So in class we watched President Obama's speech about the tragedy, and part of Sarah Palin's speech (you can watch the last two minutes on your own). I also assigned the link about some of the political rhetoric in Palin's speech.
Write about 200-250 words comparing the two speeches - talk about the style of the two speakers, their substance, and their delivery. Talk about how you felt as an audience member. Think about what we talked about in class as far as speaker credibility... Pick out some specific details in the speeches to talk about!!
You can post your comments underneath this post in the comments section. You may have to register with blogger.
Here are the links:
Obama's speech: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/01/13/us/politics/201100113_OBAMA_ARIZONA.html?ref=us
Palin's speech: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/12/palin-calls-criticism-blood-libel/?nl=afternoonupdate&emc=aua2
New York Times blog post on Palin's speech:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/12/palin-calls-criticism-blood-libel/?nl=afternoonupdate&emc=aua2
After the events of the Arizona shootings, both President Obama and Sarah Palin gave two extremely different speeches regarding the unfortunate issue. The context of the speeches was obviously different. Obama was speaking as the President of the United States, while Palin issued her statement via facebook. During Obama’s personal speech, he uses more personal terms and acknowledges each victim individually. Obama uses the first names of the victims and gave a brief statement of the victim’s lives, which I felt made the speech more personal. It gave the audience the opportunity to create a visual of that person, so we could feel more connected. Obama’s use of repeating phrases with a strong emphasis in his voice made me have a feeling of a strong, united country. The tone of his voice would set the mood or feeling for the particular segment of his speech. While Obama’s speech inspired Americans to support each other and stand together, Palin’s speech was criticized and not given the same respect as Obama’s speech. Palin’s speech was not as nearly as personal and thoughtful as Obama’s speech. Palin’s speech was more monotone and less specific regarding the victims, which provokes less sympathy. Obama’s tone created a more sincere and reliable atmosphere, while Palin’s provoked a few laughs.
ReplyDeleteAlthough both President Obama's and Sarah Palin's speeches addressed the tragic shootings in Arizona, it is definitely clear that each one had a different purpose and tone attached to it. President Obama’s 30-minute speech seemed to invoke feelings of hope, unity, and progress; most importantly, it addressed each of the victim’s personal stories and what they mean to this country. His descriptions of their lives gave the audience a more personal connection to the speech, a successful usage of pathos that made President Obama’s speech a more meaningful commentary on the events in Arizona. I feel that given that this speech was supposed to be a response to the shootings, Obama’s speech was more effective and appropriate. On the other hand, Sarah Palin’s short, seven-minute response seemed to be more focused on the media attacks blaming her for the shootings, rather than honoring the victims and their families. I feel that because she spent so little time on the actual shootings, instead focusing on defending her name, the speech came off very abrasive and self-centered. The tone and subject of the speech also drastically changed within the first two minutes from the deceased victim’s to clearing up her name as a connection to the attacks; from an audience’s perspective, it made me feel that her words weren’t nearly as genuine or respectful towards the shootings and all of the people involved.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the shootings in Arizona, both President Obama and Sarah Palin realized the importance of addressing the increasingly unhealthy discourse that complimented the crisis, however Obama's speech aims to soothe while Palin's speech aims to punish. Obama's speech is honorably lofty and patient. He delivers the passages from the scripture and the stories of the deaths of the shooting victims at an immensely tempered pace. This results in a very respectful tone; Obama is in no rush to end the memorial of the lives of the victims. He spared no time in honoring the event before moving on to the political point of unity he wished to bring from them, revealing that his intentions are not to insincerely recognize the occasion in order to deliver these points, but to value both the occasion and the lessons derived from the occasion equally. His idealizations and abstractions range from the nature of heroism to the importance of self-reflection, and very rarely touch on specific critiques of those who might take advantage of this occurrence for political gain. Instead, he makes the point of blaming human nature for these faults, saying that it "is part of our nature to demand explanations." From the more antagonistic perspective, we turn to Palin's speech, from which the main term that can be drawn is not "memorial" but "blood libel." Palin's speech, being 20 minutes shorter, very clearly makes no effort to memorialize or even honor the occasion at hand. She is curt and to the point, leaving perhaps the first two minutes to honor the victims before moving on to her critique of resulting political movements. The result is a politically inflammatory speech; Palin wishes not to unify her audience underneath the tragedy of the occasion, but rather divide her listeners by shaming those who exhibit what Obama calls the nature to demand explanations. She looks straight into the camera and speaks her condemnation and self-defense in a passionate, agitated tone. This exhibition of political fervor works against her points on "civility" and the harsh nature of the speech (given that the occasion was the remembrance for the victims that died in the shooting) appeared not only disingenuous but also disrespectful.