Writing Boots

On communication, professional and otherwise.

Becks like us: Why all communicators need journalism experience

09.07.2010 by David Murray // 6 Comments

So Glenn Beck acknowledges that, during his "Restoring Honor" speech at the Washington mall, he lied about having held the George Washington inaugural speech in his own hands.

Why did he tell the white whopper? Because "I thought it was a little clumsy to explain" the elaborate document-viewing process at the National Archives.

Saying (with outreached hands and quavering voice) that he actually held the parchment, Beck said, would "be a little easier than to say, 'Yesterday, I went to the National Archives, and they opened up the vault, and they put on their gloves, and then they put it on a tray, and they wheeled it over, and it's all in this hard plastic, and the because you're sitting down at a table and you can't—because of [Former National Security Advisor] Sandy Berger—you can't actually touch any of the documents because they are very rare'…..I thought it was a little clumsy to explain it that way."

This is why experience in journalism is, was and always will be essential to speechwriting and other communication disciplines.

Instead of saying he held the speech in his hands, Beck could have simply said, "I was almost unbelieving as I beheld the actual manuscript with my own eyes." Alternatively, he could have gone deep, describing the document-viewing process in even more detail than he does above (minus the Sandy Berger swipe)—and the reverence he must have felt as the speech was being brought out. That wouldn't have been clumsy. It would have been powerful.

Journalism contains the art of making the most of the facts—not making the facts themselves. It's not saintly—it can be just as manipulative as an outright lie—but it is a crucial career-saving skill for professional communicators like you, me and Glenn Beck.

Categories // Uncategorized Tags // fact-checking, George Washington inaugural, Glenn Beck, National Archives, Restoring Honor

Comments

  1. Kristen says

    September 7, 2010 at 11:04 am

    Maybe it’s because I’ve just come off a four-day long weekend, but I’m not seeing the link you make in this post.
    I agree that the journalistic process, and therefore the training that journalists are given, is valuable in examining, understanding, selecting, and appropriately applying facts to a story.
    But I don’t agree that journalists are the ONLY people who are able to develop and use this skill, so I’m having some trouble with your contention that: “. . .experience in journalism is, was and always will be essential to speechwriting and other communication disciplines.”
    I’m not, and never have been a journalist, nor have I been through journalism school. However, I am scrupulously careful about how I look at, and use facts when I write.
    I want to believe you “meant” to also include ” and communicating effectively in general” in the sentence: “Journalism contains the art of making the most of the facts—not making the facts themselves.”
    Did I misunderstand your point here?

    Reply
  2. David Murray says

    September 7, 2010 at 11:24 am

    Good point, Kristen. I know that you’re scrupulous in sticking with the facts. And I’m sure you’re also inventive in their use. (Which is equally important if you’re going to be interesting.)
    So you prove that these simultaneous skills can be achieved outside of journalism.
    But I continue to think that the practice of journalism–the regular, rigorous attempt to tell interesting stories honestly–is the best and quickest way to teach yourself these skills.
    Why? Because editors are generally tougher graders than communication directors, and mainstream journalism readers are noisier in their objection to dishonest or boring stories than employees.
    In short, if I was hoping to teach someone how to be compelling and honest at the same time, I’d send them to a working journalist before a corporate communicator.
    Unless, of course, you were available.

    Reply
  3. Kristen says

    September 7, 2010 at 11:30 am

    Thanks for the compliment.
    And with your additional clarification, I’m in complete agreement with you. I absolutely wouldn’t argue that an editor is a better teacher on this subject than the average communication director.

    Reply
  4. David Murray says

    September 7, 2010 at 11:32 am

    Well that was easy. Eerily so ….

    Reply
  5. Eileen says

    September 7, 2010 at 1:03 pm

    I agree that was easy. Kristen, are you drinking on the job again?

    Reply
  6. Kristen says

    September 7, 2010 at 2:51 pm

    Excuse me! I am VERY reasonable, and easy to get along with!
    So long as you provide a plausible explanation that makes some semblance of sense, I am willing to be convinced. . . besides, they check us for booze when we come into the office in the morning, so I have to wait until dinner for my glass [or six] of wine!

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Kristen Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Now Available

An Effort to Understand

Order Now

SIGN UP TO RECEIVE BLOG UPDATES

About

David Murray writes on communication issues.
Read More

 

Categories

  • Baby Boots
  • Communication Philosophy
  • Efforts to Understand
  • Happy Men, and Other Eccentrics
  • Human Politicians
  • Mister Boring
  • Murray Cycle Diaries
  • Old Boots
  • Rambling, At Home and Abroad
  • Sports Stories
  • The Quotable Murr
  • Typewriter Truths
  • Uncategorized
  • Weird Scenes Inside the Archives

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Log in

  • Preorder An Effort to Understand
  • Sign Up for Blog Updates
  • About David Murray