Archive for January, 2010

Sarkozy Speech Takes Aim at Davos Conference Capitalists

Thursday, January 28th, 2010
President Sarkozy's Davos Speech

President Nicolas Sarkozy

A fine piece of populist electioneering aimed at his home market might well be the view from Davos of President Sarkozy’s key note speech at the 2010 World Economic Forum in Switzerland.

Animated and expressive the French President metaphorically laid into the bankers who, in his view, nearly brought about global financial collapse in 2008. His speech, which drew only muted applause at its close, was big on gestures, platitudes and to some extent, vision.

But if any of the Davos delegates, financiers included, expected policy measures then they left the conference without anything substantive.

Reading from a prepared speech transcript the President worked well with his pace and pausing strategy. Emphasis and intonation worked in tandem. Rhetorical questions and lists featured heavily in a speech that conveyed both the focus of the speaker and the passion for his subject.

A speech for his home market; not the Davos audience.

To Pay or Not to Pay. That is the Cudlipp Lecture

Wednesday, January 27th, 2010

Alan Rusbridger the Guardian Editor gave the Hugh Cudlipp lecture on Monday. His speech, “Does Journalism Exist?” was a tour de force assessment of the future for modern journalism.

His introduction conjured an image of today’s journalist pondering how their daily pay or future pension might be sustained by their craft — journalism. Such pondering was alien to the journalists of 30 years ago.

This introduction enabled Rusbridger to discuss business models. An equally alien concept to many journalists today, let alone in Hugh Cudlipp’s era. He explained how a drive towards online content charging was being touted by Rupert Murdoch’s media empire as the way forward for the New York Times and the Times. Disappointingly he didn’t note the examples of the Financial Times and the Economist that have offered paid content for several years now.

Rusbridger moved on to the impact of a paid content business model in terms of universal access to information and the natural authority of journalists. He questioned whether paid content would affect the authority of journalists as they became accessible behind a paid wall.

He explored the Murdoch contention that the BBC’s free content model would damage the prospects of a paid content model. Drawing a useful analogy with the USA where broadcasters are in as much trouble as their UK counterparts but without a home-grown public broadcasting body of note, he noted how a Murdoch-inspired regulatory onslaught on the BBC might not have any impact on the competitiveness of paid content models at all. Damage the BBC but do yourself no good was the view.

Indeed, Rusbridger went on to highlight how the Guardian had considered and rejected the paid content model.

Rusbridger’s vision of new journalism is that of digital journalism. Journalism of the web, not on the web. It’s a journalism of expertise and specialism combined with populism and generalism. It’s a mash-up of blogs, links, multimedia and twitter. Using case studies and digital examples he highlighted new journalism in terms of mass movements inspired by journalists; the expertise of crowds conducted by journalists.

It’s an undeniably open access model; supporting advertising, widget and paid print revenues. And bizarrely it’s a model that already fits with some branches of the Murdoch empire: the Sky News web site or some of News International’s free book publishing web sites for example are free to access with no plans for paid content.

Open access is clearly preferred to that of closed paid only journalism. But his examples suggest that a mix of the two models is a more likely scenario. The suspicion remains that there is more to the onslaught on the BBC than a discussion of the merits of paid content or free web content alone.

A good lecture that made some fine use of multimedia. Better signposting throughout would have made for easier following.

King’s Speech Calls For Lower Pay

Tuesday, January 26th, 2010
Mervyn King Bank of England Governor

Mervyn King, Governor, Bank of England

Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England, has added his advice and opinion to the Treasury Select Committee tasked with investigating options for banking reform. Perhaps the committee is feeling left behind after the recent speeches by Barack Obama. These outlined first how banks would have to pay for the costs incurred in their rescue in 2008 and secondly how banks would be reformed, or prohibited from some “irregular” activities.

The Governor seems to share the concerns and direction taken by the President. His speech to the Select Committee contained several possible initiatives aimed at alleviating risk.

But his speech did not spell out how this country has grown dependent on the risk-taking initiative of the financial sector. Fine oratory with the benefits of hindsight is one matter. Determining public policy that encourages risk, endeavour and progress is another. The Governor should be mindful that private risk taking and wealth generation means that he gets paid every month.

Let’s note that the ultra-cautious tone set into the speeches of Mervyn King and his colleague, Andrew Haldane is anticipated behaviour. Central bankers are paid to be cautious. They are paid to be defensive. But they are not necessarily the ideal proponents of a new global banking regime. Heavens, no.

Obama: I’ll Never Stop Fighting

Monday, January 25th, 2010
Barack Obama Speech

Barack Obama Speaking

A hard-hitting speech from the President in Elyria, Ohio signaled the fighting spirit of the Administration after the loss of the Democrat Senate seat in Massachusetts last week. A classic town hall speech at the Lorain County Community College in Elyria, Ohio gave the President a perfect platform for some impressive rhetorical flourishes.

In a captivating speech his most memorable section was a multi-part position taker. Here the President noted the comments about health care reform and Massachusetts before explaining that the focus wasn’t him…but you, the audience. This then allowed the President to present a range of issues in terms of his audience…and allowed him to repeat the aphorism…”I’ll never stop fighting.” And repeat it he did. Eight times in this format and several times in other word sequences.

Altogether, the repetition made for audience impact; noting the President’s support for his grass roots voters and their central position in the political arguments. Well-worked stuff, indeed.

Speech Prompts Worldwide Sell-Off in Financial Sector

Friday, January 22nd, 2010
Wall Street

Wall Street Financial District

Central Bank figures such as Ben Bernanke or Mervyn King are attentive to the perils and pitfalls of public speaking when all the eyes and ears of the world’s financial community are attuned to their every word.

So had President Obama anticipated plummeting share values when he chose to speak yesterday about new measures for the US financial community?

Only the previous week he had outlined much-anticipated measures to claw back the taxpayer costs of saving many of the banks in the 2007 2008 period. That was anticipated, expected and accepted. Share prices were unperturbed.

But these new measures were not expected. Certainly the lobbying efforts indicated that they were contrary to the bankers’ interests. So to whom do they appeal?

Voters.

A speech that outlines prohibitions on bank activities such as proprietary trading or hedge-fund ownership appeals to a certain core vote; maybe the core vote that deserted the Democrats in the late Edward Kennedy’s Senatorial seat in Massachusetts?

Courting populist votes in a key speech is one thing. But hitting the banks hard in areas that weren’t responsible for the financial meltdown in 2007 2008 is another. Perhaps when he sees the immediate effects of his speech on the financial markets the President might be more circumspect in how he communicates such measures in future? There’s more to this speech than meets the eye.