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe speeches delivered by Obama and Palin in the wake of the Tucson shooting tragedies were very different in their purpose and tone. The President was memorializing the victims, giving a voice to victims of the tragedy, calling on American’s to learn from this devastating act, realizing that the heated and hateful tone that political discourse has taken within our country is not what our founding fathers imagined when they created a democratic society. Palin, on the other hand, was taking a defensive stance after receiving criticism for visuals she used in swing districts during the recent elections. Some have been placing blame for the shooter’s motive on Palin and conservatives. After expressing sorrow for the victims Palin launched into an address in which she bashed anyone who would place blame for the action of one individual on a group of people. Obama is giving a somewhat subdued speech, offering personal anecdotes about each of the victims, keeping his energy level appropriate for the occasion. Sarah Palin is doing the exact opposite, she is trying to fire up her supporters, and show her opponents that she will not take such criticism sitting down. She speaks in a strong tone, and invokes charged words such as, “blood libel,” knowing that this will draw attention to her speech. These words will anger her opponents, but is the kind of thing her supporters have come to expect from her—she is trying to show critics will not silence her.
ReplyDeleteI think that Obama’s speech was exactly what the moment needed, and was an appropriate response to the tragedy. I felt that Palin’s speech was an expected response from her camp, and would be appreciated by her followers, but would definitely not be respected by a wider audience.
President Obama's speech regarding the tragedy in Arizona last weekend was a great example of what a President should do and the appropriate ways one should present his or herself as a public speaker. Obama truly had a way of connecting with his audience through his dialect, and the way in which he presented his feelings and empathy regarding the victims, their families, and the heroes who helped was extremely sympathetic and respectful. Obama's discourse was very appropriate towards the situation at hand, for the nation needed him to be there in a remorse, concerned, and mourning way. Obama presented appropriate ediquette, mostly focusing on the victims and making the nation realize how important of a tragedy this really was. He did a great job on personalizing the speech and aiming it towards remembering the innocent lives that were taken as a result of this shooting. Obama is a very relatable speaker, and he made the audience feel at ease and his message was easily understood. Obama presents himself in such a poised way that he seems very relatable to his audience; he is a slow and cautious speaker, but also concise and well-spoken. The way in which he presented his message to America regarding this tragedy was appropriate and necessary.
ReplyDeleteSarah Palin, on the other hand, presented a less sympathetic message through facebook and T.V., one that felt more like a infomercial or political message. Palin's aim was to acknowledge that she was still concerned with the countries' issues and she wanted to address the issues of violence that are increasing due to political differences. While it is necessary for her to be involved if she wants to stay politically active, the way in which she presented her message was less convincing, sympathetic, and not appropriate for the situation where innocent people were killed. Palin's references of a "blood libel" was completely innapropriate and uncalled for as well. She did not successfully reach out to her audience and express her sympathy like Obama did.
President Obama and Sarah Palin both offered condolence speeches in response to the shootings in Arizona. Although both figures disagree on numerous political points, they both found a general understanding for the tragedy that occurred. Obama’s approach however was stronger in that he offered specific remorse for the victims mentioning each and every individual that was killed. Palin rather grouped all the victims together and focused more on her personal agenda. In Palin’s speech she mentions the shooting initially in the beginning but quickly and indelicately switches to her response to criticism that she holds some influence on the shooter. Her upset in being accused for such a heinous crime is justified yet her approach is somewhat ineffective. Palin included strong points such as the act was that of a deranged individual and she should not be held responsible, but when Palin stated, “blood libel” all attention to anything substantial in her speech was lost. The term “blood libel” being of ant-Semitic nature is somewhat inconsiderate and inappropriate for the context of the situation. Although Palin was not condoning any anti-Semitic behavior just as the article stated it can be seen as somewhat insensitive given numerous aspects of the situation. A specific insensitivity is the fact that the Congresswoman who is in critical condition is in fact Jewish. Although it was not directed at her in any way using such words in that given situation creates for an awkward emotion left in viewers of her speech. It is somewhat similar to Palin saying the media is trying to “lynch” her for this situation when an African American victim exists, hypothetically. Her use of such a word only loses depth in her speech.
