood by listeners. Rhetorical devices such as repetition, variation, cadence, and balance are available to, and should be used by, the speechwriter.

Introduction 1

"Rhetoric," wrote Aristotle, "is the power of determining in a particular case what are the available means of persuasion." This report reviews some effective means for the rhetoric of persuasive communication in speeches written by congressional staff for Senators and Representatives. By speeches, this report means draft statements prepared for oral delivery by Members. Such speeches are often prepared under the pressure of deadlines that leave minimal time for extensive revision. Moreover, they must often be drafted in whole or part for Members who may have little opportunity to edit and amend them. The burdens of public office (as well as of campaigning) and the insistent demand for speeches of every kind for a variety of occasions require some degree of reliance on speechwriters, a reliance that is heightened by the limitations of time and the urgencies of the media.

A speech thus "ghostwritten" should nevertheless reflect the intention and even the style of the speaker. The best ghostwriters are properly invisible; they subordinate themselves to the speaker in such a way that the final product is effectively personalized in the process of actual communication. The only ways to achieve or even approach this ideal are practice and experience. This report seeks to provide some guidance for congressional staff on the principles and practice of speechwriting. The suggestions offered herein, when combined with practice, attention to audience and occasion, and, most importantly, the Member's attitudes, convictions, and style, can help create a speech that can be a "seamless garment" when delivered by the Member.

Writing effective speeches requires a constant awareness of the distinction between the written and the spoken word: the speechwriter must learn to "write aloud." While the best speeches read as well as they sound, the novice speechwriter should give priority to the ear and not the eye. His or her speech must be written to be heard, not read.

This means that easy intelligibility should be a paramount concern, so that the listening span is not strained. One of the first rules of the speechwriting profession is that a sentence written to be heard should be simple, direct, and short. When the speechwriter "writes aloud," George Orwell's advice to cut out any word that can possibly be cut is helpful, so long as the resulting effect is clarity, and not verbal shorthand. 2 Ciceronian oratory on the one hand and Dick-and-Jane simplicity on the other are extremes to be avoided. The speechwriter thus faces the challenge of crafting words that convey the speaker's meaning clearly, but that also draw on the rich nuance and texture of spoken English.

The average spoken sentence runs from eight to 16 words; anything longer is considered more difficult for listeners to follow by ear, and according to one expert, may be too long for the average listener to absorb and analyze quickly. 3 By comparison, written sentences of up to 30 words are easily understood by average readers. 4 Given these generally accepted limitations, what devices are available to the writer to make more complex sentences and speech wording accessible to the listener? Complex sentences can be clarified by repeating key words and using simple connections. By numerous rhetorical techniques, the speaker states, restates, and states again in different ways, the central themes of the speech.

Repetition with variation is a basic speechwriting tool used by many of the greatest speakers to emphasize key elements while avoiding monotony. Some examples follow.

• Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech was a striking example of this technique, using that phrase to introduce a series of his visions for a better future.
• Lincoln at Gettysburg emphasized the significance of the day's events by restating the solemnity of the occasion in not fewer than three variations: "We cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground, ..."
• Similarly, Winston Churchill's World War II speeches used repetition with variation to build a powerful climax: "We shall fight in France and on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air. We shall defend our island whatever the cost may be; we shall fight on the beaches and landing grounds, in fields, in streets and on the hills, ... we shall never surrender."
• Franklin D. Roosevelt's 1937 "One third of a Nation" speech imparted a sense of urgency by his deliberate repetition of a "here are" construction to describe conditions in the country, followed again and again with "now":

Here is one-third of a nation ill-nourished, ill-clad, ill-housed—NOW.

Here are thousands upon thousands of farmers wondering whether next year's prices will meet their mortgage interest—NOW.

Here are thousands upon thousands of men and women laboring for long hours in factories for inadequate pay—NOW.

Another venerable rhetorical device is the use of cadence and balance in the spoken word. This is a part of speechwriting where the speaker and the writer need cooperation to ensure success. The tradition of public speaking in the English language owes much to the poetic tradition, which was originally an oral tradition. As one observer noted, "the language of the speech should also be poetic —replete with alliteration, metaphor, and other figures of speech. Such adornments, far from being superfluous, enhance meaning and emphasize relationships among ideas." 5 As difficult to define as to achieve, cadence and balance impart movement and harmonious effect to any speech. Essentially a matter of ordering groups of words (and ideas) into rhythmic patterns, cadence and balance can be attained by such classical rhetorical devices as the ones described below. Do not be put off by the classic Greek names of some of these rhetorical devices; in practice we use them naturally in conversation and writing every day.

The grouping of words into patterns of three can lead to a memorable effect, provided the device is not overused. Some notable examples from classic oratory include " Veni, vidi, vici "; "Never ... was so much owed by so many to so few"; "The kingdom, the power, and the glory ..."; "I have not sought, I do not seek, I repudiate the support of ..."; "one third of a nation ill-clad, ill-nourished, ill-housed...."

The linkage of similar words or ideas in a balanced construction that repeatedly uses the same grammatical form to convey parallel or coordinated ideas: "Bigotry has no head and cannot think; no heart and cannot feel;" "Charity beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things."

The repetition of initial sounds in a series of words to give emphasis. For instance, "We need to return to that old-fashioned notion of competition—where substance, not subsidies, determines the winner," or, "... the nattering nabobs of negativism...."

This is the repetition of the same word or words at the beginning of successive clauses or sentences. Churchill's famous defiance of Hitler, "We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds ...," which has been previously cited, is one of the most famous examples.

A common form of parallel structure comparing and contrasting dissimilar elements. For instance, "... give me liberty, or give me death."; "Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country."; "To some generations much is given; from others, much is demanded ..."; "A great empire and little minds go ill together."; "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. It was the age of wisdom, it was the age of folly."; "If Puritanism was not the godfather to Capitalism, then it was godson."

This technique involves more than alternating longer sentences with short ones. The writer may employ either periodic sentences, that is, those in which the main clause comes at the end, or loose sentences, in which the main clause is presented at or near the beginning, to be followed by other main or subordinate clauses. Sentence variation also includes the use of such devices as those described below.

"Is peace a rash system?" "Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" The speaker leads the audience to the conclusion he hopes they will draw by asking a question that makes his point, and that he intends to answer himself, either immediately, with a flourish, or at greater length during his remarks, through patient exposition.

"Dear money. Lower credit. Less enterprise in business and manufacture. A reduced home demand. Therefore, reduced output to meet it." The speaker dramatizes the situation by reducing it to a stark declaration, which he renders more striking by pausing to let the facts sink in after each sentence fragment.

"With what dignity and courage they perished in that day." This classic rhetorical practice, once more widely used, seeks to embellish the general flow of words, much like an ornament or a musical flourish. It also helps give a particular sentence special emphasis by causing it to stand out from others by its unusual form.

With this device, the speaker comes to a complete stop in his remarks, using the ensuing moment of silence to concentrate the listeners' attention on his next phrase. "My obligation as President is historic; it is clear; yes, it is inescapable." Even periodic sentences, if used with care, repeating the "suspended" subject or verb before modifying phrases or clauses can contribute to the effect: "Thus did he prove to be a leader who—victorious in battle, magnanimous in victory, skilled in the arts of peace—was able, in the face of his most determined foes ..."

Repeating key words and using simple connective conjunctions ( and , for , because , but ) can make many complex sentences more easily intelligible to the ear by breaking them up into "bite size" segments. For instance, "Be a craftsmen in speech that thou mayest be strong, for the strength of one is the tongue, and speech is mightier than all fighting."

No speech will sound fresh and vivid if it is not animated by imaginative imagery, by metaphor in its many forms: "the hatred of entrenched greed"; "America will always stand for liberty"; "Democracy is the healthful lifeblood which circulates through the veins and arteries of society ..."; "Whether in chains or in laurels, liberty knows nothing but victories."

Extended metaphors or analogies, comparing similarities in different things, should be used with care so that the principal subject will not be lost in the image. Two or more metaphors in a single sentence or thought can be safely ventured only by the most experienced writers—"To take arms against a sea of troubles"—without incurring ridicule (as in the famous—and perhaps apocryphal—example attributed to the newspaper Pravda , the onetime propaganda organ of the Soviet Communist Party: "The fascist octopus has sung its swan-song").

Above all, in the spoken word there must be an element of identity and rapport with the listener, whether the speaker uses a "natural" conversational tone or a more oratorical style. Effective speechwriting for Congress is not a branch of "creative writing." Its "rules" are meant to foster clarity of expression, whatever the occasion and purpose of any given speech. Mere clarity is not enough for persuasive rhetoric, however. Indeed, there are times when clarity, brevity, and the like are not appropriate. The issues, because of their import and complexity, may preclude such treatment; similarly, the gravity or delicate political nature of the occasion may call for some measure of deliberate ambiguity. The best speechwriter will take into account the context of the speech and the speaker's personality, the image that is projected—that is, the speaker whom the audience sees and hears. The section on speech analysis in this report attempts a closer look at Lincoln's great Farewell Address at Springfield, illustrating many of the principles considered in this report.

What Jefferson Bates called "audience analysis" is probably the single most important factor to be considered in writing every speech: know your listeners, and you will have a much better chance of connecting with them. 6

Bates and others list a number of criteria useful in audience analysis, including, among others: age; gender; culture; education; profession ; size of the audience; and affiliation. 7 Age is obviously an important factor; high school students, young parents, and senior citizens have different levels of life experience, different interests reflecting the challenges they face at their particular stages of life, and, to some extent, they even speak different languages. Although gender differences in societal roles are less pronounced than a generation ago, some believe that certain persistent disparities of viewpoint between many men and women on some topics persist. With respect to "culture," William Wiethoff, in Writing the Speech , states that it "has escaped a standard or preferred definition. Speechwriters, however, may envision culture as the race, customs, and religion shared by members of an audience." 8 The factors of education, profession, and income level can be a pitfall for the unwary speechwriter. Never confuse education with intelligence, or professional status and worldly success with moral superiority or virtue, or modest means and educational attainment with the opposite.

The writer must be sensitive to these varying frames of reference found in an audience. Draft remarks should be familiar, sympathetic, and topical, without being condescending. They must, as always, be phrased in a way that is natural for the Member; it is painfully obvious to an audience if a Member is not comfortable in his role or with his words.

The size of an audience is another important factor in preparing a speech. A large audience and a formal occasion usually call for greater formality in language and delivery, lengthier remarks, and greater reliance on some of the classical rhetorical practices cited in this report. By comparison, many Members will require only talking points for a town meeting, and will almost certainly speak extemporaneously in still more intimate gatherings. In the age of cable and satellite television, and Webcasts, the Member is often asked to address what may appear to be a very small group of listeners physically present at the broadcast venue; at the same time, however, many others, perhaps thousands, may be viewing from other locations, or from their homes. It is the writer's task to craft remarks that simultaneously take into consideration the people physically present in the studio or location, and those who may be watching from home or other locations.

Speechwriters must also condition their words to the degree of political affiliation, or lack thereof, in the intended audience. A gathering of the party faithful is usually ready for some "red meat." An audience consisting of a non-partisan citizen's group, such as the League of Women Voters, is almost certainly not. The writer must also always remember that, while the Member is affiliated with one political party, and comes from a particular part of the state or district, he or she represents all the people, and gives due attention and respect to the legitimate views and aspirations of all constituents.

Another of the speechwriter's tasks is to assess the occasion at which the Member has been asked to speak and tailor the remarks accordingly. In contemporary society, the delivery of remarks by public figures is an expected element in almost every secular public ceremony, and at many religious services. The speechwriter must ensure that the occasion and the speech agree with one another, in both tone and content.

For instance, Veterans' Day and Memorial Day are among the most solemn public holidays in the calendar. For these two events, the speechwriter should focus on themes of commemoration, service, and sacrifice. The atmosphere should appropriately be both somber, and hopeful: "their sacrifice led to a better, more secure life for those who followed them." High school and college commencements are of a different genre altogether. The occasion may demand inspirational remarks, but as one observer noted, "I've heard speakers ... deliver a tedious, solemn policy address at graduation ceremonies in which the graduates and families just want to hit the exits and have a good time." 9 Conversely, a formal address to a learned society will differ dramatically from friendly remarks at a neighborhood picnic, town meeting, or retirement home. Simply put, the writer should exercise common sense in preparing remarks appropriate in tone and content to both the audience and the occasion.

Another useful consideration for congressional staff is to plan the delivery of substantive remarks on substantive occasions. If the Member is scheduled to announce a major policy statement or initiative, it should be delivered in commensurate surroundings, and on occasions when media coverage will be adequate. Timing is also a serious factor; speeches delivered at mid-morning, at lunchtime, or early afternoon at the latest, are far more likely to be covered that same day by local TV news.

The purpose of a speech and the occasion at which it will be delivered are closely related. Most frequently, the latter will govern the former. William E. Wiethoff suggests a "purpose" template for speechwriters in Writing the Speech . 10 In it he establishes three categories of purpose: information , persuasion , and entertainment .

These speeches seek to convey facts or information to the audience. The speaker first identifies the information that is about to be presented, seeking to link the new facts with others the listeners may already be aware of. Next, the speaker elaborates on the details of the information just conveyed, while avoiding a level of complexity and detail that would confuse the audience. Finally, the speaker draws together the facts and ideas related earlier, ideally recapitulating the main points in order to fix them in the listener's memory.

