So, I just finished comparing the transcript of President Obama's first presidential press conference this evening with the very first one that former President George W. Bush conducted back on February 22, 2001.
I copied each full transcript into separate Word documents. After doing that, I deleted the introductions by both men (since those are largely or fully scripted) and then deleted all reporter questions from the transcripts. What you have left are simply the answers that each president offered, off-the-cuff and unscripted, to all questions.
Then I ran Word's readability tool.
Guess what?
Bush's answers were spoken at 7th grade level. Obama's at a 10th grade level.
Click here for the actual statistics.
Mark Nickolas is the Managing Editor of Political Base, and this story was from his original post, "Obama Press Conference Answers Three Grade-Levels Higher Than Bush's First"
“Visionary people are visionary partly because of the very great many things they don't see.”
If the goal of communications is to ensure that the listener understands what you're communicating - Bush wins this round. And since we all know that Obama is actually a better communicator - I think we need better measurements than Fleish-Kincaid.
QT (An avid Obama Supporter!)
Nonetheless, I suspect that while people may obtain a certain degree of education, they resort to a level of speaking consistent with their thinking. A president has to both think and speak on a high level, but also speak to people on a lower level than his actual thinking.
This has been understood by rulers and leaders of nations for eons. Speaking in metaphors and analogies is a way by which a thought can be expressed to people who might sustain a lower level of thinking. Obama needs to grasp and implement this truth.
Two leaders who failed to grasp this reality.
John Kerry's campaign was an example of the failure to communicate to common people in public. Daily Show mockery of Kerry"s verbiosity exemplifies the contrast.
To another extreme, Bush demostrated a certain level of incompetence in communication publicly, yet communicated on a far lower level (eg. "Im the decider" vs. "the buck stops here").
Unless of course he already thinks on that level.
Can he keep American's safe?
The jury is out.
Bush took 30 seconds and actually gave an answer to the question. Maybe you didn't
like how the answer sounded or what it was, but you got the answer, clear and concise.
Yes We Can.
http://www.informatics-review.com/FAQ/reading.html
whoa!
While I welcome the reintroduction of intellectual subtlety in our presidential discourse, I worry that Obama, like Bush, will settle too quickly on the conclusion that talk (simple or complex) will solve all our problems.
As he is barnstorming the nation now to rally support for his stimulus package, he needs to remember that the power of his rhetoric will only persist as long as his honeymoon lasts. Already, he is learning that campaign talk won't get him as far in government, because for all his campaign promises to bridge the partisan divide, he has failed to bring over more than 3 moderate Republicans on his side. A higher readability score is no guarantee of constructive verbal facility.
For all his intellectual sophistication, even President Obama has resorted to lofty platitudes that when brought down to earth, haven't amounted to very much. Verbal imprecision, slogans, lofty talk - these too are the tools political salesmen. They have been used by those who have attained a high readability score, and by those who have attained low score. These are the the most seductive of rhetorical implements, and they permeate the golden-voiced grenadiers in liberal and conservative America
The same could easily be said for your post. I'm not sure you said a hell of a lot but it sure was purty.
disaster (he minced the big words) Obama, on the other hand, is
smart enough to know that trying to "talk up" is only something
those with a limited intellect might attempt (to impress those with
greater minds? An effort which usually fails)
I've listened carefully to Obama's briefings. Some will criticize him
for the "campaign talk" but keep in mind the president's main job,
besides making decisions and signing bills, is to MOTIVATE. As far
as I've seen, he is doing an excellent job of that. I am not just saying
that because I agree with him; the man does speak quite eloquently.
It's obviously easier to understand a higher level than it is to generate the higher level.
Common wisdom suggests newspapers have always been written at the 8th grade level which is about the level the average person resides in speaking and writing. I would say most high school graduates are probably lower than 10th grade reading level but can probably understand people speaking at that level pretty well.
All of this of course is very imprecise. Understanding of nuances of words and concepts begins to break down for average people trying to fully understand higher levels of discourse. This was always my intuition and fear with Mr. Bush.
As I told a friend just the other day: " I'm just glad now that we have a president who is smarter than I am." Generating answers to difficult questions off the cuff at a 10th grade level requires a very high intellect. I doubt most college graduates could do that.
Hopefully, you were just saying that he used one during the opening remarks. Just to humor you, I watched the video again and guess what...no teleprompter. Not that it would have been a big deal for the opening remarks. Why bother reading off a card when you can look at your audience (you don't expect the President to spend time memorizing a statement do you?) I am sure that most recent presidents have used teleprompters for virtually all scripted remarks.
slow (some say thoughtful) speech pattern that gets a little boring.
By the way, I'm glad the dog show was on the same time as the press conference.