Ok, so why is using a teleprompter a bad thing?

The media keeps harping on the President's use of a teleprompter for speeches and such, intimating that this is a shady or sleazy thing to do. But yet, no one in the MSM offers up any rationale for this line of thinking. Wouldn't having a President deliver a speech from prepared remarks be beneficial? Not only does the press receive an embargoed copy of the speech prior, but having a written down speech prevents the President from making a statement contradictory to national policy and it keeps classified or important information from being unduly disclosed (as it is pre-screened by people in the White House to ensure that no privileged information is unnecessarily disclosed).

Every President in the past 50 years has relied heavily on prepared remarks, because they allow the President to effectively and easily frame his argument. Unless I'm mistaken, President Obama does not use a teleprompter or script during the question-and-answer sessions, so I really see no problem with a President using a teleprompter.

Goading the President for using a teleprompter for speeches is like lambasting a preacher for typing out a speech before a sermon, or criticizing a Commencement speaker for preparing his or her remarks. It is idiotic, childish, and simply outlandish to bash the use of teleprompters.

To paraphrase Nietzsche, the Media is Dead.

NYT killed the story.

Disgusting.

In fact, if you're a Republican and use a teleprompter and STILL mangle the speech, it's folksy--not clear evidence that you're a bourbon-soaked moron. Your liberal media at work, my friend.

:shrug:

1. Obama is silver-tongued, a great communicator, and quick on his feet. He's a natural-born orator.

2. Obama uses a teleprompter for remarks that take 3-4 minutes long, when introducing nominees and making opening statement. He uses it far more than other presidents did; previous presidents used cards or just winged it.

3. When he doesn't use a teleprompter, often his discourse is weak. That is, he's not uniformly silver-tongued and not always a great communicator. He's best at it when lecturing, not giving a speech.

Is there a contradiction implicit in (1) and (2) and between (1) and (3)? I think so. I'm in the minority here, of course. On the other hand, it's an argument I find to be without substance because I really don't care if Obama's a great orator or not.

His use of the teleprompter in making lengthy speeches is overkill. If not for (2), and people's insistence on (1), nobody would care about his teleprompter use for speeches.

many, many times. in fact all of his big speeches.

i would say he's done that MORE than any president in recent memory.

since you are pointing out that he has used the teleprompter more than others.

also i don't agree with your statement on his discourse w/o teleprompter being weak. well his soaring prose is prose, it is WRITTEN. it's pretty hard to create such language as you're speaking it. :wtf:

that said, i think he is the consummate teacher and frankly, listening to the guy is educational, more so than many politicians and more than most presidents in recent memory too.

Otherwise, why did his speechwriter savant become such a big media sensation? It wasn't because the guy ran coffee to Obama and came up with the odd catch phrase every 5 paragraphs.

you think it's less than that? That leaves plenty of speeches for his speechwriters.

Obama can write extremely well, or don't you think so? You think other people wrote his books too?

Why does it matter if a president uses a telepropter instead of cue cards?

I don't know where you get the idea that Obama's discourse is weak. He's extremely gifted. His answers to questions, unlike Bush's or other politicians', address the point of the question directly. His words ring like music. His logic is remarkable.

Watch the town hall that's going on right now.

Also, giving a speech (orating) is much different than talking conversationally ... conversations don't sound lofty or use the same kind of poetic rhetoric that speeches do.

other bullshit has worked. They are throwing everything they've got and not making a dent. Good.

They have to have something to say everyday, so they think up drivel to say to fill in the spaces. Notice how they tend to get on the bandwagon when it comes to their reportage? "Journalism"---if I can dignify it with that word---is filled with lazy so-and-soes anymore.

but to read prepared statements? I don't get it

I missed the pizza delivery.

You have it arse-backwards. Why would the President use a TELEPROMPTER for his EXTEMPORANEOUS ANSWERS?
DUH.

and the policies. After all, they have to talk about something.

Teleprompters are used by Letterman, Leno, Stewart, Hannity, Olberman, and O'Reilly. I could add more names but if you get the gist.

of traction, because the reporters are miffed at not getting nick-names and jokes from the President.

out as much as he can. Stay focused, it's just normal procedure when there happens to be a Democratic President. It's a real old now.

"See, he needs a teleprompter cuz he's really not who they say he is" bull hockey.

With probably some "he can't really be smart because he's..well...black" racism.

"If plants like water so much then why don't you ever see any growing out of toilets?" stupid