The persuasive speech is a two-edged sword: it can seek to instill in the listeners either the acceptance of, or at least a more favorable opinion toward, a particular condition, fact, or concept. This variant is described as advocacy . Conversely, a speech may also attempt to change an audience's impressions, opinions, or most ambitiously, their convictions. Wiethoff calls this dissent , and asserts that it is more difficult than advocacy, since the speaker faces the burden of proving to the listeners that what they have heretofore accepted should be modified or rejected. 11 In both cases, the writer must marshal the arguments that will convince the audience.

Wiethoff's third category of speech purpose is entertainment. A great percentage, perhaps a majority, of Member speeches will fall into this category. The choice of title for this group may be misleading, however. These are not necessarily frivolous occasions, and they are not unimportant to the life and people of a town or village, students at a school, or members of a club who constitute the audience for such remarks. Speeches in this category serve the vital function of reinforcing the common ties and experiences that bind communities together and help reinforce the vitality of civic life in America. As Wiethoff notes:

These speeches are delivered during ceremonies or rituals that are significant in themselves. They do not need clarification in order to be understood. They do not need proof of their importance. Instead, on these occasions people share an expectation of what will happen, and they are dissatisfied if the events do not take place as expected. 12

"Entertainment" speeches may be solemn in nature, such as a Memorial Day address, or celebratory, such as remarks at the opening of a new school, library, or child-care facility. They remind citizens of their joint identity as members of a community; these events, seemingly everyday, or even trite, are actually vital expressions of civic life. The Member's role as a community leader and spokesperson on these occasions should not be underestimated; it is a great honor for him or her to deliver remarks at these community rites, and a congressional speechwriter should devote talent and originality to them.

Obviously, the three purpose categories cited here are not necessarily mutually exclusive; in order to convince an audience, a speaker often needs to combine persuasion with information. Similarly, while some types of remarks are intended purely for entertainment, such as a celebrity roast, the careful speechwriter will always seek to entertain audiences in order to capture and retain their attention.

How long should a Member speak? The answer to this fundamental question of speechwriting, like so many others, depends on a wide range of factors. Audience analysis and occasion have been previously noted, but the habits and attitudes of the speaker must also be taken into consideration.

The natural inclinations of the Member must be examined. Is the Member a person of few words, or is he or she a good talker? Does the Member stick to the text, or lay it aside to share anecdotes, personal reminiscences, or even humor, with the audience? These and other related questions can be answered only through experience on the part of the congressional speechwriter. Learning the Member's style and preferences will result in a better product that communicates more effectively.

Time of day should be considered by the writer. In the morning, people are relatively fresh, and are generally better prepared physically to listen attentively. By late afternoon, or after a luncheon, however, the audience may need to be stimulated, either by coffee or by lively remarks. Finally, lengthy after-dinner remarks should almost never be inflicted, especially on a paying audience. The potential auditors are full, tired, and ready to go home. It's best to give them their wish as quickly as possible.

Finally comes the classic question: how many words should the speechwriter prepare? Once again, the factors of audience, occasion, Member preference, and time of day should be considered. The question of length of time, however, must be dealt with at some point. A number of classic speech authorities suggest that in most cases 20 minutes should be the upward limit. Conventional wisdom often holds that most listeners tune out, perceptibly or not, after that period. 13 Ritual or pro forma speeches, such as occasional remarks at schools, churches, or public functions where the Member is a guest, but not the main attraction, benefit from brevity, perhaps being limited to five to 10 minutes. Although substantive public policy speeches may merit greater length, in modern America, only presidential inaugural and State of the Union messages seem to exceed the 20-minute limit regularly, with the latter often weighing in at over an hour.

The question of pace is also important; is the Member a fast talker? Different speakers exhibit considerable variety in pace, ranging from 115 to 175 words a minute. Once again, the speechwriter will factor these personal differences into his work. As a benchmark, however, an often-cited rule-of-thumb is that the average 20-minute speech contains about 2,600 words, or, about 130 per minute. Most word processing programs will provide a total document word count as part of their spell check feature. 14

Having a fixed time stimulates careful preparation. Both a time limit and notes or text help guard against logorrhea , or excessive verbiage. Time limits also encourage speakers not to be overly comprehensive, saying everything there is to be said on the speech topic. This is a temptation difficult to resist, but a speech is, by nature, a precis or digest. Excessive complexity or verbiage are capable of transforming an effective speech into something ponderous and exhausting. Jefferson's sharp judgment of 1824 applies today with equal force: "Amplification is the vice of modern oratory.... Speeches measured by the hour die with the hour."

Theme, audience, time, place, occasion and purpose—once these are settled, the speechwriter's next concern is to gather ideas, facts, examples, illustrations, quotations, and humor, in short, whatever is needed to give substance, character, and interest to the speech. There is no shortcut for researching a speech, although a number of resources can speed the process.

Congressional speechwriters often consult the Congressional Research Service first when preparing a draft statement or an address for a Member. CRS offers a range of speechwriting resources for the use of congressional staff, many of which are available from the CRS Home Page, at http://www.crs.gov .

To find this report and other speechwriting resources, go to the CRS Home Page and click on the tab on the right, "Reference Desk" http://www.crs.gov/ reference/ general/ reference.shtml . On the left side of the page you will find a link to "Speechwriting & Holidays/Commemorative Events" http://www.crs.gov/ reference/ general/ speechwriting.shtml . This page provides links to commemorative speech materials, many of them focusing on major holidays, such as the Fourth of July and Labor Day, and month-long celebrations like Black History Month and Native American Heritage Month. Information is provided on the history of and related facts about the holiday or celebration. The speechwriting page also accesses sources providing practical tips for writing a speech, quotations, the full text of selected speeches and United States historical documents and writing guides.

Other sources of information on public policy, reference resources, appropriations information, legal resources and many external links conveniently organized by topic are also available on the CRS Home Page. From the "Reference Desk," you can access "Basic Resources for Daily Work in Congressional Offices": government directories, encyclopedias, statistical sources, dictionaries, grammar guides, maps, and other online reference links. There is also a "Legislative Reference Source" page with links to facts about Congress including information on membership, committees, rules and schedules.

Providing timely, accurate, and unbiased information and analysis on current policy questions is the most important function of the Congressional Research Service. The congressional speechwriter can access the CRS Home Page to garner analysis on current policy issues. The page links to the Current Legislative Issues, such as the Economy, Homeland Security, Internet/Telecom, and Iraq. These are further divided into subcategories, with links to the full text of CRS reports, containing comprehensive and multi-disciplinary analysis and information. They are available exclusively to congressional staff from the CRS Home Page and provide a ready resource to the congressional speechwriter.

In addition to the Current Legislative Issues on the CRS Home page, on the left side of the page is a link to "Featured Products." The first Featured Product link is entitled "Floor Agenda: CRS Products." For a speechwriter who wishes to write about recent bills scheduled for floor action, this is an invaluable resource. This link accesses CRS reports about legislation that is scheduled for floor action that week. The link to the "Appropriations Status Table" accesses the latest status of and links to appropriation bills, as well as committee and CRS reports.

Congressional staff who wish to discuss any policy-related issue with the appropriate CRS analyst can call the Inquiry Section at [phone number scrubbed], to place a request or to ask for a briefing by an analyst. Alternatively, to find out how to contact a CRS expert from the Home Page, click on the "Contact Expert" tab. A request for analysis or research assistance may also be faxed to the Inquiry Section at [phone number scrubbed] or may be placed from the CRS Home Page by clicking on the "Place a Request" tab.

The CRS Hotline at [phone number scrubbed] is available for immediate ready reference requests, such as questions about presidential quotes on the virtues of the Constitution or perhaps variations in the Consumer Price Index for the past five years. In addition, the LaFollette Congressional Reading Room (LM-204, James Madison Memorial Building, the Library of Congress), Rayburn Research Center (B-335, Rayburn House of Representatives Office Building), and Senate Research Center (SR-B07, Russell Senate Office Building) provide a full range of in-person assistance, including many standard reference sources and CRS products. They are staffed full-time by information professionals available to assist you.

Legislative information is also available from commercial publications such as CQ Weekly , the annual Congressional Quarterly Almanac , and the same publisher's eight-volume history of major legislation and national issues since 1945, Congress and the Nation. A journal of similar content but with greater emphasis on executive branch activities is National Journal , which appears weekly.

There are sites on the Web that may be helpful to the speechwriter.

American Rhetoric http://www.americanrhetoric.com/ index.htm This is an Index to an expanding database of over 5000 full text, audio and video versions of public speeches, debates and interviews. This site has a useful set of communication links and is updated every two weeks.

Speechwriter.com http://wwwthespeechwriter.com This website contains many links to research sites, statistics, encyclopedias, business links, current events, anecdotes, quotes, speeches, toasts and biographies.

The Advanced Public Speaking Institute http://wwwpublic-speaking.org/ public-speaking-articles.htm This website has 43 articles on the use of humor in a speech.

Additional helpful resources may include books on speechwriting. Writing Great Speeches: Professional Techniques You Can Use ( Essence of Public Speaking Series ), by Alan M. Pearlman, has endorsements from two public speaking groups, the National Speakers Association and Toastmasters International. You may also wish to consult a work by Richard Dowis, The Lost Art of the Great Speech: How to Write One—How to Deliver It . The author, a former journalist and public relations executive, discusses the content, the memorability, rule of three, and other speechwriting methods. Finally, Choosing Powerful Words: Eloquence that Works ( Essence of Public Speaking Series ), was written by Ronald H. Carpenter, a professor of English and communications. These books may be requested from the Loan Division of the Library of Congress, telephone 707-5441.

There are other basic materials with which every speechwriter should be familiar. These include a good standard dictionary (spell check is not foolproof, and has a rather limited vocabulary). The preferable dictionary is prescriptive as well as descriptive, that is, it prescribes or recommends usage in addition to providing descriptions or definitions. A thesaurus, such as Roget ' s , published in numerous editions since 1852, or J.I. Rodale's Synonym Finder , various editions since 1961, is useful in finding the right word and generally superior to the thesaurus feature offered with most word processing programs. For quotations, consult the standard Bartlett ' s Familiar Quotations in any one of its many editions, or Respectfully Quoted , a quotation dictionary compiled by the Congressional Research Service. Annual almanacs, such as the Information Please Almanac and the World Almanac , are often essential for quick reference.

Literary and religious sources include the works of Shakespeare in any readable edition and the English Bible, especially the King James or Authorized Version. Aside from its obvious spiritual aspects, the King James Bible is important for both its literary quality and its tremendous influence on spoken and written English.

Access to some standard encyclopedia, such as Americana , World Book or Britannica, is also helpful for fact checking and general information. Chase ' s Calendar of Events is a useful annual guide to special observances throughout the nation. A wealth of facts, statistics, and data useful in speech preparation can be found in the annual U.S. Government publication Statistical Abstract of the United States , published annually. For sample speeches on many topics of contemporary interest, the speechwriter may wish to consult Vital Speeches of the Day , published twice monthly, available through EBSCO Host and other Internet sources. It provides examples of speeches delivered by recognized public figures on topical questions and major issues and events of the day, and is annually indexed by author and topic. All these sources are available in the La Follette Congressional Reading Room, and most are also available in House and Senate office building reference centers.

Daily newspapers are a familiar, if neglected, resource for speeches; a dedicated speechwriter will read or skim several each day, noting and saving background items that may prove to be useful later. Both national and hometown papers should be included. Other useful sources include weekly news magazines and more specialized journals that cover public policy issues. Here, again, the advent of the Internet provides new sources of information valuable to the congressional speechwriter: home district newspaper web sites may be regularly scanned for local news on issues and events of interest to the Member. These are usually posted online the day they are published, and almost always well in advance of postal delivery of the printed product.

Certain general principles may be useful to guide the congressional speechwriter in choice of content and style:

• Quotations and humorous anecdotes or remarks are like spices, and should be used with discrimination, mindful of good taste and effectiveness. Speeches overloaded with quotations and anecdotes can sink from their own weight.
• Pseudo-quotations should be avoided. Never use a quotation that cannot be verified in an authoritative source.
• Unless a writer is gifted with lightness of touch, self-deprecating or gentle humor is usually more effective than satire or ridicule.
• Jokes aimed at people's personal lives or at religious and ethnic groups are invariably offensive, regardless of the speaker's motives. Avoid them.
• Statistics should be used with care and moderation. Like the points in an outline, they are better alluded to in context than cited in tedious detail. A speech filled with statistics becomes a statistical abstract, not a speech.
• When selecting material, the responsible speechwriter will take great care to quote accurately and give full credit for whatever is borrowed outright. Plagiarism is often illegal and always unethical . On the other hand, it is entirely proper to adapt existing materials to one's own purpose in preparing a new speech for any occasion. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in response to accusations that he had plagiarized parts of the Declaration of Independence from other works, "I did not consider it as any part of my charge to invent new ideas altogether and to offer no sentiment which had ever been expressed before." Straining after originality, which has been defined by an anonymous wit as "imitation not yet detected," can ruin the best of speeches.
• Finally, the seasoned speechwriter soon learns to recycle the best parts of previous efforts, to save time and effort, and also to preserve a particularly fine turn of phrase.

