COMM12033: SPEECH AND SCRIPT

Week 5:

1. Notice talk: The first task this week is to notice your own talk. How do you greet people (in detail – what exactly do you say)? How do you sign off or say goodbye (again, in detail)? How do you deal with uncomfortable moments (silence, for example)? Do you use humour to transition to a close? Record your response on your blog (in writing).

 
2. Consider institutional talk in detail: Compare a news interview with an entertainment-oriented interview (you may need to record this or find these online). Consider the following:
a. How was the interviewee introduced?
b. What types of questions were asked?
c. How was the potential for conflict managed (if any)?
d. Was humour evident, and how?
e. How did the interview conclude?
f. What were the differences, if any, between the types of interview?
Record your response on your blog (in writing).

 
3. Read the Course Resource Online: Chapter 18: Interaction en Masse: Audiences and Speeches in Heritage, J and Clayman, S 2010 Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities, and Institutions, Wiley-Blackwell, West Sussex, pp. 263-287.
Reflect on this by identifying the key points that emerge from this research that you could incorporate in your speech writing to increase the potential for its effectiveness. Record this on your blog (in writing).

---

---

Task one –

As I am a man of many hats that runs in a number of different social circles, I have no set routines when it comes to social etiquette. Adding further confusion to this task is the fact that I tend to get bored of the same old and tired exchanges, so often I’ll mix things up a bit to keep things interesting and push social norms. My introductions vastly differ depending on my mood, audience, relationship and previous dealings. Greetings often vary from simple nods, whistles, simple nicknames, gibberish and gratuitous language, to the more socially conventional hello and how are you? The main factor in deciding what eventually leaves my mouth (if anything) is what the recipient deems appropriate.

Curious how signing off fares in farewell situations? You shouldn’t be, because it is no different and your guess is as good as mine. I would describe myself as a pretty calculated person, but in the moment anything could get thrown out there. The single difference in these instances being that the conversation leading up to the departure may have been regarding a serious or emotional issue, and sometimes feelings are considered. Yes, sometimes!

‘Uncomfortable moments’ are much the same again. Typically these are silences to which I have become accustomed, given I’m by no means the world’s greatest conversationalist, as you may have guessed. In these moments my action/reaction could range from asking a completely ridiculous and unrelated question, to making odd noises, or simply enjoying the moment and attempting to make the other person feel as awkward as I myself do.

The underlying theme in all of this is I like to keep things as casual as possible and do away with the formalities. Even in formal and professional settings, I am of the belief that it exposes more of the recipient’s personality and assists in building repertoires with others.

Task two –

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teZC1PA72AM]

Source: Real Atheism

In the news interview I have selected for analysis, you could argue that it is not in fact news. The excerpt is from an interview conducted by Sean Hannity, of Fox News’ Hannity programme. Given the lengthy history of bias and pandering to Conservatives shown by the Murdoch run network, if you had said it wasn’t news I’d have been on your side. It none the less is an interesting interview and taking into account the hold the 24 hour news channel has over americans, ‘with 1.7 million viewers each evening, the channel still drew a bigger audience than CNN, MSNBC and HLN combined’ (Pew Research Center 2014). You can see how it may well be considered news.

The interviewee is President of the American Atheists, David Silverman, and is introduced as such. From this point until the interviews conclusion all other niceties are spared and Hannity goes on the attack. Ames (2016) states that, ‘News interviewers ask particular types of questions to elicit particular types of answers (those that will make the news)’.

Well the ‘questions’ asked in this case are less questions, and more Hannity throwing accusations around, saying you’re wrong, and I’ll allow you a short time to respond before interrupting, so you can’t mount any form of argument. The show is also less about conflict management, and more about conflict provocation, in an effort to portray the network’s views. However, cooler heads prevailed in a rather amusing finale when Hannity quite purposely ended the interview wishing the Atheist a ‘merry Christmas’, to which Silverman responded ‘happy holidays Sean’.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0akXKxbflM]

Source: Jerkylfish

The selection provided as an entertainment-orientated interview is an old excerpt from the Late Night with David Letterman show. The guest of the show that evening was Harvey Pekar, creator of the American Splendour comic book series. The two figures have had history before on late night television, and prior to his introduction a recap was shown to display the type of character Pekar is to the unknowing. Following this cut-away Letterman greeted Pekar with a warm handshake, met his eyes with his own, allowed him to be seated first, and proceeded to thank and compliment the man. According to Poynter (2002), typically, ‘most professional interviewers know the answer to the question before they ask it.’ But Harvey Pekar is no ordinary man, and no amount of preparation would have prepared Letterman for this interview, prior history or not. Pekar was quite hostile and generally uninterested in anything Letterman had to say. To overcome this Letterman spoke of Pekar’s local baseball team and merely encouraged the guest to talk, while keeping the atmosphere light with subtle humour. Unlike the previously mentioned interview, and despite the potential for conflict, the two can be seen shaking hands at they walk off stage to end the show.

The differences between the two selections are night and day. Hannity is a professional interviewer, acting as a professional debater, while Letterman is a professional comedian, acting as a professional interviewer. However, of the two Letterman conducts himself much more astutely and in a far more difficult situation.

Task three–

Reflect on this by identifying the key points that emerge from this research that you could incorporate in your speech writing to increase the potential for its effectiveness. Record this on your blog (in writing).

