Association of Caribbean Media Professionals
Caribbean Media Professionals Association educates, supports, informs, shares!
Farewell to soundbites?
Fascinating article here by Newsweek's Jonathan Alter about how the Obama campaign deliberately structured his historic race speech in such a way that people would be compelled to analyse it more critically and read/listen to a greater deal of it or even the whole thing. They did this by writing it in such a way that there were little or no 'soundbite' quotes that could be easily pulled out by the media.
A quote from Alter's piece:
It took me a while to grasp this. On the morning of March 18, when I read an advance text of Obama's Philadelphia speech on race, I told my wife that it was well written but contained no eight- to 15-second sound bites to counteract the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.'s greatest hits. Under the old rules, a 37-minute speech full of complex ideas didn't stand a chance against the excitement of "good TV." Of course, I was wrong. Obama's speech has now been played on YouTube nearly 5.5 million times, with viewers presumably watching at least a few minutes of it.
It turns out the Obama campaign planned it that way. I learned recently that as chief strategist David Axelrod, communications director Robert Gibbs, speechwriter Jon Favreau and Obama himself finalized the speech, they took great care to make sure that no sound bites were included. In other words, they intentionally avoided any of the snappy lines that they know reporters and TV producers are trained to recognize as useful for representing the entire story. A few lines, like the one about Obama's grandmother, did get disproportionately quoted and aired. But the speech was constructed so that you simply couldn't understand it in 10 seconds.
I must say - that's bloody brilliant. As a journalist in spirit if not in profession now, I must confess to my grudging admiration for this tactic, even as I realise that it makes the jobs of those in the MSM more difficult, since, due to the traditional constraints of space, we have been trained to look/listen out for the 'killer quotes' that can sum up the whole piece. And usually speechwriters and PR hacks have played to suit by writing text with useful quotes littered throughout. For someone to deliberately write a speech in such a way that we have to slow down and listen and hence spend more tape and ink on it - that's machiavellian right there- but in a good way (since I love Obama:)
What do you guys think of this tactic? Clever? Do you think it will catch on, especially in this online age where people can and do seek out more information?
A quote from Alter's piece:
It took me a while to grasp this. On the morning of March 18, when I read an advance text of Obama's Philadelphia speech on race, I told my wife that it was well written but contained no eight- to 15-second sound bites to counteract the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.'s greatest hits. Under the old rules, a 37-minute speech full of complex ideas didn't stand a chance against the excitement of "good TV." Of course, I was wrong. Obama's speech has now been played on YouTube nearly 5.5 million times, with viewers presumably watching at least a few minutes of it.
It turns out the Obama campaign planned it that way. I learned recently that as chief strategist David Axelrod, communications director Robert Gibbs, speechwriter Jon Favreau and Obama himself finalized the speech, they took great care to make sure that no sound bites were included. In other words, they intentionally avoided any of the snappy lines that they know reporters and TV producers are trained to recognize as useful for representing the entire story. A few lines, like the one about Obama's grandmother, did get disproportionately quoted and aired. But the speech was constructed so that you simply couldn't understand it in 10 seconds.
I must say - that's bloody brilliant. As a journalist in spirit if not in profession now, I must confess to my grudging admiration for this tactic, even as I realise that it makes the jobs of those in the MSM more difficult, since, due to the traditional constraints of space, we have been trained to look/listen out for the 'killer quotes' that can sum up the whole piece. And usually speechwriters and PR hacks have played to suit by writing text with useful quotes littered throughout. For someone to deliberately write a speech in such a way that we have to slow down and listen and hence spend more tape and ink on it - that's machiavellian right there- but in a good way (since I love Obama:)
What do you guys think of this tactic? Clever? Do you think it will catch on, especially in this online age where people can and do seek out more information?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Kim J Young on
-
It does not surprise me at all.
Communications strategists are well versed in this tactic. It is however, a dicey game to play, when one one considers what Obama would call "the fierce urgency of now", in this case as it relates to the media and the instant requirements for sound bites. It is awesomely clever indeed.
As we now know, that speech reigns in the annals of time as one of the greatest speeches ever.
I am all for manipulation of the traditional media as we know it to get the message across.
Kim
About
Badge
© 2010 Created by Kim J Young on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