The task of actually writing the speech, once the preliminaries are completed, will be greatly facilitated in most cases by the use of an outline. The novice speechwriter may be tempted to dispense with this device, on the grounds that it adds a time consuming extra step to a process that is often constrained by tight deadlines. On the other hand, it forces the writer to plan and organize his thoughts, to determine in advance what he intends to say, and to begin at the beginning.

A speech outline generally is not nearly as detailed as an outline for an academic work, such as a journal article, or even a research paper. The outline serves as a skeleton, a framework to carry the flesh and blood of the fully developed speech. At the same time, this skeleton should eventually be invisible, clothed in delivery with ideas and emotions, and as simple as possible; beware of explicitly enumerating too many points or topics. Outlines may be written in topics, or key sentences, or in complete thoughts, so long as there is an orderly sequence.

The frugal writer will retain speech outlines, since they can easily be reworked for future efforts. In whole or in parts, these can be placed in folders in a word processing program, or written out into a looseleaf notebook binder or even on index cards. From any of these media, the outlines can be quickly cut, rearranged, or added to as future occasions may require. President Ronald Reagan, for example, was legendary for his expert use and reuse of note cards that included facts and themes he sought to emphasize in various speeches.

Throughout the speech, the writer ought to be constantly asking: "What is it I am trying to say?" and, after it is written: "Have I, in fact, said it clearly, succinctly, and well?" Every speech seeks in some way to move an audience, to win support, to motivate, to convince, perhaps to inspire, or simply to entertain. Adhere to the central theme or idea while addressing it in different ways, much in the manner that good sentences are constructed for a paragraph.

The arrangement of ideas and themes should follow a logical progression. Each fact establishes a certain point, which leads to the speaker's next point, and so forth, ultimately climaxing with the thematic conclusion. While it is more dramatic to gain an audience's attention by opening a speech with a grand conclusion, be sure that the initial dramatic assertion is followed up by the essential process of weaving the argument the Member seeks to make.

Do not try to say too much, particularly when the speech is intended as the vehicle for a major announcement or initiative. The most memorable presidential inaugural addresses have been those that set a single theme, or coherent group of related themes. 15 Stick to no more than three major points, rather than attempting to say a little something about everything. Anything more risks running afoul of Churchill's famous comment concerning a bland dessert: "This pudding has no theme."

Nearly every speech will have a basic three-part structure of introduction, body, and conclusion. An arresting introduction should lead into an emphatic statement of the main theme or themes. The argument that follows seeks to elaborate and develop the theme convincingly and effectively—that is, without too much detail. The central theme is restated in the closing peroration. One helpful approach for overcoming the feeling of word fright (what can I say and how?) is to write the speech in reverse: begin with the conclusion, which should summarize the central message, while abridging and restating whatever goes before. If the introduction sets the tone and establishes initial appeal or rapport, the closing communicates the final effect and is more likely to be remembered. Working backward is one way of imparting unity, coherence, and emphasis to the speech as a whole.

There are many techniques available for the actual writing of a speech. Almost all speeches delivered by, or on behalf of, Members of Congress, even those for ceremonial or pro forma occasions, will have a certain political character because of the Member's representative function, and also because of the way in which his or her office is perceived. In the rhetorical context, political means persuasive, including the expression of personal interest and concern, assuring and reassuring, conveying the Member's identity with each audience, and so creating a community of interest and trust. Three kinds of persuasive techniques are usually distinguished:

• the appeal to reasonableness: "Surely Democrats and Republicans alike can agree that there is no excuse today for hunger in the world's richest nation...."
• the appeal to emotion: "Can we, as a nation, close our eyes to the spectacle of millions of children going to bed hungry every night...?"
• the ethical appeal (that is, to the character of the audience): "our historic traditions of decency and generosity demand that we face squarely the question of hunger in America...."

All three approaches may be used in any given speech.

One popular option for developing a speech is the "attention-problem-solution" method, especially for longer speeches of a non-partisan character. Useful for many different occasions, this method begins by stimulating the interest of the audience, usually with attention-grabbing examples of a problem that needs to be recognized and confronted. The speaker then moves to define the "problem" situation, and concludes with the proposed "best" solution, presented so as to win listener support.

Another option, the "this-or-nothing" method, advocates a policy mainly by presenting and refuting proposed alternatives as inadequate or worse. It lends itself well to partisan occasions or to stirring those already convinced. In every case the speaker seeks to reinforce and strengthen his principal ideas as they are unfolded in the speech. Prior audience analysis and subject preparation will often help the speech "write itself."

No speaker should ever apologize for his or her presence, or for the content of the speech. If it truly deserves apologies, it is better left unsaid. Further, a prudent speaker, rightly wary of the impulse to speak "off-the-cuff," will make certain that "extemporaneous" or "impromptu" remarks are not unprepared. For most speakers it is also better not to memorize a speech (unless one has a gift for it), since memory is fallible and elusive at best.

The congressional speechwriter should not shrink from commonly accepted contemporary usage: the all-day speeches and obscure classical allusions of Daniel Webster and Henry Clay make wonderful reading, but they are history. The development of public address systems, radio, and, finally, the "cool" medium of television, and the perhaps even more intimate medium of the webcast have combined with other social changes to turn down the volume, both in decibels and emotions, of public speaking in the United States, for better or worse eliminating its more histrionic qualities.

The accepted style of contemporary oratory is generally low key, casual without being offensively familiar, and delivered directly to the audience in a conversational tone and volume. It puts the audience at ease and helps promote psychological bonding between listeners and speaker. The speaker is perceived as a neighbor or friend, as well as an elected official. This is, of course, what every Senator and Representative strives to be. Perhaps the first, and certainly one of the most effective, practitioners of this art was President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in his radio "fireside chats." His calm, reassuring voice and homey language revolutionized the bond of communication between the American people and their Presidents. It could be said that FDR spoke "with," rather than "to," the people, a standard to which Members can honestly aspire today. Once again, certain exceptions are allowed, but these are generally reserved largely to the President, or for only the most formal occasions.

Use natural words and phrases in a speech; let the sentences flow conversationally. It is helpful for some writers, time permitting, to prepare a first draft in longhand, shaping the sentences slowly, speaking aloud the phrases they intend to use.

The first person is perfectly acceptable in modern public discourse, and when combined with other personal pronouns—remember to avoid "I" strain—it can help connect listener to speaker and create a sense of community within the audience. While the first person singular is sometimes deprecated, it is its excessive use that should be avoided. Conversely, speakers should avoid referring to themselves in the first person plural (we) or the third person singular (he or she). The former has been reserved to monarchs, and is considered archaic in modern speech. The latter too often conveys a sense of excessive self importance to listeners. For instance, a Member should think twice before referring to himself or herself in the third person singular: "Dave (or Mary) Smith thinks the problem of hunger is the greatest challenge facing America today."

Writers should generally use simple, declarative sentences, preferably in active voice, when making important statements of fact, assertion, or opinion. Use of the passive voice should not be dismissed out of hand, however; it is sometimes the more desirable form, and can lend grace and variety to the speaker's flow of words that stimulates the listener. It is excessive use that should be avoided. Similarly, exclusive use of the active voice can impart a choppy, juvenile cadence to even a content-rich speech.

Just as there are points to emphasize in every speech, serving as clear transitions or aural signposts for paragraphs ("secondly," "nevertheless," "finally," "accordingly," "as a result," "in spite of," "as I have said," etc.), so there are things to avoid, and they are more numerous. While they are discussed in full in many reference works, they include:

• jargon and trendy neologisms: "impact" used as a verb, "stakeholders," "incentivize," "outside the box," et al .;
• redundancy resulting from excess verbiage, not deliberate restatement;
• mannerisms that may distract the listener, and trite phrases or cliches, with the exception previously mentioned, monotony of style or pace, and, in general, language inappropriate to the audience and occasion.

Punctuation is crucial to an effective speech; it helps to clarify the delivery of the spoken word. Good punctuation in English, apart from a few basic elements, is less a matter of inflexible rules than of purpose and style, particularly where speeches are concerned. Historically there have been two broad traditions of punctuation: syntactical—that is, guided by syntax or grammatical construction; and elocutionary—deriving from the rhythm and pace of actual speech. One writer has further distinguished three methods of punctuating:

• by structure or logic to indicate the sense of what is being said;
• by the rhythm of word order and intended meaning—a subtle use best avoided by novice speech writers;
• and by respiration—that is, by the physical ease of natural speech, which assumes that what is read is really spoken. 16

This last method, essentially the same as the elocutionary style, is the most widely used and certainly the most appropriate for speeches. In short, punctuate according to the ear and not the eye. This also means punctuating for the lungs: give the Member time to breathe! A long and convoluted sentence (something to be avoided in general) can leave the Member literally gasping for breath as he or she concludes it. A useful practice for congressional speechwriters is to declaim aloud (speak aloud, not in a conversational tone, but as if one were speaking to an audience) any lengthy sentence intended for the Member. If the writer finds it taxing on the lungs, then so will the Member; in such cases, it is advisable either to fashion shorter sentences, or to repunctuate the original, using such obvious "time out" devices as the colon and semi-colon, both of which are described in the next paragraph.

Commas and dashes are useful to the speaker and listeners alike as guideposts to what lies ahead in a speech. They also provide pauses where the speaker can let the import of the previous sentence sink in, or simply catch his or her breath. Opinion is divided on colons and semicolons; some consider them as serving the same functions as commas and dashes, while others suggest that they are more emphatic, demanding a full stop in the flow of remarks, rather than a short pause. They are also sometimes criticized as leading to long compound sentences that are difficult for audiences to process, and that are better replaced by shorter declarative ones. In the final analysis, the Member's personal preferences and style should be the congressional speechwriter's guide.

Correct grammar and syntax in the context of speechwriting and delivery mean using a level of English usage that is appropriate to the occasion. While it is highly desirable, the formal grammar of the written language is not an end in itself; it exists to further the clarity of expression. Far more important than the grammarian's rules is the communication of personality by which a speech, as opposed to a lecture, is clothed with emotion and enthusiasm, so that the speaker is perceived to be sincere and trustworthy, neither "talking over people's heads" nor "talking down" to them. While this may belong more to the presentation or delivery, the writer should strive for it in speech preparation as well.

Effective delivery can transform a weak speech and make it sound very good. Poor delivery can ruin the best-prepared speeches, and sometimes does. Although delivery is not the concern of the speechwriter as such, it must be always in mind as a speech is actually written. The speaker's pace, his or her style, mannerisms, tendencies (such as departing from a text), peculiarities, or special difficulties (words to avoid)—these are elements with which the writer should be well acquainted before preparing any speech. Knowing how a Member speaks is essential in preparing a draft that is both useful and realistic.

Ideally, a speech draft ought to be reviewed three times—by the writer, by the prospective speaker, and by a disinterested third party. Of these three, priority should ordinarily be given to the speaker. The revised product is likely to be more effective. With speeches, as with food, however, too many cooks are undesirable. Moreover, time seldom permits this much critical evaluation and rewriting. It may even be easier to provide for some appraisal of the speech's impact and audience reaction after delivery. For example, it is said that Senator Robert F. Kennedy's speech writers would follow his delivery of a speech word by word, noting those phrases or ideas that were well received, or others that created problems.

An effective political speech is defined not by rules of rhetoric, but by the character of response it evokes. The speaker, then, is always concerned to measure that response and to elicit "positive feedback." This means a network of contacts that can report on the opinions and reactions of the audience, and evaluate the interest generated and evident a week or more after the event. It requires an awareness of media coverage and subsequent treatment from constituents, the sponsoring organization, and others. In short, it means adding a political relevance to the familiar phrase, "keeping in touch."

Although there are substantial distinctions between legislative and non-legislative speeches, the basic principles of preparation and presentation are identical for both. Good writing is nurtured by wide reading, which in turn fosters a sense of style, enriched vocabulary, accuracy in grammar, and a feeling for English syntax. The best speechwriters will, through regular daily reading, bring an ever more abundant background to their work. Everything is grist for the speechwriter's mill. Moreover, nothing is surer in speechwriting than that "practice makes perfect." The more one writes, the easier the task becomes, and the smoother and more conversational the flow of the Member's remarks.

As with so many aspects of speechwriting and delivery, the physical form of a speech is a matter of personal preference. Some speakers prefer to work from a completely polished text, one that may include carefully tailored "spontaneous" anecdotes and jokes at appropriate places, and may even incorporate hints on speech delivery or effective body language in the text. Others prefer to speak from notes derived from such a text, proceed from a series of "talking points," or simply extemporize. Whichever method is used, preparatory notes or an outline are recommended, with the cautionary warning that dependence on a manuscript can deaden the delivery, just as the excessive use of notes or cards can stimulate verbosity.

President-elect Lincoln's farewell speech at Springfield, Illinois on February 11, 1861 is arguably the shortest great speech ever delivered from the back of a train. Its railway car setting recalls to mind the now-vanished connection between political events and the railroad, including the whistle-stop campaigns of most presidential candidates from William Jennings Bryan to Dwight Eisenhower. What Jacques Barzun called Lincoln's "workaday style [would become] the American style par excellence," undermining the monopoly exercised by purveyors of "literary plush." 17 The Springfield speech illustrates with extraordinary brevity—it is only a 15 line paragraph—the Lincolnian qualities of precision, vernacular ease, rhythmic virtuosity, and elegance.