ReplyDeleteI feel that Obama’s speech however was the opposite. Obama’s sentiment was sincere and his specific word choice only added to the effectiveness of his message. In a time of tragedy he offered remembrance as well as hope for the future. The points of his speech moved fluidly from one to another creating a well-synced thirty-minute speech. Obama from his speech may have reached new supporters however Palin rather upset viewers with her lack of sensitivity.
The differences between Obama and Palin’s speeches regarding the tragic shooting in Arizona took two very different paths. If we simply start with the length of the speech it is apparent that Obama took over 4 times as long as Palin. Obama’s speech was about 30 minutes while Palin’s was about 7 minutes. From the length of time alone it is obvious that Obama’s speech would be more detailed and reach out to a larger audience. Also the audience size also differed greatly. Obama addressed the world on national television, while Palin’s speech was online. Now to address the actual content of the speeches; Obama’s speech was very structured and covered several aspects. Obama was able to focus on each victim and share a memory about him or her, which was very important because it was a memorial speech. But he was also able to focus on the unity and morale of Americans. The tone of the speech was just right, he was sincere yet assertive. Palin on the other hand was only assertive; she only focused on the issues on violence caused by political differences. She seemed to brush off the victims as though they were not important. I feel that Palin’s speech in its entirety was inappropriate and would have been more effective as a follow up speech to a memorial speech that should have been done first. Obama’s speech did have its flaws as well; Obama awkwardly focused on a Catholic religious affiliation when talking about all the victims. Overall, Obama did a wonderful job in his memorial speech, while Palin should have reconsidered her speech all together.
ReplyDeleteWatching President Barack Obama’s eulogy for the six people shot and killed in Arizona last week was truly moving. In the wake of this tragedy where a lone, crazed gunman shot 19 people outside of a convenient store, Obama was poised, empathetic, and strong. Aside from the fact that he is the President of the United States, Obama was an appropriate choice for this speech because of his public speaking skills. He established listener relevance by identifying each victim and spending a considerable amount of time talking about their individual stories. Second, because he is the President there is an automatic amount of trust for him and his voice, which made his speech even more moving. And finally, he had source credibility by identifying early on that he knew one of the victims (Rep. Giffords) personally and had visited her in the hospital. He spoke clearly, passionately and was captivating. His speech focused on topics of unity and civility and urged the country to come together after this tragedy. I think the content of his speech are important because Arizona is a state that is wrought with immigration issues and it is a very bi-partisan state. By having the President, during his eulogy for these victims, call the nation to action in a unifying tone, speaks greatly about his message.
