"Language Expert" Tries to Excuse Obama's Sub-Par Address
Paul J.J. Payack, president of Global Language Monitor, says that Barack Obama's Oval office speech that was panned by virtually everyone didn't fail because it lacked substance, direction, or leadership, but because it sounded too "professorial" for us uneducated hicks:
I would have pointed out that the real problem in that sentence was that President Obama appointed a physicist to handle a problem best addressed by geologists, but then, I'm not looking to excuse the President's abysmal performance in this disaster. [Of course, you dimwits won't understand that sentence, either. It has a grade level of 11 on Flesch-Kincaid and uses 41 words, which is far more complex than the President's speech that us public folks just can't understand.]
President Obama's speech on the gulf oil disaster may have gone over the heads of many in his audience, according to an analysis of the 18-minute talk released Wednesday. Tuesday night's speech from the Oval Office of the White House was written to a 9.8 grade level, said Paul J.J. Payack, president of Global Language Monitor. The Austin, Texas-based company analyzes and catalogues trends in word usage and word choice and their impact on culture. Though the president used slightly less than four sentences per paragraph, his 19.8 words per sentence "added some difficulty for his target audience," Payack said. He singled out this sentence from Obama as unfortunate: "That is why just after the rig sank, I assembled a team of our nation's best scientists and engineers to tackle this challenge -- a team led by Dr. Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and our nation's secretary of energy."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:17 AM
Comments
Posted by: Odins Acolyte at June 17, 2010 10:53 AM (brIiu)
Posted by: Sundog at June 17, 2010 10:55 AM (H+mDv)
Except for the reason that Payack was attempting to pan the speech on the basis of its presentation, not its content, you might be right. But the nation understood the speech with little problem, they just didn't like it. In other words, content was the issue not presentation.
Very typical of the academic left when faced with their obvious shortcomings: call the citizens ignorant rubes unable to understand the content when what is really being said is that the content is wrong/offensive/counter-productive.
Posted by: iconoclast at June 17, 2010 11:03 AM (MZd0C)
Put them together and figure out how to "plug the damn hole."
Posted by: mockmook at June 17, 2010 11:37 AM (5ssRl)
Posted by: David at June 17, 2010 12:21 PM (st2+Q)
None of those figures was an improvement from last year. There were slight dips in Jordan and in Indonesia, where Obama spent several years growing up. Egypt saw a 10-point drop, even though Obama gave a widely promoted June 2009 speech in Cairo aimed at reaching out to the Muslim world.Et tu, AP
Posted by: Neo at June 17, 2010 12:59 PM (tE8FB)
Why doesn't he??? Does he need better writers? Does he need more practice making speeches? It is a mystery.
Posted by: John at June 17, 2010 12:59 PM (ivCv1)
Posted by: mytralman at June 17, 2010 02:11 PM (CFOzN)
Well, that and Republican fear mongering.
It never occurs to them that people reject them because they understand them.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at June 17, 2010 02:23 PM (ujwMm)
Stand up, for God's sakes, Barry. And leave the solution of this crisis to the Petroleum engineers, not to theoretical physicists like Mr. Chu. He's no help at all.
Marianne Matthews
Posted by: Marianne Matthews at June 17, 2010 05:05 PM (Aaj8s)
Posted by: Robert17 at June 17, 2010 08:38 PM (FN7pa)
Posted by: inspectorudy at June 21, 2010 10:55 PM (Vo1wX)
Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.0145 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0118 seconds, 20 records returned.
Page size 11 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.