The sense of right order and emphasis throughout culminates in the closing sentence—"one of the greatest cadences in English speech." 18 The effect is achieved by the simple yet artful devices of parallelism, the balancing of similar and antithetical words phrases, and ideas, evoking rich Biblical overtones among his hearers. Lincoln's style is rooted in the "speaking intonations" and "humanly simple vernacular" of everyday speech, heightened by form and rhythm, the distinctively American tradition seen at its best in such writers as Emerson and Frost. 19 Although some hold that today there is no place for rhetorical eloquence, arguing that "bluntness and clarity" and simplistic thoughts are the norm, 20 others assert that the craft of speechmaking, the impact of skilled political rhetoric is as significant as ever in our history. 21 Lincoln's mastery of that craft remains a formidable example.

My Friends: No one, not in my situation, can appreciate my feeling of sadness at this parting. To this place, and the kindness of these people, I owe everything. Here I have lived a quarter of a century, and have passed from a young to an old man. Here my children have been born, and one is buried. I now leave, not knowing when or whether ever I may return, with a task before me greater than that which rested upon Washington. Without the assistance of that Divine Being who ever attended him, I cannot succeed. With that assistance, I cannot fail. Trusting in Him who can go with me, and remain with you, and be everywhere for good, let us confidently hope that all will yet be well. To His care commending you, as I hope in your prayers you will commend me, I bid you an affectionate farewell. 22

The rise and, indeed, the virtual triumph in American political speaking of "the popular conversational idiom," with its emphasis on simplicity, brevity, and terseness, has tended to encourage "simplistic language together with slogans or catch words ...," influenced perhaps by the techniques of mass media advertising and particularly television. 23 "Repetition and retention of a few simple ideas are stressed more than a complex concept." 24 In consequence, some have noted a growing trend toward what some have characterized as a numbing mediocrity: "Since the 1920s more political speakers have addressed larger audiences on a wider range of topics than at any time in history. Yet so marked is the decline in the quality of style that the majority of speeches are pedestrian, prosaic, and impotent." 25 This last may be an excessively pessimistic evaluation of the state of contemporary political speech. Few, moreover, would advocate a return to the florid style of public speaking that prevailed as recently as the 1920s.

The remedy, in part, may be the cultivation of style. "Time should be devoted," writes L. Patrick Devlin, "to using impressive language," which he defines as "the most vivid, clear, concise, and meaningful style." 26 It will be most effective if it bears the personal stamp of the speaker. "The process of persuasion is ... more a matter of communicating values than logical information." 27 In essence, good speechwriting requires that the speaker assume a role: to some extent, he or she must be able to impart confidence and to sense the character of an audience. We need not agree with Talleyrand's cynical observation that "speech was given to man to disguise his thoughts" to recognize that effective persuasion calls for the ability to win the hearts and minds of listeners. To seem natural is not easy; as George Fluharty and Harold Ross wrote in Public Speaking :

The speaker is estimating his audience and his audience is estimating him. His ethics, his integrity, understanding, and humanity are strong forces for good and also strong components of his "ethos" or personal effect upon not only his present but also his future audiences. The speaker should therefore make sure that the actual situation permits him to use a given persuasive device. 28

Once again, the words of Abraham Lincoln, himself no mean practitioner of the public speaker's art, may serve to summarize the speechwriter's ultimate goal:

When the conduct of men is designed to be influenced, persuasion, kind, unassuming persuasion, should ever be adopted. It is an old and true maxim that "a drop of honey catches more flies than a gallon of gall." So with men. If you would win a man to your cause, first convince him that you are his sincere friend. Therein is a drop of honey that catches his heart, which, say what he will, is the great high-road to his reason, and which, when once gained, you will find but little trouble convincing his judgment of the justice of your cause, if indeed that cause really is a good one. 29

The art of political speechwriting—from a former White House speechwriter

• Search Search

The West Wing portrays speechwriting as a distinctive skill that requires Herculean efforts at breakneck speed. But, as the television show suggests, the position can also be particularly rewarding, affording the writer a front-row seat to history.

Alan Stone, who worked on President Bill Clinton’s first presidential campaign in 1992 and then in the White House as a speechwriter from 1993 to 1995, says the real-world experience is pretty similar. “Being part of memorable moments is fairly commonplace for a White House speechwriter, if for no other reason than your physical proximity to the moments that will live in history” noted Stone. “While you are aware of what is going on you are also extremely busy, so it is not often until much later that you realize the weight of the events you are part of.”

Stone, who is currently senior consultant for Northeastern University, wrote speeches on topics ranging from economics to social justice. He even got a line in Clinton’s first inaugural address.

[Watch Stone tell this story on our Facebook page .]

How did you get a job working as a speechwriter in the White House?

I was chief speechwriter for U.S. Senator Tom Harkin during his run for the Democratic nomination in the 1992 presidential election. After Harkin lost and Clinton got the nomination, someone from Clinton’s team called Harkin and said “We are staffing up. Can you recommend some of your senior people?”

I guess my name came up. And people kept saying to me “I hear the Clinton people are going to hire you.” There was even a mention of it in a local gossip column. But I hadn’t heard anything from the Clinton campaign.

I was in Los Angeles at the time and I did something very uncharacteristic; I called the Clinton campaign, asked for David Kusnet, Clinton’s head speechwriter, and asked him what was going on. He said, “I was just about to call you, I swear. When can you get here?”

I told him I didn’t really expect a job offer right then and I’d need to think about it. He responded, “We need you here in 24 hours.” So I packed up my Puegeot 504, with my old Mac, and some clothes, got on the road, and didn’t sleep until I arrived in Little Rock, Arkansas.

[ Hear Stone tell the story of his first encounter with Clinton on our Instagram page.]

What is speechwriting on a campaign like?

The stump speech is the pack mule of every campaign. It’s mostly low art with a bit of high art thrown in. I say low art because it gets repeated in basically the same form hundreds of times in any presidential race. It contains the core message and themes of the campaign as well as proven applause lines and critiques of your opponent. That framework gets adjusted for locale and issues. So, for example, you’d mention ethanol and price supports if the speech is given to a rural group. You always acknowledge local leaders. You try hard to add some local color and humor. But the scaffolding remains the same and these make up the bulk of campaign speechifying.

Be passionate about the issues. It will really help. Leave your ego at the door—your words are meant to be read by someone else. — Alan Stone

What, then, is the “high art” version of a campaign speech?

It’s a campaign speech of significant political consequence given to a critical audience. It requires much more work and craft than a stump speech.

Bill Clinton gave such a speech at the University of Notre Dame on Sept. 11, 1992. Just as is the case today, abortion was a hot-button issue at the time. And this was the first major speech Clinton gave after he was harshly attacked on “family values” by Pat Buchanan and others at the Republican National Convention.

Clinton spoke about the influence the Catholic social mission had had on him and how deeply his plans reflected those values. He talked about how the “religious war” Buchanan sought was antithetical to the values rooted in faith that most Americans have.

The audience was very tough on him that day. There were lots of catcalls and attempts to shout him down. But he stuck to his guns and met his goals, which were to connect to this traditional Democratic constituency, to frame his opponents as not in the mainstream of traditional values, and conversely to identify core Catholic values as those animating his proposals. This speech was beautifully drafted by Kusnet.

Do you think writing in a presidential campaign has changed?

Of course. All presidential campaigning is changing and communications is no exception. While stump speeches and more major speeches are obviously still important to campaigns, and free media is still coveted, and third-party or earned media is still the gold standard, social media is now playing an enormous and growing role in every campaign.

This is not my field of expertise, but I imagine at a minimum if a campaign is not great at using Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram to its advantage, it is in big trouble. Likewise, if a campaign is not good at assessing its engagement, sharing and networking, and making changes on the fly, it will be at a big disadvantage.

Do you have any advice for people who are interested in political speechwriting?

Be passionate about the issues. It will really help. Leave your ego at the door—your words are meant to be read by someone else. When you hear something you like, go back and study what worked for you. And steal the good stuff—the ideas not the words—because someone else has almost certainly stolen it before you.

As I’ve said, being part of memorable moments is oddly fairly commonplace for a White House speechwriter. For example, when the Oslo Accords were signed, in 1993, I was literally working only steps away. So the most memorable moments for me were ones that stood out for more personal reasons. The night we won, sitting at a pub in Little Rock feeling overcome with equal parts pride and exhaustion; meeting Rosa Parks at a speech in Los Angeles; flying back to Washington, D.C., on my last trip on Air Force One before beginning my new career, thinking about how overwhelming the experience had been and hoping time and reflection would help me understand it more. And it has.

What is it really like working in the White House? What happens behind the scenes?

It was the hardest work I have ever done, by far. The speeches need to be perfect, yet the process that went into them was often chaotic, with changing topics, delayed prep sessions, etc. The deadlines, however—they never moved. And the volume was relentless.

Was there a specific approach you took to writing speeches? A formula? Or was every one new and different?

You have to know the themes and messages of the moment—the stump. You need to know the audience and the goals of the speech. After that, I always tried to tell a story with a spine; I always looked for new data or a new anecdote to make my point; and I always tried to be positive in the sense of forward movement and looking toward the future. Finally, I always tried to end big. That’s about it. I hope I hit my goal more than I missed it, but that is a judgment for history.

Alan J. Stone, an attorney and writer, is president of Alan J. Stone Consulting, LLC. He currently resides in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Editor's Picks

Northeastern researcher exposes child labor trafficking as a hidden crime after investigating 132 victims, ‘right problem, wrong solution.’ tiktok raises legitimate privacy concerns, but ban may be the wrong geopolitical move, experts say, .ngn-magazine__shapes {fill: var(--wp--custom--color--emphasize, #000) } .ngn-magazine__arrow {fill: var(--wp--custom--color--accent, #cf2b28) } ngn magazine we’re addicted to ‘true crime’ stories. this class investigates why, northeastern dean and distinguished professor join latest cohort of american academy of arts and sciences, what is eldest daughter syndrome is it a real condition, featured stories, drinking water in communities of color is more likely to be contaminated by ‘forever chemicals,’ research finds, northeastern university announces speakers for global campus commencements, and college and school ceremonies, is ai revolutionizing rehabilitation care this northeastern expert is digging deep on the issue   , .ngn-magazine__shapes {fill: var(--wp--custom--color--emphasize, #000) } .ngn-magazine__arrow {fill: var(--wp--custom--color--accent, #cf2b28) } ngn magazine this student spent co-op on an island helping protect sea turtles and other endangered species, university news.

Recent Stories

• All Insights
• Top-Rated Articles
• How-to Guides
• For Parents

The Art of Persuasion: Writing a Compelling Speech

Discover the art of persuasion and learn how to write a compelling speech that captivates your audience. This blog post provides expert insights and practical tips for crafting an impactful persuasive speech.

Understanding the Power of Persuasion

Understanding the power of persuasion is crucial when it comes to writing a persuasive speech. Persuasion is the art of influencing and convincing others to adopt your point of view or take a specific action. By understanding the principles behind persuasion, you can effectively communicate your ideas and sway your audience.

One key aspect of persuasion is understanding the psychological factors that influence decision-making. People are often motivated by emotions, personal beliefs, and social influences. By tapping into these factors, you can tailor your speech to resonate with your audience and increase the likelihood of them being persuaded by your arguments.

Additionally, understanding the power dynamics at play can also enhance your persuasive abilities. Recognizing the authority or expertise you possess on the topic can lend credibility to your arguments, while acknowledging and addressing counterarguments can help you anticipate and overcome potential objections.

In summary, understanding the power of persuasion involves recognizing the psychological factors and power dynamics that influence decision-making. By leveraging these insights, you can effectively craft a persuasive speech that resonates with your audience and achieves your intended goals.

Analyzing Your Audience

Analyzing your audience is a crucial step in writing a persuasive speech. By understanding who your audience is, their beliefs, values, and attitudes, you can tailor your arguments to appeal to their specific needs and interests.

Start by conducting research or surveys to gather information about your audience. Consider their demographics, such as age, gender, education, and socioeconomic background. This information can provide valuable insights into their preferences and perspectives.

Furthermore, analyze your audience's psychographics, which include their interests, values, and motivations. What are their concerns and aspirations? What do they care about? By understanding their psychographics, you can identify common ground and frame your arguments in a way that resonates with their values.

Remember, effective persuasion requires connecting with your audience on an emotional level. By tailoring your speech to address their specific concerns and interests, you can create a compelling case that is more likely to persuade them.

In conclusion, analyzing your audience is essential for writing a persuasive speech. By understanding their demographics and psychographics, you can tailor your arguments to resonate with their needs and interests, increasing the chances of persuading them.

Selecting a Relevant and Timely Topic

Selecting a relevant and timely topic is crucial for capturing your audience's attention and maintaining their interest throughout your persuasive speech.

Firstly, consider the current issues and trends that are relevant to your audience. What are the pressing concerns or debates in their lives? By choosing a topic that is timely, you can tap into their existing interests and create a sense of urgency.

Additionally, selecting a topic that is relevant to your audience's lives or experiences can make your speech more relatable and engaging. Consider their needs, challenges, and aspirations. How can your speech address these aspects and provide valuable insights or solutions?

