Obama Too Smart For America?

by: DaveJ

Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 08:30


I have been seeing some news pieces about President Obama's Tuesday speech to the nation, analyzing the "grade level" of his words.  They are concluding that he spoke "over the heads" of many Americans.

An example from CNN Politics, Language guru: Obama speech written to nearly 10th-grade level,

President Barack Obama's speech on the Gulf oil disaster may have gone over the heads of many in his audience, according to an analysis of the 18-minute talk released Wednesday.

. . . Though the president used slightly less than four sentences per paragraph, his 19.8 words per sentence "added some difficulty for his target audience," Payack said.

[. . .] Obama's nearly 10th-grade-level rating was the highest of any of his major speeches and well above the Grade 7.4 of his 2008 "Yes, we can" victory speech, which many consider his best effort, Payack said.

The media and pundits are largely talking about how Obama is perceived and not about what Obama says, and certainly not explaining the underlying policies. Is Obama too smart for Americans?  Or at least for American media, which is supposed to transmit and translate information that helps citizens participate in our democracy.  But our "market driven" media (thanks, Ronnie) by and large no longer plays this role, and politicians are supposed to play a part on a stage.  Obama did not intentionally mispronounce the word nuclear, as the previous president did.  Was this a political mistake?

During the recent media frenzy with pundits complaining that Obama doesn't exhibit enough anger, comedian Bill Maher had a line that Obama would say, "I've been briefed on your pain."  Is this the "grade level" of America now?  How much is each of us to blame, insofar as we allow ourselves to be consumers instead of citizens?

DaveJ :: Obama Too Smart For America?

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
He's not too smart for America (4.00 / 8)
he's too smart for the American media. I saw somewhere that the "grade level" of the average newspaper has steadily declined over the years until now they are at about a third grade level.

Of course, the media thinks it IS America, so that would explain the problem right there.

Montani semper liberi


Before-coffee thoughts (4.00 / 6)
I suppose we should include vapid as well as dishonest, self-absorbed and murderous to our list of the characteristics of a failing empire. But as you say, you have to wonder if these are the characteristics of the American people as a whole, or just of the public discourse being conducted in their name. I don't think we're generally as despicable as our media makes us appear, but then we do seem to keep electing some of the worst buffoons and poltroons imaginable. I used to think that we'd wake up sick and hung over, and try something else. I'm still waiting.

[ Parent ]
Sadly, I have to side with those (4.00 / 1)
who find the American public in general wanting, in terms of their functional intellectual and political sophisticated and engagement. I can't tell you how many times I've tried to engage my well-educated friends in political discussions, only to be responded to with something like "Who's Karl Rove?".

Most would rather backyard BBQ or watch The Bachelor.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


[ Parent ]
Ineffective political institutions and infrastructure have turned people off (4.00 / 5)
Most people are trying to just raise their kids and keep a job and not be miserable.  Political discourse has a high noise to signal ratio, a lot of people yelling at each other, extreme amounts of childishness, divisiveness, and often, "disputed" basic facts.

And een after breaking through all of that, actually affecting change is very difficult.  There are a large number of people who would rather go and volunteer in their community and spend time at home than bother pushing through the din of political nonsene to find any worthwhile information.  Some don't even have the time to really take care of their loved ones.  It's a systemic problem.  These people are not to be despised.

And any effective activism is going to be involved with engaging these people.  


[ Parent ]
Perhaps despising them is excessive (0.00 / 0)
But not respecting them is, I think, warranted, for their not being able or willing to do what people in their situations are quite able and willing to do in most other developed countries. I know way too many well-educated and successful professionals who are simply too lazy and self-indulgent to be bothered to keep up with the issues. As I see it, to them it LITERALLY comes down to a choice to be lazy and uninformed, and not circumstances beyond their control. They're the same sorts of people who run today's establishment media, "smart" and well-educated "me first" types who can't be bothered to do what's best for the country.

