JSA wrote:
slowguy wrote:
Quote:
When listening to a speech, the human brain places undue emphasis or lack thereof on certain words, based on the manner in which they are delivered. This is why many lawyers -- myself included -- attend trial advocacy courses to learn the optimal manner for presenting the facts to the jury.Right. And the optimal manner of presenting those facts is very frequently not in printed text. It's in court room delivery, body language, chosen sentence structure, tone, word emphasis, tempo, etc. And if a juror just read a transcript of what you said, they would be missing quite a lot of what you were trying to communicate.
Which is EXACTLY why you cannot jump to hyperbole like Dan is prone to do when he watches an over-animated Trump who isn't actually saying half the stuff Dan accuses him of saying.
Well, I would hope people wouldn't jump to hyperbole regardless of how the consume the news or the messages of politicians, but you know what they say about hoping in one hand and crapping in the other,...
That said, the manner in which any politician chooses to deliver his message says a lot about the message itself. If he chooses to dump it in a Tweet, or make a statement at a press conference, or make a speech at a rally, or talk about it in an interview, etc. The words he chooses, the tones, the verbal and physical mannerisms he uses, etc. These things all contribute to the message being communicated.
If a politician says, "I'm sure that immigrants in this country face a very important set of problems to overcome," the transcript tells one story. If the video of that statement shows the politician using air-quotes around the words "immigrants" and "problems" and using a sarcastic tone of voice when he says "I'm sure..." it tells an entirely different story. Taking the physical and verbal into account along with the text is necessary to understand the message being conveyed. Just reading the text would leave you ill informed.
Slowguy
(insert pithy phrase here...)