ReplyDeleteThe second video we watched was of Sarah Palin’s reaction to the shootings. I think the two speeches were night and day. Palin’s tone was almost aggressive and instead of highlighting the lives of the victims she immediately started talking about Arizona state politics. Another clear difference in the speeches was that Palin gave a considerable amount of time talking about the shooter, where as Obama never mentioned him. I think Palin did this to stir up hype around her speech to get her more “viral” action. Once again, using the term “blood libel” to describe the shooter was also a clear attempt to stir up viral hype for her Facebook video. Personally, I don’t think her video was worth listening to as a citizen of this country as I don’t value her opinion. It’s sad that just because she has notoriety she can gain public access and share her extreme views. I think Palin should have taken a more somber tone and encouraged her tea party followers to focus on unity rather than placing blame
The tragic shooting of innocent people including Representative Gabrielle Giffords have brought about the recent speeches of President Obama and Sarah Palin. President Obama’s speech was undoubtedly heart-warming and very thoughtful. At certain parts of his speech, I felt very emotional and teary-eyed because he was able to relate the lives of the victims to the audience. For example, he made us feel that 9-year-old victim Christina Taylor Green was our sister or daughter. Although the president’s speech was 30 minutes long, it still made me want to finish listening to the entire speech because it provided the perfect moods for the given situation such as reflectiveness, empathy and strength. His eulogy caused the nation to be even more united upon hearing his speech.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, Sarah Palin’s speech was rather more geared to attract more attention for her political image rather than to send out her deepest thoughts and prayers to those affected. Her speech’s tone was certainly aggressive and inappropriate for the situation. Her negligent use of the term “blood libel” only goes to show that being empathic to those affected wasn’t her top priority. I believe that she used “blood libel” to cause media frenzy so that she would gain more attention, particularly now since some are reporting that she is planning to run for office again in 2012. Personally, I thought her speech was worthless. I’ve only felt more aloof from her after I’ve heard her hostile message, especially since she delivered it during a very emotional time for the entire nation.
-Gabby F.
`When comparing Obama and Palin’s speech, there are noticeable differences in their tone and choice of rhetoric. As noted in class, Obama’s speech was meant to memorialize the victims of the Arizona shootings, and advocate for a more civil environment for political discourse. Both, I personally believe were achieved. In personalizing and memorializing each of the victims by providing background and anecdotes of their lives, I began to feel an emotional bond to those who died, despite having never known them. Furthermore, I think Obama did a great job in providing a kind of “American religion”. Oftentimes, people turn to faith during tragedy, and in using broad terms such as “scriptures” and “God”, religion was open to interpretation by the masses, and could be used as needed for comfort and sympathy. When advocating for a more open discourse, Obama used more encouraging and comforting terms to ignite such unity such as “American family”, “words that heal, not wound”, “morality”, and “humility”. These words definitely inspired me to create a more tolerant and open-minded political world.
ReplyDeletePalin I think also did an effective job in sympathizing and expressing grief over the shootings, as she opened her speech with emotional condolences. However, the remainder of her speech attacked the media for placing blame on certain political parties, more specifically hers. She states, “The irresponsible assignment of blame to me, Sarah Palin or the Tea Party movement by commentators and elected officials puts all who gather to redress grievances in danger.” Clearly, Palin is personally offended by this hostility, and is therefore much more critical of the media than Obama, who was more focused on the nation’s morale as a whole. She expresses more anger as evident through her choice of words like “reprehensible” “intolerant” “blamestream media” and even the conterversial use of “blood libel”, whereas Obama expressed more hope in the situation. While I understand Palin’s point and anger, I do think that this tone was premature and even inappropriate for the situation especially since the president had not even addressed the situation. I think given how early the event had taken place, the nation needed a more uplifting and sympathetic tone, which Obama provided.
- Farrah Nourafchan
Both Obama and Palin spoke out about the tragic shootings in Arizona. Their speeches mean even more to me now, as I deal with my own sudden loss of a friend. I feel better knowing that I am not alone in my sadness, and I think Obama’s ability to unite the audience under common ground makes him so moving and healing. He repeats phrases such as, “We join you in your grief,” establishing credibility through shared feelings. He seamlessly weaves in politics, reflecting on what is “quintessentially American.” Again uniting his audience, he reminds everyone he stands “as an American, like all Americans,” promoting free speech and democracy. As my classmates said, his use of the victims’ personal stories is extremely heartwarming, especially by focusing on the universal values of family, hard work, and service. Like Ben noted, we are moved by Obama’s patient delivery. Obama pauses at certain moments, draws out phrases, and elevates his tone for emphasis, such as when repeating, “Gabby opened her eyes for the first time.” Ultimately, by focusing on the youngest victim, Christina, and asserting that “we should do everything we can to make sure this country lives up to our children’s expectations,” Obama seamlessly ties together the tragedy with politics.
