Seven score and seven years ago*

On November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln delivered one of the most famous speeches in U.S. history in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania – the site of a major Civil War battle four months earlier. It proves that some of the best speeches are also the shortest. At only 10 sentences, it concisely captures Lincoln’s feelings while inspiring the American people to believe in the nation’s future.

Lincoln was not the keynote speaker that day. The keynote speaker lectured for two hours before Lincoln spoke. But Lincoln is the remembered speaker. These were his words, no doubt carefully selected:

“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate – we can not consecrate – we can not hallow – this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us – that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion – that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain – that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” **

* The Gettysburg Address was delivered 147 years ago. “Score” means 20.
** This text is one of several versions of the speech that Lincoln wrote. It is believed to be the final version.

Why not to start a sentence with “We need a PowerPoint on…”

I’ve written plenty of PowerPoint presentations in my time. They can be effective and interesting.

But an editorial by Nancy Duarte for CNN.com reminds us why we shouldn’t approach a presentation by thinking of it as a PowerPoint. The better way to approach it is by asking ourselves why we are being asked to speak and what our audience should take from it. After all, the purpose of communicating is to reveal meaning, not just to throw information at people.

I recently wrote a 15-minute speech for someone that included a PowerPoint. The PowerPoint itself consisted of only eight slides (photos, a basic graph, and a memorable quote). That’s because the presenter’s message was strong enough to stand on its own. She used PowerPoint for only one reason: to help make her strongest points resonate with her audience.

Next time you are asked to make a presentation, think first of what you want your audience to remember. Then determine if PowerPoint will help.

Editor’s note: The flowchart referenced at the beginning of Duarte’s editorial was first blogged about by G&H’s Chris Georgacas in March 2010.

Media mogul oversteps boundary

Media mogul Mort Zuckerman recently told Fox News that he had helped write one of President Obama’s speeches. Zuckerman is the owner of the New York Daily News and U.S. News & World Report and a regular commentator on Sunday morning news shows.

Despite The Atlantic’s report that “Obama’s aides don’t remember consulting with Zuckerman,” Zuckerman’s claim blurs the relationship between journalists, media companies, and the people and issues they cover. Can media companies be an unbiased source of information if they also help create content for the same high-ranking officials on whom they report?

How would you react if the publisher of the Star Tribune wrote a speech for Governor Tim Pawlenty or the publisher of the Pioneer Press wrote a speech for Mayor Chris Coleman? Would you be skeptical of the newspaper’s future reporting, especially its investigative reporting? Or would you think it is just a reflection of the evolution of the media industry from unbiased reporting to slanted coverage (for example, the Huffington Post or Fox News)?

Certainly, a move like this would undermine the public’s respect for the media and public policy. But the question remains, how much would the journalism industry suffer?

Media companies are trying to stay relevant by redefining their niche in society. Speech writing for the President of the United States goes too far.