By Karen Dunlap
As the balloons fell and fell and fell, journalists turned their attention to analyzing John Kerry's speech. Post-speech commenting is a fine tradition, dating back to well before the printing press. The earliest public cave grunter probably heard immediate comments on the quality of the grunt, the motives of the speaker, and the way the grunt would be received by others.
So here's my take on the commentary, which fell into four categories, descending in value.
The Word and Truth. This quickly compares the speech to known truths. Were the facts right? Did the shadings match reality? Were the comments in line with the speaker's past actions? The Wall Street Journal approached this today in the article, "Kerry's Deficit-Cutting Math May Not Add Up." Problem is, it's about earlier comments, not last night's speech. This type of analysis takes research, skill, and good planning.
Rhetorical Analysis. Jeff Greenfield gave an interesting post-speech riff on CNN about the roots of phrases within the Kerry speech. He noted word plays on phrases used earlier by Ronald Reagan and George Bush. That gave some sense of the ongoing themes in public debate, and might say something about how Kerry and his speech coaches think.
He was/was not himself. Reporters who have observed Kerry over time were in a good position to compare this speech to the norm. The Boston news media was at the head the pack. It helps to know if the speaker (zebra, elephant) is changing stripes, or was having an unusually good or bad performance, and suggests what we should expect as the norm.
The speech vs. expectations. Here's where most analyses land. Was the speech better than expected or less than expected? These comments are formed quickly, they are almost totally subjective, and of little value.
Comments