Furthermore, it is important to choose a topic that aligns with your own expertise and interests. By selecting a topic that you are passionate about and knowledgeable in, you can deliver a more authentic and compelling speech.

In summary, selecting a relevant and timely topic involves considering the current issues and trends that are relevant to your audience, as well as their needs and interests. By choosing a topic that aligns with your expertise and resonates with your audience, you can create a persuasive speech that captures their attention and maintains their interest.

Crafting a Strong Thesis Statement

Crafting a strong thesis statement is essential for creating a persuasive speech that effectively communicates your main argument or point of view.

A thesis statement serves as the foundation of your speech, providing a clear and concise statement of your main idea. It should be specific, debatable, and focused on the main argument you want to make.

To craft a strong thesis statement, start by clearly stating your position on the topic. Avoid vague or general statements and strive for clarity and precision. Additionally, ensure that your thesis statement is debatable, meaning that there are valid arguments on both sides of the issue.

Furthermore, consider the structure of your thesis statement. It should be concise and to the point, capturing the essence of your argument in a single sentence or two.

In conclusion, crafting a strong thesis statement involves clearly stating your position on the topic, ensuring that it is debatable, and structuring it in a concise and focused manner. A strong thesis statement sets the tone for your persuasive speech and guides your audience in understanding your main argument.

Using Emotional Appeals

Using emotional appeals is a powerful technique for persuading your audience and eliciting a strong response to your persuasive speech.

Emotions play a significant role in decision-making, and by tapping into your audience's emotions, you can create a deeper connection and increase the likelihood of them being persuaded.

To effectively use emotional appeals, start by identifying the emotions that are relevant to your topic and your audience. Consider the desired emotional response you want to evoke, whether it's empathy, excitement, fear, or hope. By understanding your audience's emotional triggers, you can tailor your speech to generate the desired emotional response.

Additionally, use storytelling and personal anecdotes to make your speech more relatable and emotionally engaging. Humanizing your arguments and connecting them to real-life experiences can create a powerful emotional impact.

However, it is important to use emotional appeals ethically and responsibly. Avoid manipulating or exploiting your audience's emotions, and ensure that your emotional appeals are supported by logical arguments and evidence.

In summary, using emotional appeals involves identifying the relevant emotions for your topic and audience, using storytelling and personal anecdotes to make your speech more relatable, and maintaining ethical standards in your use of emotional appeals. By effectively using emotional appeals, you can create a persuasive speech that resonates with your audience on an emotional level.

Supporting Your Arguments with Evidence

Supporting your arguments with evidence is essential for building credibility and persuasiveness in your speech.

Evidence can take various forms, including statistics, research findings, expert opinions, and real-life examples. By incorporating relevant and reliable evidence, you can strengthen your arguments and make them more convincing.

When selecting evidence, ensure that it is up-to-date, accurate, and relevant to your topic. Use credible sources and cite them appropriately to maintain credibility.

Additionally, consider the counterarguments and potential objections that your audience may have. Anticipate these objections and address them with counter-evidence or logical reasoning. By acknowledging and refuting opposing viewpoints, you can strengthen your overall argument.

Furthermore, use clear and concise language when presenting your evidence. Avoid jargon or complex terminology that may confuse or alienate your audience. Present the evidence in a logical and organized manner, making it easy for your audience to follow and understand.

In conclusion, supporting your arguments with evidence involves incorporating relevant, reliable, and up-to-date evidence to strengthen your persuasive speech. By addressing potential objections and presenting the evidence in a clear and organized manner, you can build credibility and persuade your audience effectively.

Structuring an Engaging Speech

Structuring your speech in an engaging manner is crucial for capturing and maintaining your audience's attention throughout your persuasive speech.

Start by organizing your speech into a clear introduction, body, and conclusion. The introduction should grab your audience's attention, provide a brief overview of your topic, and present your thesis statement. The body should be structured logically, with each main point supported by evidence and examples. The conclusion should summarize your main arguments and leave a lasting impression on your audience.

Additionally, consider incorporating storytelling, anecdotes, or rhetorical questions to make your speech more engaging and interactive. These techniques can help create a connection with your audience and enhance their overall experience.

Furthermore, use transitions and signposts to guide your audience through your speech. Clear and concise transitions help your audience follow your thoughts and maintain a sense of flow.

Lastly, consider the use of visual aids, such as slides or props, to enhance your speech and make it more visually appealing. Visual aids can help illustrate your points and make complex ideas more accessible to your audience.

In summary, structuring an engaging speech involves organizing it into a clear introduction, body, and conclusion, incorporating storytelling and rhetorical techniques, using transitions to guide your audience, and considering the use of visual aids. By structuring your speech effectively, you can capture and maintain your audience's attention throughout your persuasive speech.

Related Insights

Mastering the art of extemporaneous speech, using stage movements and gestures as foundations of persuasion: learn these 3 ways (part 2), learn to create a persuasive speech: how to apply these tools to investigate your topic (part 2).

• 5 Prep Tips for BP
• Top Speech Introductions
• Public Speaking and Debate Competitions
• Incorporating Humor
• Logical Fallacies
• How-To: Prepare for Debate Tournaments
• How-To: Judge a Debate
• How-To: Win a BP Debate
• How-To: Win An Argument
• How-To: Improve at Home
• Team China Wins World Championship
• Ariel Wins Tournament
• Jaxon Speaks Up
• Tina Improves

Event Mode of Delivery

Event registration, show only open enrolment events.

New user? Create an account

Create An Account

Already a user? Sign in

Request New Password

Password reset instructions will be sent to your registered email address.

• Chinese, Simplified
• Full Catalogue

The Art of Speechwriting - 2023 Fall Edition

Throughout history, the speech has been one of the most powerful forms of communication. Technological, social and economic changes have enhanced that power. As digital communication has increased, speeches have had to become more authentic and honest. 

This online course gives you the essential principles of the art and craft of speechwriting. After first defining why speeches matter, the course looks at the three golden principles of speechwriting, before moving on to how to make the content memorable and engaging. It then focuses on honing the participants writing and editing skills with specific exercises on hooking your audience and crafting media sound bites and quotes. Finally, it examines how to deliver a speech with confidence and conviction. 

At the end of this course, participants should be able to: • Identify the elements of a good speech as well as the 3 golden principles; • Apply principles of effective writing; • Manage the audience's attention span throughout the speech; • Get your message across to the media and on social media; • Appraise the principles of effective delivery and recognise the importance of non-verbal communication.

The course will include the following topics:

Module 1: The art of speechwriting 

• Lesson 1: Why do speeches matter?
• Lesson 2: The 3 golden principles
• Lesson 3: Messaging
• Lesson 4: Structuring content
• Lesson 5: Rhetorical techniques
• Lesson 6: Storytelling

Module 2: The craft of speechwriting

• Lesson 1: Roles and challenges of the writer
• Lesson 2: The writing process 
• Lesson 3: Powerful writing 
• Lesson 4: Crafting sound-bites and quotes

Module 3: Delivering the speech 

• Lesson 1: Remembering your speech
• Lesson 2: Managing nerves and building confidence
• Lesson 3: Using the visual, verbal and vocal channels
• Lesson 4: Being present - applying improvisational techniques

e-Learning: The course is internet-based, moderated by a senior international expert, asynchronous, and places emphasis on online discussions and self-paced learning. The participants will be primarily responsible for their own learning over the three-week span of the course. The course will consist of the following components:

Compulsory and optional reading material, intended to teach the basic concepts and principles of the lesson's subject-matter; External links to additional books, articles, documents, and websites related to the lessons; Quizzes and case studies at the end of each module. To be eligible for the course certificate, a passing grade of 80% on both quizzes and case studies is required; A Community Discussion Board will be available for participants to post questions or comments visible to the instructor and other participants. This discussion board will be moderated by the course director and UNITAR;

Estimated learning time: 24 hours. Participants will be eligible to receive a certificate of completion after the successful completion of the course.

The course targets junior to senior-level governmental officials as well as staff of intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations. It also targets entry-level and mid-career diplomats and private and public sector specialists. Postgraduate students are also encouraged to apply. 

We highly recommend credit card payments.

Registration will be closed as soon as the course is full and your place will be secured once your payment is confirmed.

For more information, please consult the UNITAR Multilateral Diplomacy Programme website or contact  mdp-elearning [at] unitar.org (mdp-elearning[at]unitar[dot]org)  

General Requirements

-Good command of the English language.

Discount for Eastwest European Institute Alumni :

Alumni from the Eastwest European Institute can benefit from a 10% discount for this training. After you complete your application, kindly send your Eastwest Certificate of Participation to diplomacy [at] unitar.org (diplomacy[at]unitar[dot]org) . UNITAR will verify your alumni status and, upon confirmation of the latter, apply the discount.

Technical Requirements

UNITAR recommends the following as a minimum in hardware and software to take our e-Learning courses. Please consult your Network Administrator or Systems person to ensure that you have the following:

-Platform: Windows 95, 98, 2000, NT, ME, XP or superior; MacOS 9 or MacOS X; Linux -Hardware: 64 MB of RAM, 1 GB of free disk space -Software:

Adobe Acrobat Reader  Adobe Flash Player  Microsoft Office (Windows or Mac) or Open Office 

Browser: Internet Explorer 7 or higher ; it works better with Firefox 3.6 or higher Note that JavaScript, Cookies and Pop-ups must be enabled

AI and Speech Writing: How Artificial Intelligence is Changing the Writing Process

Picture this: it’s the night before a crucial speech, and you’re struggling to find the right words to convey your message. Your hands tremble with each keystroke, desperately trying to prepare a powerful impact on a captive audience. But what if I told you there’s a game-changing tool that can transform the dread of speech writing into an effortlessly smooth process? Welcome to the future where artificial intelligence is revolutionizing the art of crafting compelling speeches, ensuring you never face that dreaded writer’s block again. With On-Page.ai let’s dive into how AI is redefining the writing experience and empowering speakers with unparalleled linguistic prowess.

AI technology is being developed to assist with several aspects of speech writing, including generating speech outlines, text analysis, and even speech composition. By automating tedious tasks, AI-powered tools can help speechwriters focus on more important aspects of their jobs, such as researching interesting anecdotes and information that can make a speech more engaging and memorable.

Foundations of Speech Writing

Speechwriting is an art that requires one to communicate effectively and efficiently with the targeted audience through writing. It involves writing content for speeches that will be delivered in front of a live audience or broadcast. As much as everyone can write, writing a speech requires a specific skill set, including being persuasive, informative, and entertaining. Good speeches also require having some key components – an introduction, a body, and a conclusion – to ensure it is well-paced.

Successful speechwriters craft speeches that target each listener’s or viewer’s interests and concerns, regardless of how diverse the audience may be. Speeches have been used throughout history to inspire people to take action and can make history or change lives. A good example of this was Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech , which still resonates today almost 60 years later.

Despite the importance of speeches in shaping our world, traditional speechwriting has been challenging for many reasons.

• As per a 2022 survey conducted by CallHub, it was reported that 63% of respondents disclosed that their organizations were currently using or planning to use AI-powered speechwriting tools within the next two years.
• A 2020 study by ResearchGate indicated that more than 53% of experts in linguistics and related fields predict that genuine human-like speech synthesis will be achieved by AI systems by the end of this decade.
• In an analysis published in 2021, Gartner projected that by 2025, AI writing assistants would create content for approximately 40% of professional writers, significantly improving their efficiency and productivity.

Traditional Process and Challenges

The traditional process of speechwriting involves several steps, from research to drafting to delivery. Often speechwriters must work on tight deadlines while managing high-pressure situations.

For starters, writing speeches means working under the guidance of executives or leaders whose voices they need to match. These authorities will expect them to capture their tone accurately while avoiding errors in grammar and vocabulary.

Moreover, crafting compelling speeches requires turning dry facts into something engaging and enjoyable for its listeners. However, finding and researching those topics often takes significant amounts of time away from actually drafting the speech itself.

Another issue with traditional speechwriting is dealing with revisions after the initial draft has been presented. This can lead to extensive rewrites, which eats up valuable time and causes undue stress for all parties involved. For extra support with speechwriting rewrites, see On-Page.ai’s Stealth AI Rewriter .

In general, crafting well-written speeches requires a well-developed set of skills and comes with many challenges. However, with the aid of AI-powered solutions like On-Page.ai’s Stealth Writer , these obstacles can be mitigated or even eliminated. We’ll explore these solutions in detail in our next section.

The traditional process of speechwriting involves multiple challenges such as working under the guidance of leaders, turning boring information into compelling content, and dealing with revising drafts. However, AI-powered solutions can help mitigate these obstacles and streamline the speechwriting process.

AI-powered Solutions for Speech Writing

Traditional process of speech writing is challenging, and human writers struggle with timelines, generating content on urgent topics, and ensuring that the finished product meets the needs of their clients. Thankfully, AI-powered solutions are emerging that help address these challenges and enable writers to deliver better quality work, faster.

One such solution is an AI-powered speechwriting software from OpenAI called GPT-3 . It uses natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning algorithms to generate high-quality content for speeches. This tool can dramatically reduce the time and effort involved in researching and drafting speeches by automatically generating meaningful passageways.

