Watch one video from column A and one from column B. Write a post to your blog thinking about YouTube voice — would it be a good strategy for you as a public speaker?
(For really long videos, you don’t need to watch the whole thing… just a few minutes, enough to get a sense of the delivery.)
Some excerpts from FDR’s “Four Freedoms” speech, the State of the Union address in 1941. Political speeches were very different in those days (radio was still new; broadcast television was in its infancy).
Invitation to comment: compare Roosevelt’s style to Obama’s or Bush’s.
For class today, you have two tasks. Both are part of the rhetorical process of INVENTION (coming up with ideas about what to say, and appropriate arguments or strategies to use).
First, write a post that has two elements:
exploring a potential topic idea for S3
identifying a decision-making audience for your talk
You can update or edit this post after class–we’ll work on developing your ideas.
Second, prepare a 1-minute, 1-slide topic pitch. Let us know a little bit about what you’re interested in, why, and what audience you’d like to influence.
If you are having trouble thinking of an appropriate topic, don’t worry! We’ll keep working on it!
Here are some things to remember:
If anything makes you think, “huh, weird” — that’s probably a good thing to investigate.
Pick something that is connected to your own interests or experience.
Sometimes people pick something because it seems like it will be easy to find lots of information. I disagree with this strategy, because it means the person is not challenging themselves. And if information is easy to find, why do we need a presentation on it? Respect yourself, respect your audience, don’t be afraid to dig.
There are 2 main tasks to complete for class on Thursday.
In Module 3, we’re focusing on analysis for decision-makers. For class Thursday, read these two articles from the New York Times. One, “If Kant Were a New York Cyclist,” by Randy Cohen, addresses the ethics of cyclist behavior from a philosopher’s point of view.
The second, “Is It O.K. to Kill Cyclists?” by San Francisco writer Daniel Duane, examines the consequences of collisions–his focus isn’t so much the behavior of motorists, but rather the attitudes represented legal decisions about consequences for drivers.