Why do you and I and others here and elsewhere choose to be informed and involved? I'm no genius, I come from a working class background, I've worked for major corporations and have bought myself yuppie "toys". And yet I still care enough about the world beyond my life to stay up on the issues. Why can't others, especially those who can't hide behind poor educations or marginal lives?

It's like Yeats wrote, "The best lack all conviction". Well, most of them, at least.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


[ Parent ]
Mental laziness is generously encouraged in this culture. (4.00 / 1)
It's not like people are getting any help from a media establishment that's been steadily dumbing down their content for three decades now.

Me, I'm split on this. Some people are just more intellectually curious than others. I was raised to be so and to develop critical faculties. In this sense, I consider myself quite fortunate.

In my experience, the laziest of them are are upper-class people who've had it made for generations and don't even really need to work for a living... except to maintain some sort of social status, or maybe some lust for power. Of course, these are the people who are running the planet into ruin.

"We have 99 weeks of unemployment insurance. The question comes, how long do you continue before people just don't want to go back to work at all?"
--Dianne Feinstein (net worth: $75 Million+)


[ Parent ]
It kind of doesn't matter to me how I feel about them (4.00 / 1)
They are the people that you are going to need to win over and educate.  Understanding them, from their perspective is essential to any sort of effective political movement.  Corporatistis win because they have focused grouped and mareket segmented apolitical people who don't have much time to think about these things.

Offer something better, or lose every political battle.  


[ Parent ]
The media has been doing this since I was in J-School... (4.00 / 2)
...many years ago. Yes, they are projecting their own craven qualities on the polity. Yes, they are dumb enough to believe their own bullshit. Ironically, their persistent assertions of American dumbness has resulted in them becoming dumber.

So I agree with Sadie. Obama is too smart for the media.

Look at the way they focus solely on words used and whether he is sufficiently angry or not. They don't give a rat's ass about the actual content of his utterings, or the results of his management (or lack thereof). They're only interested in qualities they can play with in their insipid columns, without having to actually learn anything --or be even remotely literate--about the oil industry, energy policy, economics or policy questions.

And they wonder why they're going out of business!

"We have 99 weeks of unemployment insurance. The question comes, how long do you continue before people just don't want to go back to work at all?"
--Dianne Feinstein (net worth: $75 Million+)


[ Parent ]
HOW many? (0.00 / 0)
How many years ago?

--

Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: dcjohnson


[ Parent ]
Reagan Administration. (0.00 / 0)
Early to mid 80s. Long time ago.

But the argument was there at the time: Media "research" was showing that Amurkans ain't learning so much no more, so we've got to dumb it down to stay in business. I conducted an interview once with the editor of the then brand new USA Today and he was almost defensive about it, as I asked him, "Aren't you afraid of insulting the intelligence of your readers?"

I think it's pretty safe to say now that they were wrong. Wrong to the point  of putting themselves out of business. When there's nothing worth reading anymore, why pay for the damn thing? Only an idiot would fail to grasp that, IMO.

Its the kind of idiocy bred in corporate boardrooms out of some kind of hubris. And this was before the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine and the Telecom Act of '96 which made our current discourse so damn stupid.

"We have 99 weeks of unemployment insurance. The question comes, how long do you continue before people just don't want to go back to work at all?"
--Dianne Feinstein (net worth: $75 Million+)


[ Parent ]
Broadcast media is a million times worse (0.00 / 0)
and they're totally not going out of business.

[ Parent ]
True dat. (0.00 / 0)
But they will become less profitable as "news organizations." Ratings will decline and are declining. Compare Fox News market size now to NBC Nightly News 20 years ago. Fox is a mere shadow of that market.

I think the network news will go away fairly soon. They'll keep the morning fluff for a good while, apparently. Cable "news" will likely be downgraded as the audience shrinks. It is shrinking generally.

But they won't go out of business altogether, as you say.  

"We have 99 weeks of unemployment insurance. The question comes, how long do you continue before people just don't want to go back to work at all?"
--Dianne Feinstein (net worth: $75 Million+)


[ Parent ]
It's What the Media Reports... (4.00 / 5)
...when they have nothing else to report. Not because there is nothing to report. Only that the media can't be bothered to actually work. They have to fill air time and guess what goes up? Process stories like this one.

