Let the dirty tricks begin.

The not so secret “secret” is out.  Not only do they not write their own stuff, they often don’t even read it until it is presented on the teleprompter.

In a simpler age this would not have been a problem.  You trusted the person who actually penned the words, that he or she had captured your positions and crafted a speech that accurately reflected your views on whatever subject was being presented.  As a presenter or candidate your only task was to read those words aloud and deliver them with force and fervor, bringing to life the thoughts they expressed.

The Republican nominee for president has often been castigated by his party’s insider elite for not using the teleprompter, for delivering his thoughts off the cuff, almost in a stream of consciousness fashion.  Perhaps he was on to something.  No one has yet devised a method to hack into the brain and change the thoughts as they form.

I feel sorry for Mrs. Trump, she is a victim in this piece.  She, along with the two speechwriters, the one who wrote the actual speech she was to deliver and that writer from 2008 who crafted the speech delivered by Mrs. Obama.

This entire speech fiasco points to a larger problem, that of the reliance we have placed on our computer devices.  It would not take a high degree of sophistication to hack into an unprotected teleprompter and change the words of a speech.  By the same token it wouldn’t take a super intelligent hacker to gain access to any private, non-secure server we might have stashed in our basement.  At either extreme we are foolish if we fail to take steps to protect ourselves from those who would do us harm.

It is at our own peril that we embrace the positive aspects brought to us by the computer age but ignore the negative uses to which the technology can be employed by those with evil intent.

We will not return to the days when a politician actually wrote his own speeches, the public now demands a higher level of sophistication and polish in political rhetoric.  The very best that we can expect is that the person delivering a speech actually study the words that they have paid good money to have written, at least to the point that they will be able to recognize it if the teleprompter is showing them something different.

About rixlibris


18 Responses to MELANIA’S SPEECH

  1. Her speech writers should have done better especially in these fraught political days. They simply slacked off and exposed her to all the ruckus.

  2. Pingback: Featured Posts 103 – Share your posts. | a cooking pot and twistedtales

    • rixlibris says:

      Thoughts on plagiarism? Totally opposed. There are rules governing fair usage and, if you wish to use something written by another person, it should always be attributed to the original writer. As to the subject of speech writing in general, I researched it a bit for the blog and am amazed at the size and scope of the industry. One factoid, in 2007 Barack Obama’s staff speech writer earned over $170,000 per year and had an assistant earning over $40,000. I no longer think that poetry is the way to go.

  3. Reblogged this on and commented:
    This definitely seems to be the topic of the week! 🙂
    Note: Comments disabled here. Please visit their blog.

  4. Erica Herd says:

    Point well-taken. I heard that she re-wrote the original speech and didn’t tell anyone.

    • rixlibris says:

      The spin never stops. Now the story is that an aide, Meredith McIver did the dastardly deed. The little lady fell onto her, well not sword, perhaps butter knife, for the cause.
      The closest analogy that I can think of when it comes to political speechwriting is that the emperor has no clothes. We are not supposed to know that quite often the person giving the speech is actually reading it for the first time from the teleprompter. Writing speeches, and the adjuncts to it, is a multi-billion dollar industry that makes or breaks careers, and like the Wizard of Oz, seeks to remain behind the curtain.

  5. You are completely right. People from every side want to offer reasons why not to vote for the other because they’re ALL plastic and duct tape. Plagiarism is the sign, it’s just laziness. I could write better original speeches than any of them, but I don’t trust the candidates. And I’d be putting the lies into their mouths, and am I prepared to deal with my conscience after that? I don’t think so. As for it being a better line of work, I agree, the pay is better. Enough I would write my own original words and not just cut and paste.~DM

  6. Ther is SO much people don’t knowe about what goes on in the nedia. Of coure the politicians don’t writie their own speeches, nor do Mayors, or the newscasters or the presenters, actors etc etc you see on TV or hear on the radio. That;s what scriptwriters / speech writers do. I know I did that for 30+ years. Thoser ‘funny’ people on thi=ose shows are simple spewing out what We have written for them.

    • rixlibris says:

      Thanks for the comeback and thanks for making my point so eloquently. You are exactly right. When a politician, who just happens to be the president, says in a speech, “you didn’t build that” would it not be fair to answer with, “well, you didn’t write that?” Presenters are paid to introduce someone or something. The origin of the words they speak is of little importance. Actors, by the very nature of their craft, speak words written by someone else. When it comes to politicians and appointed officials we are supposed to believe that what they say to us expresses their own thoughts. With your experience you know that this is not always the case. Not to pick on President Obama but he is a perfect case in point. The difference in speech patterns when he is using the teleprompter or when speaking extemporaneously is profound, as has been often noted. When The Donald does his star turn later today I for one will wonder how much of what he says does he really feel and what portion merely reflects the craftsmanship of a talented, and highly paid, wordsmith.

  7. Izrael says:

    Sadly, there are already damage done to her credibility due to the speech. While she might have not wrote it herself, it speaks volume of what happened. We need to constantly check our source materials before putting it up infront of others.

    • rixlibris says:

      So true. That and also to not be so quick to accept responsibility for words you haven’t written, or even read. I noticed that during the run up to Donald Trump’s speech, and for the first time in my memory, the news releases mentioned “input” from professional writers.

  8. amommasview says:

    Interesting… I have not heard of that one… So there was an actual original speech?

    • rixlibris says:

      Absolutely, there was. No one in this era writes his or her own speeches, it is a billion dollar industry. The person delivering the speech has most likely supplied the writer with a few talking points and a policy position. The dirty little secret is that many don’t even read the complete text of a speech before it appears live on the teleprompter. If you are not completely familiar with the content prior to reading it before your live audience and someone has inserted foreign material into the body of text then you will not realize that you are reading something other than what is intended. Just for giggles you should google “speechwriters”. Many speechwriters are also “ghost writers” creating books to be sold under the names of well known people. The celeb’s name appears on the cover, his or her fame sells the book, the ghost writer gets paid and the public marvels at the wit and wisdom of their favorite actor or talking head. It’s all smoke and mirrors, my dear.

Leave a Reply to rixlibris Cancel reply


You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s