ReplyDeleteI noticed that Palin often raised similar points to Obama, such as honoring the victims and advocating more civil political discourse. Nevertheless, she only spends about the first minute and half on the tragedy before she immediately brings up issues surrounding political debates and media attacks. This quick transition makes us feel like Palin cares more about denunciating her critics and absolving her political image. While Obama uses positive famous phrases such as “government of and by and for the people,” Palin uses the negative term “blood libel,” and hurts her chances of connecting with the audience. I also noticed that Palin does not stumble over her words, but rather eloquently flows at a constant pace. However, this “perfect” delivery actually makes her seem more scripted to me, and therefore less genuine.
Following the tragedy of the Arizona shootings that occurred earlier this month, both President Obama and Sarah Palin offered speeches of condolence and memorial. While both public figures provided consoling words to their audiences during a time of distress, the two speeches varied in not only context and tone, but also in function.
ReplyDeletePresident Obama’s 30-minute speech occurred in a formal setting, addressed to the nation as a whole. Obama successfully pays respects to the 14 wounded and 6 killed by individually remembering them. Obama’s use of anecdotes and personal information about the victims not only honors them, but also helps create a connection with the audience. His slow paced discourse and clear style, in addition to an effortlessly arranged speech, maintains a flow of the speech that is conversational and easy to listen to as an audience member. Obama uses stylistic techniques, such as repetition, to create emphasis, making his speech more powerful and moving. It is not until after properly honoring the dead that Obama professionally calls America to search for the explanations behind such tragic acts.
On the other hand, Palin approaches the shootings in a different tone. She broadcasts her eulogy through the Internet and in a much more casual manner. Palin’s clearly rehearsed speech and almost forced nonverbal communication makes her condolences almost seem not genuine. Unlike the public setting in Tucson from which Obama made his speech, the fireplace and the American flag behind Palin seem almost like a fake stage or set. Her much shorter 7-minute speech does honor those who were victims of the Tucson shootings, but spends the majority of her speech instead defending herself; something inappropriate following death and disaster. To me, Palin’s few moments dedicated to the deceased seemed only as a necessity and formality that she had to attend to.
Though both President Obama and Sarah Palin's speeches were crafted to cover, explore, and react to the events of the Arizona shooting, I felt that only one speech truly did that. President Obama's speech became a way for the American public to bond over the tragedy, and it reminded me of the speech that President George W. Bush gave soon after the terrorist attacks on September 11. They both served as ways to bring everyone together, regardless of whether or not they were directly affected, to remind them that the victims could have essentially been anyone. Obama's speech was a way to properly memorialize those lost in the shooting, yet being to the forefront a silver lining that could help everyone cope. His delivery of the speech in front of a physical audience helped him successfully communicate his message, being able to react to the emotions in the crowd and changing his vocal tones and volumes that would make his speech more effective. He seemed, in a word, human, paying his own respects to people he did not even know, yet made them seem like people anyone could know, cherish, and love.
ReplyDeleteSarah Palin's speech was not as effective as President Obama's if the intent was to sympathize with the victims' families and express her own condolences. Her expression of sorrow seemed so practiced and contrived, like it was a mere formality to get out of the way before she barged into the real reason for her speech: to call more attention to herself by making herself the victim in the face of actual tragedy. Rather than try to connect with the victims and the American public, she just made a robotic case as to why she shouldn't be blamed for what happened. What she did was make her speech all about herself, instead of the actual event. Just the fact that she recorded the speech in front of a camera without an audience affects her delivery; she has nothing to go off of, no emotion or reaction to help boost her speech. As a result, she came out sounding flat, heavily rehearsed, and even more heavily forced. Because she was in a way blamed for the attack due to the crosshairs her website had placed on Rep. Giffords' district, her speech became a tool for her to attempt to salvage her image, but by using the phrase "blood libel," possibly damaged it further.