Another innovative solution is Toucan AI’s “Speech Coach.” This tool enables users to receive real-time feedback while practicing a speech. It uses NLP algorithms to understand the intended message and provides feedback on content, tone, pace, emotionality, and other aspects of communication.

For instance, when working on a recent client project, I turned to AI tools as traditional research techniques yielded limited results. One such tool was Contentyze – an AI-based content creation platform that quickly generated valuable data-driven talking points for our next CEO keynote speech.

Lastly, there’s SpeakerCue. It uses NLP to help sort through user-submitted video or audio recordings to index important keywords or sections automatically. This tool can save writers hours of time by sifting through raw footage for relevant information.

These AI-powered solutions are revolutionizing the speechwriting industry because they not only assist in generating quality content quickly but also offer automation services across the entire production process leading to more efficient workflow protocols.

However, many argue that using artificial intelligence creates a missed opportunity for delivering truly impactful speeches and connecting with audiences on a personal level because it may lack the emotional nuance present in human-written speeches.

With that said, it is important to recognize the potential of these tools for expediting the speech-writing process and allowing writers to focus on more creative and personal aspects of the job.

Innovative AI Tools Impacting the Industry

In addition to content generation solutions, AI-powered tools have been developed to optimize tasks such as research and arrangement. One such tool is IBM’s Watson Explorer , which uses AI algorithms to analyze text data sets, extracting relevant information from massive amounts of research materials while also organizing the data into a user-friendly visual format.

Another innovative solution is Narrative Science’s Quill , an AI-driven writing platform designed to generate stories and insights by processing large datasets. This tool enables users to quickly create customized reports, infographics, and other materials based on data points programmed into its system.

In my own experience using these tools in the industry specifically the Statistical Speech Analysis by Lexalytics – this software reveals hidden insights within speeches through NLP processes. The tool powers the intent behind every element of a speaker’s message leading to maximizing audience engagement while minimizing delivery errors.

By utilizing AI-powered solutions in speechwriting industry produce results similar to that of a master chef: They do not necessarily replace skilled chefs but instead provide them with advanced technological equipment that allows them to work more efficiently, create dishes faster, and enhance their culinary talent further.

These innovative AI-powered solutions like On-Page.ai offer significant benefits for speechwriters: saving time on research, and improving accuracy while producing high-quality content more efficiently than ever before.

However, some argue overreliance on these tools could lead to a lack of attention towards factors outside the tool’s purview. Speechwriting can involve an emotional harmony between speakers and can be difficult for AI-powered solutions to match such requirements.

Ultimately, we believe innovative new tools will continue to emerge, substantially enhancing the way speechwriters research, generate content, and deliver their work. As AI technology continues to improve, there is no doubt that we will see a transformation in the speechwriting industry that produces better quality, more authentic speeches that connect with audiences on every level.

AI-driven Research and Content Generation

One of the most significant advantages of using AI-powered speech writing tools is their ability to conduct extensive research and generate content without any human intervention . The traditional speech writing process involves tedious research, fact-checking, and gathering anecdotes to enhance the speech’s authenticity. With AI, this process can be streamlined significantly. AI algorithms can analyze vast amounts of data and information within minutes, producing accurate reports that highlight different topics and themes relevant to the speech .

Moreover, AI technology enables writers to get a complete understanding of the audience they will be addressing. By analyzing social media data, news articles related to the topic or theme, online forums and blog posts discussions among others, AI algorithms can create an accurate outline and context for the content in the speech. This ability ensures that speeches resonate better with their intended audience. It also ensures that speeches contain up-to-date information that would be challenging for humans to obtain through research alone.

AI algorithms can also help with generating content by identifying relevant keywords needed to reinforce certain points within a speech. For example, if the speaker needs to emphasize their Integrity during a presentation, AI algorithms can analyse the event’s underlying theme and identify keywords that align with integrity such as honesty or trustworthiness. With this knowledge, they generate content around these particular keywords ensuring continuity and consistency throughout the speech.

Despite these benefits, there are concerns regarding the role of AI in Speech Writing . One such concern is whether AI-generated content distracts from authentic human thought or supplants it entirely. Some argue that avoiding human written originality undermines creativity in speeches. However, this argument assumes that machine-generated content is inherently formulaic — which it is not. On the other hand, supporters of AI-powered speech writing point out that it does not replace human input but instead helps writers immensely. It allows them to work faster and more accurately, freeing up time to focus on other important aspects of speechwriting.

Advantages of AI in Speech Writing

AI-powered speech writing tools offer numerous advantages over the traditional writing process. Firstly, they help writers save time. With repetitive and time-consuming tasks delegated to machines, writers have more time to dedicate to improving the quality of the speech. Secondly, AI algorithms reduce errors since they are less likely to misspell words, missed punctuations, and incorrect syntaxes among other things.

• Additionally, AI algorithms enhance language processing. They can identify and suggest alternative vocabulary and phrases when presented with an unclear or ambiguous sentence structure; this improves the readability of a speech while enhancing its impact on listeners. By understanding semantic contexts promptly, AI-powered speech-writing tools help create speeches that flow well both contextually and linguistically.
• Another advantage of AI in speech writing is that it helps mitigate ethical concerns in professional writing. For example, it can detect unconscious bias in speeches that might lead to harm when delivered in front of a diverse audience. This not only ensures inclusivity but also reduces negative impacts that may arise out of speech pitfalls.
• Finally, AI algorithms can analyze any intellectual property rights infringements within speeches before their release clinically . This process helps writers avoid legal issues concerning copied content from external sources unintentionally.

Overcoming AI Limitations and Ethical Considerations

While artificial intelligence has revolutionized the way we approach speech writing, it does come with its own set of limitations and ethical questions. As AI technology continues to advance, it’s important that we address these concerns to ensure that the benefits of AI in speech writing don’t come at a moral cost.

One major concern with using AI for speech writing is the risk of perpetuating social stereotypes and harmful biases. Just like any other type of machine learning tool, AI-powered speech writers can learn from biased data sets which can result in discriminatory language or perspectives.

• For instance, if an AI-powered writer is programmed with a sexist model based on gendered language used in past speeches, there’s a high likelihood that the generated content will reflect those same biases and stereotypes. Therefore, it’s essential that developers actively work to identify and eliminate these biases from their models.
• Additionally, it’s important to recognize that AI-driven content isn’t always perfect. While machines are capable of analyzing data far faster than humans could ever hope to achieve on their own, they still lack the same level of creativity and emotional intelligence as humans possess. Consequently, relying solely on machine-generated content can result in stiff or robotic speeches lacking the human touch necessary to inspire change or connect with audiences emotionally.
• However, despite these challenges, there’s also an argument to be made for fully embracing AI technology and its potential for assisting rather than replacing speech writers entirely. For instance, AI-powered tools could greatly streamline the process of creating engaging speeches by offering suggestions or insights into topic areas where further research may be needed. In this way, humans remain central to creating truly impactful speeches while benefiting from AI-driven research insights.
• One useful analogy for thinking about how AI should relate to the world of speech writing is that of assistants or co-writers. Just as executives may work with speechwriters to refine and clarify their ideas, they can also use AI-driven tools to help enhance the content of their speeches. In fact, many speechwriters already view AI as a valuable tool that can assist them in generating creative ideas or creating more cohesive narratives. So rather than seeing AI technology as a competitor to human writers, it should be viewed as an additional resource that humans can leverage in their pursuit of creating compelling speeches.

In conclusion, while there are ethical concerns surrounding the use of AI in speech writing, it’s clear that this technology has enormous potential for revolutionizing the way we approach this field. That’s why, at On-Page.ai , we are committed to providing innovative and sophisticated tools that empower speech writers to maximize their creative output and impact while avoiding any ethical concerns. With our cutting-edge AI-powered solutions, you can be confident in generating impactful speeches that inspire change and resonate with your intended audiences. Create an On-Page account and discover the tools for more effective speech writing.

Common Questions and Answers

Can ai be used to write speeches for specific audiences or events.

Yes, AI can be used to write speeches for specific audiences or events. In fact, there are already several AI-powered speechwriting tools available in the market that utilize machine learning algorithms to generate content tailored for specific niches and occasions.

One such tool is Speechmatics , which uses natural language processing (NLP) and speech recognition technology to create customizable speeches for various industries like finance, healthcare, and education. Another example is Wordsmith, an AI-based writing platform that generates personalized content for marketing campaigns and customer communications.

According to a report by Gartner, it is predicted that “by 2024, 75% of enterprise applications will use AI.” This indicates the growing trend of businesses incorporating AI into their operations, including writing.

However, while the use of AI in speech writing can reduce time and effort significantly, it is essential to remember that it should never replace the value of a personally crafted message by a professional speaker. The human touch cannot be replaced with technology completely.

In conclusion, AI-powered speech writing tools can assist in creating customized speeches for specific audiences or events. Still, they must work alongside professional writers and speakers who bring their unique insights and personal touch to the table.

How accurate are the predictions made by AI when generating speeches?

When it comes to accuracy in generating speeches, AI has come a long way in recent years. In fact, studies show that AI-generated speech can be 90% accurate or even more. However, it is important to note that this level of accuracy depends largely on the quality and quantity of data used to train the AI model.

There are also certain limitations when it comes to using AI for speech writing. While AI can effectively generate text based on patterns found in its training data, it cannot completely replace human creativity and intuition. There are certain nuances and cultural references that may be missed by an algorithm, requiring human input to refine and improve upon the generated content.

Another challenge with using AI for speech writing is the issue of bias. If the training data used to teach the algorithm contains biases or stereotypes, then the generated text may inadvertently reinforce those biases rather than challenging them.

Overall, while AI has made great strides in generating accurate and useful speeches, it should not be relied upon as a replacement for human input and oversight. Rather, it should be seen as a valuable tool that can assist writers in generating high-quality content more efficiently.

Are there any ethical concerns with using AI in speech writing?

As with any technology that impacts the workforce, there are ethical concerns to consider when it comes to AI in speech writing. There is a fear that automation could replace human speechwriters, leading to job loss and economic instability. In addition, there is the potential for AI to perpetuate biases and stereotypes if not programmed correctly.

According to a study by McKinsey Global Institute, up to 800 million jobs could be displaced by automation by 2030 . While some argue that speechwriting may not be at high risk due to the creative nature of the job, it’s important to consider how AI can already generate hundreds of articles and news stories daily.

Furthermore, AI can also perpetuate biases if not properly trained. For example, if an AI language model was primarily trained on data from male speechwriters or speakers, it may struggle to write speeches that resonate with diverse audiences or accurately reflect perspectives different from those of its training data.

To ensure ethical considerations are met in AI speechwriting, it’s important for developers and companies to prioritize diversity in their training data and constantly monitor output for inaccuracies or biases. Additionally, government regulations regarding the use of AI in hiring and workforce-related decisions will likely increase as concerns about displacement rise.

Overall, while there are certainly ethical concerns surrounding the use of AI in speechwriting, these can be mitigated through responsible and diverse programming practices.

Will AI eventually replace human speech writers, or simply assist them?

It’s a question that has been debated extensively in various industries, and the answer when it comes to AI and speech writing is not straightforward. While it’s true that AI has made significant strides in natural language processing, machine learning, and the ability to construct complex sentences, the ability to understand human emotion and express nuanced ideas still remains one of the hardest challenges to crack.

Moreover, according to a recent study by market research firm MarketsandMarkets, the global natural language generation market is expected to grow from $322 million in 2018 to $1,457 million by 2023, at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 35.2% during the forecast period. This means that while AI-powered natural language generation software will continue to become more advanced, human speech writers will continue to be in demand for tasks such as brainstorming creative concepts, developing an authentic voice for brands and individuals, and crafting emotional connections with audiences.

In short, while AI can greatly assist and streamline aspects of the speechwriting process – offering suggestions on word choice or sentence structure – it cannot replace the value of a human touch that brings a truly unique perspective and experience to any piece of writing. As technology advances further and becomes more sophisticated, it’s likely that AI will continue to play a role in assisting human speech writers but they won’t be entirely replaced by machines anytime soon.

What kind of AI technology is being used in speech writing?

Speech writing has been revolutionized by the introduction of artificial intelligence (AI) technology. Specifically, Natural Language Processing (NLP) algorithms are being utilized to analyze large amounts of text data and generate speeches that match the tone, style, and content needed for certain events or audiences.

One example of this technology in action is the use of AI-powered speechwriting software created by companies such as Speechmatics, Wordsmith, and Persado. These programs analyze language patterns and past speeches to create original content that can be customized specifically for a particular event or speaker. In fact, according to a recent report from Gartner Inc. , 20% of all business content will be generated by AI within the next two years.

Additionally, AI-powered speech writing is becoming increasingly popular in political campaigns and public speaking contexts. In a recent experiment conducted by Politico , an AI algorithm was pitted against professional speechwriters to generate uninterrupted speeches. The AI-generated speech was found to be more effective at capturing the audience’s attention and delivering key messages.

In conclusion, AI technology is changing the game when it comes to speech writing through NLP algorithms that generate tailored content. From corporate events to political campaigns, this technology is advancing its impact on our daily lives.