This week I have written extensively on the previous activities so I’ll keep this brief. The main points I took from this research and will put into practice are as follows. Most notably as Heritage and Clayman (2010) explain is, ‘in the context of speeches, the audience has always had a make or break role’. This argument should come as no surprise considering how little gets done without a majority approval and support. Heritage and Clayman (2010) go on to explain that, ‘the contrast is the most common and diverse weapon in the speaker’s armoury’. The contrast spoken of here is used to emphasise points of weakness and strength in arguments of speakers. What I found most intriguing and potentially most useful also however was, the discussion of puzzle-solution format. ‘In this format, the speaker arouses the interest of the audience by first establishing a problem or puzzle’, Heritage and Clayman (2010).

In this format the speaker not only places emphasis, but may also be able to swing voters, opposition and neutral parties by presenting a better way of doing things.

---

---

References:

Ames, K 2016, Lesson 5: Institutional talk, course notes, COMM12033 Speech and script, CQUniversity e-courses, http://moodle.cqu.edu.au

Heritage, J., and Clayman, S. 2010, Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities, and Institutions, Wiley-Blackwell, West Sussex.

Jerkylfish 2009, Harvey Pekar on Letterman, 7/31/87, online video, viewed 15 May 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0akXKxbflM.

Pew Research Center 2014, 5 facts about Fox News, viewed 15 May 2016, http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/14/five-facts-about-fox-news/.

Poynter 2002, The Art of the Interview, viewed 15 May 2016, http://www.poynter.org/2002/the-art-of-the-interview/3344/#questions. 

Real Atheism 2013, Fox News Hannity Bitchslapped by Atheist, online video, viewed 15 May 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teZC1PA72AM. 

COMM11007; Week Five: Practical

WOMAN VERSUS MACHINE

Lovers are torn over what’s really important, as Steve Rigby today announces his motorbike comes first.

My long time friend and housemate, Steve Rigby, has chosen his Kawasaki Ninja 250 as the most important thing to him, much to the dismay of his current partner.

“If I had spent the amount of money on her that I have done on the bike, then maybe Paige would come first, but she’s cheap and easy by comparison,” he said.

These comments came as no surprise to his scorned lover, Paige Harkness, who has had to come to terms with this sordid love affair.

“At first I had thought, here’s a hunk all strapped in leather, and that kind of thing is right up my alley. My bad boy image of him quickly faded as I would often catch him stroking it in the garage soon after our courtship began,” she said.

“Black Betty,” (as he affectionately calls it) gets ridden daily. Paige meanwhile has mounting concerns about the lack of attention she has been receiving in that department.

“He rides that bloody thing more than he rides me,” she said.

Her growing frustration has been kept manageable to this point, but her face showed deep concerns.

“If she had some black between her legs then she would understand, but she’s scared to get on it,” he said.

Miss Harkness declined to provide anything else following this comment, subsequently becoming emotional.

The jury is still out on whether this three wheeled relationship has the legs to go the distance.

---

 Reflection – This was an interesting little exercise that allowed me to become more comfortable with the interview process by allowing me to do so on people I am comfortable with. In writing the piece, I tried to keep it light, as evidenced by the choice of quotes and outro. I only wish I had done this practice piece prior to the completion of assessment two as I should have.

COMM11007; Week Five: Quiz

The subject for this weeks chapter was misleading. I felt it was more an exercise in grammar and punctuation than spelling. As per usual, expecting perfect results was foolish and a flawed idea from the start. My overly inflated ego has once again been squashed by these exercises. Whether for good or bad, it will soon return to it’s bloated state as these quizzes are merely a learning curve and not graded criteria.

COMM11007; Week Five: Inquiry

Prepare for a rant.

To the outsider this is an example of a well written media story filled with exciting content sure to strike interest in the viewer. It is an informative, well structured story with an enticing lead to summarize the content that follows. There are no grammatical or punctuation errors and the writer of this piece has shown good use of the English language.

– http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-24/alleged-bandidos-charged-with-extortion-in-brisbane/5620654

The article shown above, impacts myself personally, as I was heavily involved in the subject matter and the events that took place. It is for this reason I argue that looks can be deceiving and in turn the audience is deceived.

It is clear to me in reading this article that either facts were not checked, or simply, were not of concern. The article states that “Taskforce Maxima” conducted the raids and the investigation leading up to the arrests. This was incorrect, as I know for a fact it was the lesser known Taskforce Hydra behind the operation. (Perhaps this was done as the public is less familiar with Taskforce Hydra.)

My greatest points of contention however, are the instances in which I am indirectly mentioned. When giving these quotes, the police were still largely uninformed. I can say with certainty, that even to this day they are still trying to “fill in the blanks”. (I use quotation marks as these are Detective Inspector, Brendan Smith’s words used when last trying to take a statement from myself.)

I declare that the quotes used in this article are merely hearsay, and if it were not for the fact that they came from a police officer’s mouth, as opposed to a common member of the public, they would not have been published.

I’ll cover this simply.

Was my couch lit on fire? Yes.

Could the whole house have caught on fire? Yes.

Was I on the the toilet when the blaze started? Yes.

Did I climb out the toilet window to get away? No.

---

---

Had I of written this story, key facts I would have touched on:

• After placing an emergency call and explaining the events that had taken place, no police cars were sent out, nor was my address taken.
• Having been instructed on the phone to make a report at the local police station the following morning, my statement was refused.
• The reasoning for this? I was not the owner of the property, although I was the sole witness.
• No action was taken until reports of extortion had come in, months later.