After watching President Obama and Sarah Palin’s speech regarding the Arizona shooting, I couldn’t help but notice how completely different they were. I found it very difficult to take anything Sarah Palin said seriously. I go from watching her on her television show Sarah Palin’s Alaska, where she talks foolishly about outdoor adventures and how “mama bears protect their cubs”, to her give a seven-minute speech (which she posted on Facebook) on something as serious as the Arizona shooting. Personally, I felt that in a time like this, Palin would have made her message more sincere and optimistic, trying to unite the nation after such a tragic event. Instead, she decided to take quick jabs at President Obama and the Democrats as if she were campaigning. To me, Sarah Palin’s speech had nothing to do about the lives lost or the peopled injured in the shooting, it was just self-centered. On the other hand, I couldn’t help but watch all thirty-three and a half minutes of President Obama’s speech. His message was so powerful and so passionate that I actually felt he cared about the situation. He took time to discuss each individual’s life who were affected that day, as well as the hero’s. Unlike Palin, Obama showed how we as a nation can grow and become stronger from this accident. He states, “Those who died here, those who saved life here—they help me believe. We may not be able to stop all evil in the world, but I know that how we treat one another, that’s entirely up to us. And I believe that for all our imperfections, we are full of decency and goodness, and that the forced that divide us are not as strong as those that unite us.” Hearing words like these coming from our president, makes me so reassured that everything’s going to be alright. In my opinion, President Obama’s speech was exactly what the U.S needed to hear following the shooting, not Sarah Palin’s speech about blood libel.
ReplyDeleteListening to President Obama and Sarah Palin’s speeches side by side, there were very distinct differences in regards to the main content and tone of their speeches. It was very apparent that the primary goals of Obama’s speech was to sympathize with and assuage the pains of the Arizona shootings by retelling the victims’ personal stories one by one, showing that he understands the great loss of these people. In addition, his tone was very emphatic, and as an audience, this helped to make his speech very credible – it felt as if he truly understood and had personal connection to the shootings that took place. Thus, as he transitioned from mourning the loss of the victims to a call for civility, he was effective in motivating the audience to respond in decency because he had previously established a position of sympathetic support with the audience.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast to Obama, I felt that Palin was less effective in achieving her goals of motivating the public to respond in civility to the event. As I listened to her speech, her tone as she gave tribute to the tragedy felt very contrived and as a result, I felt less convinced that she honestly cared for what had happened. Because the majority of her speech focused on her opinions of the responses to the event, as opposed to Obama’s which focused on comforting the losses, Palin’s speech gave off a more reproachful attitude. In one part of the speech, she talks about how we should respond in public discourse and debate, claiming that “that’s who we are as Americans, and how we were meant to be.” From an audience’s point of view, parts of her speech sounded like a mother reprimanding her children on what is right and wrong, using loaded phrases such as “blood libel,” “foundational freedom,” and “mock [America’s] greatness” to convince the listeners of her viewpoint.
On the eve of the terribly tragic shooting in Arizona, two very different political figures delivered two very different speeches to the American public. Although both President Obama and former Vice Presidential candidate Sara Palin spoke of the shocking event and the societal unrest it has caused, one speaker merely achieved a defense of her own radical viewpoints with a blatant use of aggressive rhetoric, while the other was able to respectfully morn the occasion and passionately call the audience to change and become better citizens. While President Obama recognized the immediate fear and the prolonged and often turbulent ideological divide in the country, Sara Palin addressed the issues with grandiose statements and assumptions that were catered to provoke her followers, disregarding the rest of the nation. While one spoke with courage and conviction to the hearts and consciousness of 300 million people, another patronized on a social network feed and made her already ridiculous image to the non-radical majority of America all the more ridiculous.
ReplyDeletePresident Obama, realizing that he was addressing the American public during a confused and mournful state, did not rush his speech or his thoughts, but rather constructed an articulate and soothing narrative. He spoke of the character of all those who were lost and the ways in which their person as well as their heroism is like that of America. With his unfailing charisma emotional appeal he then called citizens to better the public discourse and civility in the nation. Sara Palin, on the other hand, utilized her seven minutes on making uneducated remarks like “blood-libel,” defending the current state of unrest, and as always aggressively pointing the finger of blame away from her radical beliefs-complete ignorant of relevance or reality.