Related Posts

Unlocking the Power of AI and Text Mining for Businesses

Unlocking the Power of AI for Content Repurposing

Unlocking the Power of AI and Narrative Science for Storytelling

Unlock the Power of AI and SEO Content for Your Business

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Salman Rushdie warns young people against forgetting value of free speech

Author also discusses prospect of second Trump presidency and writing about his stabbing in launch event for his book Knife

Salman Rushdie has warned young people against forgetting the value of free speech and discussed the “very big and negative” impact of a second Trump presidency in a rare public appearance since his stabbing.

The Indian-born British-American author of books including the Satanic Verses and Midnight’s Children also discussed the attack in 2022 that left him blind in one eye during a Q&A at an English PEN event at the Southbank Centre .

“I have a very old-fashioned view about [free speech],” said Rushdie, appearing by video from his home in New York to mark the launch of his new memoir, Knife: Meditations After an Attempted Murder . “The defence of free expression begins at the point at which somebody says something you don’t like.

“It’s a very simple thing, but it’s being forgotten. That is what’s enshrined in the first amendment … In the US, you feel there’s a younger generation that’s kind of forgetting the value of that. Often, for reasons they would believe to be virtuous, they’re prepared to suppress kinds of speech with which they don’t sympathise. It’s a slippery slope. And look out, because the person slipping down that slope could be you.”

Rushdie said academia in America was “in serious trouble … because of colossal political divisions. And everybody is so angry that it seems very difficult to find a common place.”

The Booker-prize-winning author, whose books have been translated into more than 40 languages, discussed the prospect of a second Trump presidency with the author and critic Erica Wagner and encouraged young people in the US to “not make the mistake of not voting”.

He said: “The impact would be very big and negative. He’d be worse a second time around, because he’d be unleashed and vengeful. All he talks about is revenge. And that’s a bad policy platform, that you want to be president to deal revenge against your enemies.

“In New York, people had got the point of Donald Trump long before he ever tried to run for office. Everybody knew that he was a buffoon and a liar. And unfortunately, America had to find out the hard way. I just hope they don’t fall for it again.”

Rushdie was about to give a talk at the Chautauqua Institution in New York state on 12 August 2022 when a man rushed on stage and stabbed him about 10 times. “I saw the man in black running toward me down the right-hand side of the seating area,” he recalls in his new book . The writer was hospitalised for six weeks.

On Sunday, he said he hadn’t been able to think about writing for six months, but then it struck him that it would be “ludicrous” to write about anything else.

He described the difficulty of penning the first chapter, “in which I have to describe in some detail the exact nature of the attack. It was very hard to do.”

Knife, the writer said, was the “only book I’ve ever written with the help of a therapist. It gave me back control of the narrative. Instead of being a man lying on the stage with a pool of blood, I’m a man writing a book about a man live on stage with a pool of blood. That felt good.”

Rushdie also spoke about the postponement of the trial of his attacker, Hadi Matar . He said Matar’s not-guilty plea was “an absurdity” and that he would testify at any future trial. “It doesn’t bother me to be in the courtroom with him. It should bother him.”

after newsletter promotion

In Knife, Matar is not named, but referred to as “the A”. Rushdie said he was inspired by a Margaret Thatcher line about “wanting to deny the terrorists what she called the oxygen of publicity. That phrase stuck in my head. I thought, ‘This guy had his 27 seconds of fame. And now he should go back to being nobody.’

“I use this initial A because I thought there were many things he was: a would-be assassin, an assailant, an adversary … an ass.”

However, Rushdie said, “the most interesting” part of the book to write was the 30 pages of imagined dialogue between him and his attacker.

“I actually wanted to meet him and ask him some questions. Then I read about this incident where Samuel Beckett was the victim of a knife attack in Paris by a pimp. He went to the man’s trial, and at the end of it said to him: ‘Why did you do it?’ And the only thing the man said was: ‘I don’t know, I’m sorry.’ I thought: if I actually were to meet this guy, I would get some banality.”

So Rushdie decided it would “be better to try to imagine myself” into the head of a person who chose to attack a stranger despite reading “no more than two pages of something I’d written”.

‘There is in my mind an absence in his story,” he said. “This is somebody who was 24 years old. He must have known that he was going to be wrecking his life as well as mine, and yet he was willing to commit murder. He’s somebody with no previous criminal record and not on any kind of terrorism watch list. Just a kid in Fairview, New Jersey. And to go from that to murder is a very big jump.”

• Salman Rushdie
• Southbank Centre

More on this story

Knife by Salman Rushdie review – a life interrupted

‘Why didn’t I fight? Why didn’t I run?’: 10 things we learned from Salman Rushdie’s Knife

Knife by Salman Rushdie review – a story of hatred defeated by love

‘I can’t explain it’: Salman Rushdie says his survival in knife attack was a miracle

Salman Rushdie has lost sight in one eye and use of one hand, says agent

Drastic rethink of security likely in wake of Salman Rushdie attack

Salman Rushdie’s grave fears for Indian democracy published in PEN anthology

Iran denies role in Salman Rushdie attack but claims author is to blame

Salman Rushdie ‘road to recovery has begun’ but ‘will be long,’ agent says

If we don’t defend free speech, we live in tyranny: Salman Rushdie shows us that

Most viewed.

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Author Interviews

In a collection of 40+ interviews, author adam moss tries to find the key to creation.

Ari Shapiro

Michael Levitt

Adam Moss allowed NPR into a space only two other people have seen: his painting studio. Adam Moss hide caption

Adam Moss allowed NPR into a space only two other people have seen: his painting studio.

In a small brick building in the Lower East Side of Manhattan, you can find Adam Moss's "den of torture."

Prior to this interview, almost no one has been allowed in.

"Just my husband and my teacher. That's it." Moss said. "Two people in my entire life and I've had this thing for five years. So welcome."

This space is less menacing than most dens of torture; there aren't any medieval instruments of pain after all. Instead, the small, light-filled room overflows with brushes and palettes, and paintings of various sizes and stages of completion rest on every surface.

Adam Moss' so-called "den of torture." Instead of Medieval instruments of torture, he has paintbrushes and palettes. Adam Moss hide caption

When Adam Moss gave up his job as editor-in-chief of New York Magazine five years ago, he started painting. He loved it, but it was agonizing.

"I really wanted to be good, and it made the act of making art so frustrating for me," said Moss. "This [studio] is where I come many days and wrestle with trying to make something."

Trying to make something is exactly the subject of Adam Moss's new book, The Work of Art: How Something Comes from Nothing .

"The book is called The Work of Art ," says Moss. "And that is kind of what it's about."

It's about the work.

Adam Moss' The Work of Art: How Something Comes from Nothing features interviews with more than 40 creatives about their process, from blank page to final product. Penguin Press hide caption

The book has 43 chapters, each one dedicated to a single artist, and their process of creating a single work. They come from a wide range of disciplines. There are poets, painters, chefs, sand castle sculptors and crossword puzzle makers.

And through this collection of interviews, the book tries to answer the questions: How does a sketch become a painting? How does a scribbled lyric become a song? How does an inspiration become a masterpiece?

The book is a visual feast, full of drafts, sketches, and scribbled notebook pages.

A sample of pages from chapter 9 of the book, which profiles poet and essayist Louise Glück. Penguin Press hide caption

A sample of pages from chapter 9 of the book, which profiles poet and essayist Louise Glück.

Every page shows how an idea becomes a finished design.

In one chapter, Moss speaks with Amy Sillman, an abstract painter who Moss admires for her unique use of color and shape.

"Amy was also a dream subject for this project," Moss writes. "Because to reach the finish line of most of her paintings, she paints dozens of paintings, or even more, each usually pretty wonderful."

Amy Sillman's artistic process

Slideshow depicting abstract painter Amy Sillman's artistic process, as narrated by Amy Sillman in the book The Work of Art: How Something Comes from Nothing. Though all of the paintings are in color, some of these slides are in grayscale.

The chapter contains 39 images, demonstrating the full evolution from first draft to finished product of her work, Miss Gleason .

Each image is accompanied by a quote from Sillman, explaining what step that particular draft represented in her process.

In another chapter, Moss speaks with the musician Rostam, who describes the process of writing the song "In a River."

Musician Rostam Batmanglij, pictured here performing in 2017, shared his songwriting process with Adam Moss. Emma McIntyre/Getty Images hide caption

Musician Rostam Batmanglij, pictured here performing in 2017, shared his songwriting process with Adam Moss.

For Rostam, the creative process occurred in large part on his iPhone, in a collection of draft lyrics written in the notes app, and melodies in recorded as voice memos.

Voice memo draft of Rostam's "In a River"

Eventually, those notes and recording on his phone evolved into a completed song.

Rostam's animation video for his song "In a River."

So, what is the key to creating a masterpiece? Moss did not find an answer. All of artists featured across the book are unique, and so are their creative processes.

However, Moss did point to some frequently shared traits.

One commonality Moss found was that many artists describe themselves as having ADHD.

"Whether they have ADHD or not, [they have] the elements that we associate with ADHD," Moss said, describing a balance of distractedness and focus.

"You need to be distracted enough for your mind, for your imagination to go fishing, and you need to be focused enough to know what to do with it."

Moss also found that his subjects consistently found ways not to let the fear of failure or mistakes prevent them from starting.

"They tried to get through that as quickly as possible and with as little thought as possible," Moss said. "Many of them write in longhand, giving themselves explicit permission to fail."

However, there was one trait between Moss's subjects that was truly ubiquitous.

"They all have a compulsion, an obsession to make something. It gets into their system and they can't let go of it," Moss said, explaining that the vision or the final product is secondary to the process.

"The end product is not the point," Moss said. "what they were consumed by, why they did what they did is because they were consumed by the work. "

Oklahoma Bus Driver Viciously Attacked By Passenger, Forces Crash

Guess The Crochet Bikini Babe Turnin' Up The Heat In Hotlanta!

Pet Shop Boys' Neil Tennant Doesn't Think Taylor Swift Has Hit Songs

Hit The Jungle With The Willis Sisters On Their Family Getaway!

Woman Claims to Have Filmed Possible UFO From Airplane Above NYC

Taylor swift review writer's name left out over safety concerns, taylor swift magazine redacts reviewer's name ... swifties sent violent threats.

Taylor Swift 's fans jump to defend their girl T-Swizzle ... and, one magazine's so concerned they removed a reviewer's byline -- 'cause they worried the person might get threats.

Paste, an entertainment/culture outlet, published its review of "The Tortured Poets Department" Friday ... but didn't include a specific author's name in the byline.

The magazine included an editor's note on its account ... saying when it reviewed "Lover" back in 2019 the writer who penned the piece received threats of violence -- and, the mag didn't want to put an employee in danger.

Probably a good call ... 'cause the review absolutely trashes Swift's 11th studio album -- saying it infantilizes its audience and comparing it to controversial poet Rupi Kaur 's work.

The opening line sets the tone for the entire piece ... with the writer starting off by saying, "Sylvia Plath did not stick her head in an oven for this!" -- so, yeah the review's pretty critical.

But, Paste's review ain't stopping people from listening to the album ... 'cause 'TTPD' reportedly made history when it became the first album to garner more than 300 million Spotify streams in just one day.

BTW ... people online have mixed reactions to Paste's decision -- with some saying her fans should be allowed to debate with a person who's criticizing their fav artist while others applauded Paste for protecting their writer.

Paste better be careful though ... or they might end up getting name-dropped in Taylor's 12th album!

• Share on Facebook

related articles

Taylor Swift's Personal Trainer Reveals Pop Star's Brutal Workout

Taylor Swift Releases 'Fortnight' YouTube Compilation Video With Travis Kelce

Old news is old news be first.

• Share full article

For more audio journalism and storytelling, download New York Times Audio , a new iOS app available for news subscribers.

• April 25, 2024   •   40:33 The Crackdown on Student Protesters
• April 24, 2024   •   32:18 Is $60 Billion Enough to Save Ukraine?
• April 23, 2024   •   30:30 A Salacious Conspiracy or Just 34 Pieces of Paper?
• April 22, 2024   •   24:30 The Evolving Danger of the New Bird Flu
• April 19, 2024   •   30:42 The Supreme Court Takes Up Homelessness
• April 18, 2024   •   30:07 The Opening Days of Trump’s First Criminal Trial
• April 17, 2024   •   24:52 Are ‘Forever Chemicals’ a Forever Problem?
• April 16, 2024   •   29:29 A.I.’s Original Sin
• April 15, 2024   •   24:07 Iran’s Unprecedented Attack on Israel
• April 14, 2024   •   46:17 The Sunday Read: ‘What I Saw Working at The National Enquirer During Donald Trump’s Rise’
• April 12, 2024   •   34:23 How One Family Lost $900,000 in a Timeshare Scam
• April 11, 2024   •   28:39 The Staggering Success of Trump’s Trial Delay Tactics

The Crackdown on Student Protesters

Columbia university is at the center of a growing showdown over the war in gaza and the limits of free speech..

Hosted by Michael Barbaro

Featuring Nicholas Fandos

Produced by Sydney Harper ,  Asthaa Chaturvedi ,  Olivia Natt ,  Nina Feldman and Summer Thomad

With Michael Simon Johnson

Edited by Devon Taylor and Lisa Chow

Original music by Marion Lozano and Dan Powell

Engineered by Chris Wood

Listen and follow The Daily Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music

Columbia University has become the epicenter of a growing showdown between student protesters, college administrators and Congress over the war in Gaza and the limits of free speech.

