Propaganda: Teleprompter

Recently several conservative personalities have begun taking up the issue of Barack Obama using a teleprompter. When I first heard of it, it sounded to me like the teleprompter was taking control of Obama's mind.

I found an article by Dean Barnett in the Weekly Standard.


Here are some quotes from it, and my response for each

Yes, Obama can turn a phrase better and do more with a Teleprompter than any other modern era politician. But does his special skill set here actually mean anything, or is it instead the political equivalent of a dog walking on its hind legs--unusual and riveting, but not especially significant?

Dean is conceding that Obama is a good speaker. And then raises the valid and obvious question is he good at anything else? I have no issue with that.

As he strode to the podium, Obama clutched in his hands a pile of 3 by 5 index cards. The index cards meant only one thing--no Teleprompter. Shorn of his Teleprompter, we saw a different Obama. His delivery was halting and unsure.

Good point, teleprompters are better than 3x5 index cards. But only if you have some practice at using a teleprompter. I'm just starting to wonder, is this all about conservatives opposing advances technology? Because Republicans also use teleprompters.

But Saturday night's stem-winder turned out quite differently from the typical Obama speech. With no Teleprompter signaling the prepared text, Obama failed to deliver the speech in his characteristically flawless fashion. He had to rely on notes. And his memory. And he improvised.

First illogical assumption here. A teleprompter does not prevent using memory and improvising. Its only real function is to place your notes up high in the distance where you seem to be looking at the audience instead of looking down at the podium. There is no other advantage to a teleprompter that prevents use of improvisation or memory. This may be the point that the conservatives are missing. Teleprompters are not a complete replacement for the human brain.

Obama's supporters have had ample notice that the scripted Obama is far more effective than the spontaneous one.

Second illogical assumption. I like Obama, and I found him very effective on Jay Leno, which was an entirely unscripted event. It is important to know that he can speak without a prepared text, although obviously I do not judge the "effectiveness" of a conversation the same way I would rate a speech. Also, the debates were unscripted, and Obama more than held his own there with all the other Democrats, and was far better than McCain in those final debates. So if the Republicans had somebody who could speak better than McCain they should have nominated him.

Time out. Cut the mike. This is two strikes already. If this follows the classical pattern, I'm going to stop here. And I will explain why there is no point going on.

One of the classical techniques of propaganda (going back to the Greeks at least) is starting with one or two obviously true statements everybody can agree to, then using the previous point to prove the next, albeit shakier, point. Before you know it, the car is sold. To resist buying a lemon, the customer must make the challenge as soon as the sales pitch moves onto shaky ground, even though he may be tempted to wait until the end. Because the next argument isn't going to give you a chance to challenge the false but unspoken assumption of the previous point. Although the arguments get increasingly illogical, the best time to challenge is early on if you can detect where the worst fallacies in logic are first slipped in.