There hasn't been a President with the speaking power of Barrack Obama since arguably Ronald Reagan. Obama came into the 2008 Presidential race virtually unknown to most Americans, but it was his power with words that skyrocketed him into the Presidential office for four years. However, his long powerful speeches quickly became the target of the right wing media and politicians, arguing that his speech writer deserves more credit than the one talking. Thus it wasn't long before Republicans went after his biggest speaking tool; his teleprompter. Now that Obama is up for re-election the Republican nominees have rallied against using the teleprompter, specifically Santorum and Gingrich hailing Obama 'the Reader in Chief'.
Now, Republican front runner Mitt Romney has been quoted agreeing that the telepromter is necessary and convenient, while he was speaking candidly with a member Fox News, Sean Hannity. So this begs the question, is using Teleprompter really a problem, or was it just another avenue to attack the political candidates?
Well, I believe that Teleprompters do have a place for politicians, but it should not be a big place. We need politicians who know what they are saying and are saying what they actually believe and I for one don't think that it is that difficult. These politicians have been playing this game their whole lives and if they don't know what they want to say by now than that is a big red flag. These people should be plenty confident of their political motives and ideologies to speak off the cuff and still get their points across.
Teleprompters do have a place in politics and I'm not saying that they don't. Because after all, I'm not against somebody writing down what they want to say and then reading it, and we are past the days of pen and paper. It would be ridiculous for the American public/media to expect anybody can speak for over an hour while staying focused, organized, and get all his points across without some kind of aid. Also as Romney was quotes as saying 'It keeps you from saying something you don't mean, you get the message out precisely the way you want to get the message out' in this day and age where one wrong phrase could ruin your campaign and I'm sure with the meticulous character Romney shows, he is happy to have the prompter as to not make any mistakes.
So the question of should there be teleprompters is yes, and no. We don't want to elect a candidate because of how persuasive his writing staff is. But Presidential hopefuls have been using notes and pre-prepared speeches since the birth of our country, they just had to look down to read them, where as today you cant even notice. So don't take their teleprompters away, but take them into consideration when considering them.
PS. If Theodore Roosevelt had a teleprompter instead of a tightly folded speech he would have been shot and killed.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57413198-503544/mitt-romney-it-makes-sense-to-use-a-teleprompter/
1 comment:
I agree with the majority of what you've put forth here. Teleprompters definitely have a necessary time and place. Over-use of them could negatively create robotic, machine-like candidates while under-use of them could result in serious cases of "mis-speak" which can prove detrimental to a presidential hopefuls chances of election. Relying on them too much during presidential campaigns would seem to have an adverse effect on the "likeability" of a person as the general public may view strict adherence to teleprompters as a sign of bad public speaking skills. However, use of them by a reigning president, say, during an address to the nation, is most likely beneficial to all involved as the president has a limited amount of time to convey a clear and concise message to the citizens of the country. At this point, the president should have proven that his public speaking skills are adequate enough during his campaign.
Post a Comment