Nicholas Fandos, who covers New York politics and government for The Times, walks us through the intense week at the university. And Isabella Ramírez, the editor in chief of Columbia’s undergraduate newspaper, explains what it has all looked like to a student on campus.

On today’s episode

Nicholas Fandos , who covers New York politics and government for The New York Times

Isabella Ramírez , editor in chief of The Columbia Daily Spectator

Background reading

Inside the week that shook Columbia University .

The protests at the university continued after more than 100 arrests.

There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Here’s how.

We aim to make transcripts available the next workday after an episode’s publication. You can find them at the top of the page.

Research help by Susan Lee .

The Daily is made by Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan, Alexandra Leigh Young, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, Luke Vander Ploeg, M.J. Davis Lin, Dan Powell, Sydney Harper, Mike Benoist, Liz O. Baylen, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Rachelle Bonja, Diana Nguyen, Marion Lozano, Corey Schreppel, Rob Szypko, Elisheba Ittoop, Mooj Zadie, Patricia Willens, Rowan Niemisto, Jody Becker, Rikki Novetsky, John Ketchum, Nina Feldman, Will Reid, Carlos Prieto, Ben Calhoun, Susan Lee, Lexie Diao, Mary Wilson, Alex Stern, Dan Farrell, Sophia Lanman, Shannon Lin, Diane Wong, Devon Taylor, Alyssa Moxley, Summer Thomad, Olivia Natt, Daniel Ramirez and Brendan Klinkenberg.

Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Paula Szuchman, Lisa Tobin, Larissa Anderson, Julia Simon, Sofia Milan, Mahima Chablani, Elizabeth Davis-Moorer, Jeffrey Miranda, Renan Borelli, Maddy Masiello, Isabella Anderson and Nina Lassam.

Nicholas Fandos is a Times reporter covering New York politics and government. More about Nicholas Fandos

Advertisement

Turnitin's AI writing detection available now

Turnitin’s AI writing detection helps educators identify when AI writing tools such as ChatGPT may have been used in students’ submissions.

Academic integrity in the age of AI writing

Over the years, academic integrity has been both supported and tested by technology. Today, educators are facing a new frontier with AI writing and ChatGPT.

Here at Turnitin, we believe that AI can be a positive force that, when used responsibly, has the potential to support and enhance the learning process. We also believe that equitable access to AI tools is vital, which is why we’re working with students and educators to develop technology that can support and enhance the learning process. However, it is important to acknowledge new challenges alongside the opportunities.

We recognize that for educators, there is a pressing and immediate need to know when and where AI and AI writing tools have been used by students. This is why we are now offering AI detection capabilities for educators in our products.

Gain insights on how much of a student’s submission is authentic, human writing versus AI-generated from ChatGPT or other tools.

Reporting identifies likely AI-written text and provides information educators need to determine their next course of action. We’ve designed our solution with educators, for educators.

AI writing detection complements Turnitin’s similarity checking workflow and is integrated with your LMS, providing a seamless, familiar experience.

Turnitin’s AI writing detection capability available with Originality, helps educators identify AI-generated content in student work while safeguarding the interests of students.

Turnitin AI Innovation Lab

Welcome to the Turnitin AI Innovation Lab, a hub for new and upcoming product developments in the area of AI writing. You can follow our progress on detection initiatives for AI writing, ChatGPT, and AI-paraphrasing.

Understanding the false positive rate for sentences of our AI writing detection capability

We’d like to share more insight on our sentence level false positive rate and tips on how to use our AI writing detection metrics.

Understanding false positives within our AI writing detection capabilities

We’d like to share some insight on how our AI detection model deals with false positives and what constitutes a false positive.

Have questions? Read these FAQs on Turnitin’s AI writing detection capabilities

Helping solve the AI writing puzzle one piece at a time

AI-generated writing has transformed every aspect of our lives, including the classroom. However, identifying AI writing in students’ submissions is just one piece in the broader, complex, ever-evolving AI writing puzzle.

Research corner

We regularly undertake internal research to ensure our AI writing detector stays accurate and up-to-date. If you are interested in what external testing has revealed about Turnitin's AI-writing detection capabilities, check out the links below. Notably, these studies position Turnitin among the foremost solutions in identifying AI-generated content within academia.

Research shows Turnitin's AI detector shows no statistically significant bias against English Language Learners

• In response to feedback from customers and papers claiming that AI writing detection tools are biased against writers whose first language is not English, Turnitin expanded its false positive evaluation to include writing samples of English Language Learners (ELL) and tested another nearly 2,000 writing samples of ELL writers.
• What Turnitin found was that in documents meeting the 300 word count requirement, ELL writers received a 0.014 false positive rate and native English writers received a 0.013.
• This means that there is no statistically significant bias against non-native English speakers.

Turnitin’s AI writing detector identified as the most accurate out of 16 detectors tested

• Two of the 16 detectors, Turnitin and Copyleaks, correctly identified the AI- or human-generated status of all 126 documents, with no incorrect or uncertain responses.
• Three AI text detectors – Turnitin, Originality, and Copyleaks, – have very high accuracy with all three sets of documents examined for this study: GPT-3.5 papers, GPT-4 papers, and human-generated papers.
• Of the top three detectors identified in this investigation, Turnitin achieved very high accuracy in all five previous evaluations. Copyleaks, included in four earlier analyses, performed well in three of them.

Teaching in the age of AI writing

As AI text generators like ChatGPT quickly evolve, our educator resources will, too. Curated and created by our team of veteran educators, our resources help educators meet these new challenges. They are built for professional learning and outline steps educators can take immediately to guide students in maintaining academic integrity when faced with AI writing tools.

A guide to help educators determine which resource is more applicable to their instructional situation: the AI misuse checklist or the AI misuse rubric.

A guide sharing strategies educators can consider to help when confronted with a false positive.

A guide sharing strategies students can consider to help when confronted with a false positive.

The Turnitin Educator Network is a space to meet, discuss and share best practices on academic integrity in the age of AI.

Learn more about AI writing in our blog

Written by experts in the field, educators, and Turnitin professionals, our blog offers resources and thought leadership in support of students, instructors, and administrators. Dive into articles on a variety of important topics, including academic integrity, assessment, and instruction in a world with artificial intelligence.

In this blog post, we’re going to address frequently asked questions about AI writing tool misuse for students. Specifically, what does AI writing tool misuse look like? How can you self-check to make sure you’re using AI writing tools properly?

Stay up to date with the latest blog posts delivered directly to your inbox.

Turnitin ai tools in the news.

Never miss an update or announcement. Visit our media center for recent news coverage and press releases.

Cheat GPT? Turnitin CEO Chris Caren weighs in on combating A.I. plagiarism | CNBC Squawk Box

Since the inception of AI-generated writing, educators and institutions are learning how to navigate it in the classroom. Turnitin’s CEO Chris Caren joins ‘Squawk Box’ to discuss how it is being used in the classroom and how educators can identify AI writing in student submissions.

Trouble viewing? View the video on YouTube or adjust your cookie preferences .

Some U.S. schools banning AI technology while others embrace it | NBC Nightly News

ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence program, can write college-level essays in seconds. While some school districts are banning it due to cheating concerns, NBC News’ Jacob Ward has details on why some teachers are embracing the technology.

BestColleges

Artificial intelligence, it seems, is taking over the world. At least that's what alarmists would have you believe . The line between fact and fiction continues to blur, and recognizing what is real versus what some bot concocted grows increasingly difficult with each passing week.

ThriveinEDU Podcast

On this episode of the ThriveinEDU podcast, host Rachelle Dené Poth speaks with Turnitin’s Chief Product Officer Annie Chechitelli about her role in the organization, her experience as a parent with school-age children learning to navigate AI writing, and the future of education and original thought.

District Administration

Following the one year anniversary of the public launch of ChatGPT, Chief Product Officer Annie Chechitelli sits down with the publication to discuss Turnitin’s AI writing detection feature and what the educational community has learned.

For press and media inquiries, contact us at [email protected]

Awards & recognition.

Let’s innovate together

Biden reads out ‘pause’ instruction during speech to union members in gaffe reminiscent of Ron Burgundy

WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden or President Ron Burgundy?

In a case of life imitating art, the commander-in-chief blurted out the stage note “pause” Wednesday while addressing union members in the nation’s capital.

“Four more years. Pause,” said Biden, 81, a la Will Ferrell’s buffoonish newsman character in the classic 2004 comedy “Anchorman.”

Members of North America’s Building Trades Unions stepped in and dutifully chanted “four more years” in response to the president’s botched cue.

It was not immediately clear whether the instruction was included in Biden’s teleprompter or in his prepared remarks.

The gaffe was one of a series of bizarre moments that peppered the speech, including Biden saying his predecessor, Donald Trump, had given him a pair of boots as a present.

“The guy has never worked a day in the working man’s boots,” Biden said of his likely 2024 opponent before adding: “By the way, he gave me a pair of boots as a gift, by the way.”

“I know how to put them on,” the president added. “I still sometimes cut the yard. But the Secret Service doesn’t let me do it anymore.”

It was unclear whether Biden was trying to tell a joke or was relating the latest in a series of dubious anecdotes.

The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment, nor did the Trump campaign.

Biden attacked the 45th president repeatedly Wednesday, telling union delegates Trump “looks down on us” and was like “the guys you grew up with that you’d like to get into the corner just give them a straight left”

“I’m not suggesting we hit the president,” the Democrat hastened to add.

Elsewhere in his speech, Biden incorrectly claimed “I cut the national debt so far,” when he meant to use the word “deficit” — a repeated gaffe on his part .

The president also invoked his hometown of Scranton, Pa. during the remarks as he attempted to draw a distinction between blue-collar voters and Trump, who will need the group to win back the White House.

At one point, Biden humorously referenced Trump’s 2020 musing about the possibility that disinfectants could be injected to cure COVID-19.

“Remember when he was trying to deal with COVID he suggested injecting a little bleach in your veins? He missed, it all went to his hair,” Biden said.

The president claimed on two occasions last week that cannibals may have eaten his mother’s brother Ambrose Finnegan in 1944 when his military plane crashed during World War II — offending the leaders of Papua New Guinea just a day before Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi arrived to court the nation.

The White House later acknowledged that military records show the plane crashed into the ocean .

Pen pal program helps war widows find friendship and revive the art of letter writing

Ruth Russell, 75, has never met the woman she exchanges letters with once a month.

But over the past two years, the pair have forged a friendship through handwritten notes, postcards, photos and crochet patterns in the mail.

"[Letter writing] is a dying art," Mrs Russell said.

"It appeals to me because once you put it down on paper, how you're feeling and what you're doing, it's between you and that person — no one else."

The women, from Rockhampton and Sydney, are war widows of Vietnam veterans.

Mrs Russell's husband died in 2017.

The pen pals were paired as part of a program run by Australian War Widows Queensland.

Coordinator Lindy Beehre said the network of letter writers included women across Australia ranging in age from their 40s to their late 90s.

"The idea initially emerged from the onset of COVID, when we recognised that isolation that many war widows living alone were experiencing," Ms Beehre said.

"We wanted to provide a platform where war widows who couldn't leave their homes could still connect to share experiences and find companionship."

Lifelong friendships

Since then, Ms Beehre has been overwhelmed by "touching stories" of connection that have continued long after COVID restrictions lifted.

"I recently spoke to one 90-year-old member who has been corresponding with a widow in her 50s for the last four years," she said.

"Their bond has grown beautifully and they've provided each other with support and wisdom across the generations."

One participant's arthritis became too debilitating for her to continue writing letters — so she and her pen pal now speak on the phone once a week.

"It really does create lifelong friendships," Ms Beehre said.

There are more than 34,000 Australian war widows and widowers registered with the Department of Veterans' Affairs.

The pen pals include women whose husbands served in World War II, Vietnam and Afghanistan.

"There's various stages of grief that our members go through … and this presents a beautiful opportunity for the war widows to support each other," Ms Beehre said.

The organisation has recently started a new pen pal program with war widows from the UK.

Reviving the dying art of letter writing

For Mrs Russell, a retired nurse who grew up in the bush, much of the appeal comes from keeping the art of letter writing alive.

"I used to wait weeks for a letter from my husband when he was in Vietnam," she said.

"We used to number our letters as we wrote them, so that when they came to me at the hospital, I'd get a pile of five or six of them and I'd look at the numbers to see which one to read first.

"I've still got them. I've got two boxes of his letters."

Australia Post said households now receive an average of just two letters a week – a figure expected to halve in the next five years.

Mrs Russell said she had exchanged highs, lows and craft tips with her interstate pen pal.

"Early on, she said she used to crochet but she'd forgotten, so I sent her a crochet pattern with crochet stuff, and she made her granddaughter a poncho," she said.

"She's now crocheting things for one of the local hospitals to give their babies.

"Even though I haven't seen her in person, there is still a friendship there.

"I feel that if I went to Sydney, I could pop in and say g'day."

• X (formerly Twitter)

Related Stories

Able to read cursive handwriting the war memorial wants your help transcribing love letters.

Advocates working to revive 'dying art' of writing letters and improve human connections

War widows lean on each other after helping husbands battle the aftermath of war

• Community Organisations
• Rockhampton
• World War 2