President Barak Obama and Sarah Palin each made a speech in response to the shooting rampage that occurred at Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ meet and greet on January 8th, which killed six innocent bystanders and wounded 13 people, including Congresswoman Giffords. According to an ABC News/Washington Post poll 78% of the American public approves of the way President Obama responded to the Arizona shootings while the poll showed that more people disapprove than approve of Sarah Palin’s response. These results came about because President Obama used reverent, encouraging, and hopeful rhetoric promoting a more united nation where as Sarah Palin’s aggressive rhetoric promoted divided beliefs in favor of her side of the story.
ReplyDeletePresident Obama presented an honest, sympathetic, and compassionate tribute to the fallen victims of the horrible incident. Although as President was burdened with the responsibility of leading the entire country in mourning and overcoming the tragedy, Obama’s speech was personal and directed at the people gathered before him, the residents of Arizona, and the relatives of the victims involved. While he had ample opportunity to point blame for such an inexcusable incident, President Obama focused his speech on uniting the public through the positive actions we as a people can take to prevent future atrocities. “I believe that for all our imperfections, we are full of decency and goodness, and that the forces that divide us are not as strong as those that unite us,” President Obama encouraged. Ultimately the President was successful in earning the nation’s attention and respect through his televised broadcast because his speech honorably addressed the mournful incident but left its audiences hopeful for a brighter future.
On the other hand, Sarah Palin’ speech mainly had a political tone and content. Palin focused on condemning the public, the media, and the parties who criticized her instead of focusing on the tragic event and it’s cost to victims, families, and nation. She spoke in a untrustworthy broadcast voice causing her speech to sounded insincere and staged in every way possible. Palin made uncompassionate facial expressions and placed uncomfortable emphasis on words and syllables. As a result her speech degraded the meaning behind the words she used and sounded as if she was mocking the events of the tragedy.
Although both speakers used political and religious rhetoric to motivate their audience, Palin’s use of this rhetoric was antagonistic and manipulative. Ultimately, the public was offended by her selfish focus on personal defense instead of providing a condolence to a nation facing tragedy. This is obvious based on the results of the ABC News/Washington Post poll.
The delivery of President Obama and Sarah Palin’s speech greatly differed. From the get-go, Sarah Palin’s speech focuses on I, whereas Obama addresses the entire audience, which I believe helped create a personal attachment with the audience. In fact, Obama makes a stronger impression on the audience that he and the audience alike have been affected by the shootings by speaking on behalf of America. Obama says in his speech, “ I have come here tonight as an American who, like all Americans, kneels to pray with you today and will stand by you tomorrow.” Other stark contrasts between the two speeches include tone and pace. Obama’s tone is more sentimental and appears more genuine. He pauses throughout the speech and looks around the audience. However, Sarah Palin’s tone and her pace is constant throughout her speech. Whether she is speaking about the tragedy or about the politics, neither her expression nor her tone changes with respect to the mood of the content. This ultimately suggests to the audience that Palin wants to fast-forward and go directly into the politics. Overall, Sarah Palin comes off more as a news reporter than a speech giver. Her delivery adds emphasis on the critical aspect of the speech while her optimism regarding the recovery appears almost sarcastic.
ReplyDeletePresident Obama's speech had multiple expectations and, I believe, he met every expectation. Following the tragedy, he was expected to sooth and comfort the American public and as a political leader he was expected to comment on the extreme rhetoric and vitriol that contributed to the tragedy and to call for civility and unity. Calm and cool, as Obama’s demeanor typically is, he delivered remarks to each respect with ease. While the event was mournful, Obama never showed signs of deep sorrow, in fact, the only times emotion was shown was when he spoke about Christina Green, the youngest victim and Daniel Hernandez, Congresswoman Gifford’s 20 year old intern that helped save her life.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, Sarah Palin’s “Blood Libel” video proved to have the opposite reaction what I imagined she would have wanted. Throughout her video, she placed emphasis on wrong parts of her sentences and her tone was constantly all over the place. Then there was her message. She kept on mentioning the “deranged gunman” and “evil single man” which put an emphasis on the killer and on the tragedy instead of the healing process that was needed. She then tried to fold in her own political agenda into the tragedy that came off as arrogant and self-serving. Palin’s mentioning of parties and how “Obama would join” her gave off a divisive and polarizing tone that was inadequate for the event. Overall, Palin’s video seemed inappropriate given the circumstances.