Kennedy and teleprompters

[disponibilite]

Been watching a lot of Kennedy speeches this week–a lot on TV about Kennedy right now.

Something that fascinates me is that in his prepared speeches he doesn’t have the advantage of the use of a teleprompter. You see him glancing down at his notes (or maybe the whole speech), look up and continue almost seamlessly.

It is so many years that I have been seeing a prepared speech by a politician using teleprompters that I had almost forgotten how it used to be.—glancing down at notes or text.

When did teleprompting start? (I am almost certain that Reagan used them).

Do you have to practice a lot to effectively use a teleprompter? Politicians seem awfully good today using them.

Seem to be looking right at you with that seemingly stupendous memory----and only if you really look closely do you realize that that shifting from side to side is not really from making eye contact with the audience --------just simply a case of reading word for word off a teleprompter.

-------Seemingly the dumbing down of our politicians.

I think it took a lot of real memory and intelligence to do what Kennedy did.

Do you think that Bush Jr and other politicians today could live without their teleprompters?

[disponibilite]

Surprised–

No answers on this one. Anyone know when teleprompting became popular? Which President was the first to use this technology?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[jjimm]

I recall comment in the UK press about Reagan using a teleprompt, and this being a surprising and new development. However, this is only from my faulty memory.

*Originally posted by disponibilite *
I think it took a lot of real memory and intelligence to do what Kennedy did.

Well, he and the thousands of other politicians before him. It used to be de rigeur for politicians (and still is, for the more talented orators). Remember, Lincoln was distressed after he gave the Gettysburg Address because he thought it much too short. The guy who spoke before him blabbed on for two hours.

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

“Reagan used them” is a bot of understatement. Reagan lived by them–they were made for him, and he for them. As to the OP, I’m pretty sure that LBJ used them. His vocabulary in private had almost no overlaps with his public discourse so he wouldn’t have liked speechifyng in public w/o electronic help to remind him that no one in the country would make much sense of his natural style. Nixon used them for sure, another politician with no feel for making dignified yet casual remarks. JFK may have had some teleprompting help available but may have just disdained to use it, while his successors used it and benefitted from it.

Sorry, no cites, though I’ll scope my LBJ and RMN bios for details.

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

Guy before Lincoln was Edward Everett.

[Walloon]

The TelePrompTer (yes, that’s how it’s written) was introduced in the early 1950s, long before Kennedy’s election to the presidency in 1960. It was first used on the CBS live daytime drama The First Hundred Years (1950-52).

[Walloon]

A TelePrompTer was used for speakers on the podium at the Republican National Convention in 1952.

[Horatio_Hellpop]

I’m watching that Kennedy marathon on PBS right now. RFK used them as early as 1964.

[bonzer]

*Originally posted by jjimm *

I think it took a lot of real memory and intelligence to do what Kennedy did.

It used to be de rigeur for politicians (and still is, for the more talented orators). Remember, Lincoln was distressed after he gave the Gettysburg Address because he thought it much too short. The guy who spoke before him blabbed on for two hours.

Everett had prepared the speech and its text was in front of him, but he seems to have made a point of not looking at it.
However, while this prepared version was too long and Everett cut the text on the fly, it’s both a myth that Everett spoke for too long or that anybody thought that Lincoln’s “Dedicatory Remarks” were too short. The running times were much what people were expecting.
All discussed in detail in the obvious reference: Lincoln at Gettysburg (Touchstone, 1992) by Garry Wills, but see especially pp33-5.

However, you’re right about when the technology hit Britain for public speeches (rather than for talking directly to a TV camera in a studio, as newsreaders do); Hugo Young (in One of Us) dates Thatcher’s adoption of it, in emulation of Reagan, to the 1983 election campaign.

[Chronos]

As for difficulty, I’ve used a teleprompter before, and it’s not too hard. The key (and so far as I could tell, only) catch is that you need to coordinate well with the guy operating the prompter. He’s supposed to keep the line you’re on in the middle of the screen, and you’re supposed to be reading the line that’s in the middle of the screen. Except that if you and your operator disagree about what constitutes the “middle of the screen”, you can go into a feedback loop and end up sounding like Teddy Ruxpin hooked up to a car battery. But I’m sure that that would be fixed by a little practice.

[jjimm]

*Originally posted by bonzer *
** it’s both a myth that Everett spoke for too long or that anybody thought that Lincoln’s “Dedicatory Remarks” were too short. **

You sure about that?

At 11:00am the next day, 15,000 to 20,000 spectators crowded around the speakers’ platform. After a two-hour flowery oration by Everett, the president stood and, in his high-pitched western twang, delivered his address in two minutes and 15 seconds. There was only scattered applause as Lincoln took his seat. The president turned to a friend and remarked, “It is a flat failure and the people are disappointed.” The next day the Chicago Times reported: “The cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly, flat, and dishwatery utterances of… the President.”

Also:

The dedication of the battlefield and cemetery thus provided Lincoln with an opportunity for a major address, but he disappointed many of his supporters when he gave this short talk. In fact, many of the spectators did not even know the president had started speaking when he finished.

[bonzer]

*Originally posted by jjimm *
You sure about that?

All that the passage you quoted from on this page says is that people were disappointed with the quality of Lincoln’s remarks, not their length. Earlier it even notes:

The dedication committee selected distinguished orator Edward Everett of Massachusetts as the principle speaker and, as an afterthought, sent an invitation to President Abraham Lincoln. The invitation was intended only as a courtesy; the committee doubted the joke-cracking president’s ability to speak on such a solemn occasion. His part was to be minor: “It is the desire that after the oration, you, as Chief Executive of the nation, formally set apart these grounds to their sacred use by a few appropriate remarks.”

Contrast both pages with Wills’ summary (p36):

Lincoln’s text was polished, his delivery emphatic, he was interrupted by applause five times. Read in a slow, clear way to the farthest listeners, the speech would take about three minutes. It is quite true that the audience did not take in all that happened in that short time - we are still trying to weigh the consequences of that amazing performance. But the myth that Lincoln was disappointed in the result - that he told the unreliable Lamon that his speech, like a bad plow, “won’t scour” - has no basis. He had done what he wanted to do, and Hay shared the pride his superior took in an important occasion put to good use.

What was expected from both Lincoln and Everett on the occasion is a major theme of the book and is analysed at length by Wills.