I saw this morning the NY Times paper has a story about a five decade oil spill in the Niger Delta and its aftermath. Would that US politics was covered so thoughtfully, digging out related stories that help provide context to readers.


Better Question (4.00 / 5)
"Are the American media too dumb for America?"

They really are. (4.00 / 3)
I have had to talk to a few reporters in my time. Every one has been a remarkably stupid and ignorant person. It's disheartening.

[ Parent ]
Very true. (0.00 / 0)
You have to do their work for them, if you want to be treated with any decency. You practically have to write their stories for them, fill in all the blanks and provide them with further sourcing material. Otherwise, it's just a blank stare followed by a casual spiking of the story. I will say I've met some real exceptions to this, but they are exceptions, IMO.

BBCWatcher is correct, methinks. They are too dumb for America.

"We have 99 weeks of unemployment insurance. The question comes, how long do you continue before people just don't want to go back to work at all?"
--Dianne Feinstein (net worth: $75 Million+)


[ Parent ]
New on FOX this Fall (4.00 / 1)
Are you Smarter than the US Media?

Tune in every week and watch 3 top-notch M$M "jounalists" square off in a battle of brain power with D-list celebrity guests and their pets.  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


D-list and pets (0.00 / 0)
The smart money is on the celebrities and their pets in this epic contest of mental midgets.

"We live entangled in webs of endless deceit, often self-deceit, but with a little honest effort, it is possible to extricate ourselves from them."

[ Parent ]
I had a German Shepard once that would outscore (0.00 / 0)
David Gregory. Indeed, she would have been a better host of Press The Meat and more likable to boot!

"We have 99 weeks of unemployment insurance. The question comes, how long do you continue before people just don't want to go back to work at all?"
--Dianne Feinstein (net worth: $75 Million+)


[ Parent ]
From my own limited personal experience (4.00 / 2)
talking to educated and uneducated, smart and not so smart people, is that most Americans are simply too politically and even intellectually unsophisticated, ignorant and disengaged to be capable of understanding a genuinely thoughtful political speech or having a genuinely thoughtful political discussion. It's not that they're actually stupid, just that they're functionally so, topically.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

Imagine knowing nothing about politics (4.00 / 2)
and wanting to educate yourself.  Your first encounters would be with CNN Headline news, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reily, perhaps Olbermann

Would you want to further educate yourself about politics?  Or would you dismiss all of them as yelling idiots?  


[ Parent ]
I probably would (4.00 / 1)
but then it's less the media's fault, which is motivated by profit, not the national good, than the educational system's fault, which is supposed to be where most of us learn about politics, civics and the major issues of the day, or at least their historical and scientific underpinnings. When your typical product of the miserable US educational system can't name a single SCOTUS justice or say who the two sides were in the Civil War, blaming the media, however legitimate, is really missing the point. We are failing our citizens in the most basic ways.

And if I have to hear one more ranting idiot complain about how the constitution is being destroyed by "Big Guvmint" by some mouthbreathing RW booger eater, I can't be held accountable for what happens to my TV.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


[ Parent ]
These are interlocking problems (0.00 / 0)
And retention is as much a problem as initial acquisition.  The surest way to make sure that students forget stuff from school is to guarantee that they never use it.  The surest way to make them remember it is to have something from school pop up outside of school.  If the media treat ten years ago as irrelevant, then students are just that much more likely to ignore their history classes.  

And I would argue that our education system is more extremely spotty than it is bad.  Local school districts are going to have to go.  You can't even reform the education system at the state level, much less at the federal.  


[ Parent ]
I've always wondered why (0.00 / 0)
people I know and have met from other countries almost invariably know more about and are more willing if not eager to discuss politics and current events than most Americans I know. It's like they're from different planets. Talk to an average American and they'll know about sports and pop culture. Talk to an average European and they'll know about sports and pop culture AND politics. It's like Americans consciously work to not care and know much about politics, like it makes them less manly or feminine or something. Why is being smart and informed seen as such a negative in the US? I've never really gotten that.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Depends on where in Europe (0.00 / 0)
I would be curious about a systematic study comparing the US and italy, for example, as their discourse and media situation is as stupid as ours.

[ Parent ]
This is why they yell, right? (0.00 / 0)
To help people make the choice to switch channels or fire up the game console.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
This is also the result of 30 years of destroying public education. (4.00 / 2)
Something like 40% of Americans now think Evolution is a dubious concept?

Yeah, and Apartheid is a new headache remedy!

"We have 99 weeks of unemployment insurance. The question comes, how long do you continue before people just don't want to go back to work at all?"
--Dianne Feinstein (net worth: $75 Million+)


[ Parent ]
Agree wholeheartedly (4.00 / 1)
The media are becoming more abysmal every day. At first I thought it was because they were keeping corporate priorities in mind, so were sketchy on details that might affect this or that interest. But really, they see only style and form, not substance.

I was shocked by the negative 'progresssive' pundits' reaction to the speech, which I [& obviously the President thought] needed to provide an accurate picture of what his administration had and planned to do--since the media were not giving the public this.


Go see the Maddow "Fake President" piece (0.00 / 0)
She nails it for why some people were disappointed. I'm posting on it here soon.

--

Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: dcjohnson


[ Parent ]
RACHEL FOR PRESIDENT! (4.00 / 1)
I would vote for her over Obama, any day.  At least, she has integrity.

[ Parent ]
Perspective (4.00 / 1)
"...nearly 10th-grade level."

OMG NOT NEARLEY 10TH-GRAED!?!!!? OMG LIEK TAHTS ALMOST LIEK A SOPHOMOR3 IN LIEK HIGH SKOOL!1!!!11 WTF LOL DANG!??! TAHTS LIEK SACOND SAMESTER FRESHMAN Y3AR!??! WTF LOL OMG WTF?!!?? WTF LOL LIEK NEXT THNG U KNOW TH3YS GONG 2 XP3CTNG PEPS 2 B ABLE 2 PAS SOMA TEST SHOWNG TAHT THAYS R LEARNNG AND MAKNG SOMA LIEK PROGR3S EVERY FRIK3N Y3AR!11!!1 LIEK WTF??!??!?!! OMG WTF LOL

Seriously, would this be better?

Prairie State Blue Covering Illinois Democratic politics.


I think the media especially the progressives (4.00 / 1)
are just starting to notice how vague his speeches always are, and how he never offers any specifics.

May be true (4.00 / 1)
But Bush rarely offered anything but vague references to patriotism and fear, yet few in the M$M ever attacked Bush for not offering specifics and the few that did were definitely not from the right.

This tendency does not distinguish President Obama from other modern Presidents.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Progressives are and some media folk are... (0.00 / 0)
... but some of the reaction has been intended to encourage the administration to dumb it down even more, lest people start talking quasi-intelligently about all this.

This whole reading-level thing is just their way of saying, "Don't talk about things in a way they can react to." Fortunately, this meme isn't gaining any traction that I can see. But it's still out there.

The Administration is still in campaign mode, where vapidity will suffice for actual content. But once in office, especially during a massive crisis, it won't suffice any more. They apparently don't get that. I don't know that they will ever get that.

In other news: KO won the Murrow Award. How fitting is that?

"We have 99 weeks of unemployment insurance. The question comes, how long do you continue before people just don't want to go back to work at all?"
--Dianne Feinstein (net worth: $75 Million+)


[ Parent ]
I'm sorry... (4.00 / 1)
Obama gives a vapid speech and the problem is the public is too dumb to get how great it was?  Bill Clinton was at least as smart as Obama(frankly, I have never ascribed to the Obama as genius meme), and yet I don't recall any claims that perhaps the public just wasn't smart enough to get him.  


USER MENU


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you

Donate to Open Left





QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search