Smoke and Mirrors

Let’s face it; we’ve all been fooled at some time. The question is, how do we know we’ve been fooled?

Famous illusionist - David Copperfield once said, “The real secret of magic lies in the performance”.

It’s important to remember, that David Copperfield uses a stage crew, is a meticulous planner and performs to entertain people.

David Copperfield. Source: Las Vegas Review Journal.

This blog is about modern speech making – impressive presentations and how smoke and mirrors are used to present a particular image to fool an audience’s perception. 

But firstly, what is a speech?  Is it an announcement, is it a media release?  To me, it encompasses situations where the presentation has been prepared prior to its delivery.

Obviously when watching an illusionist, we’re expecting to be wowed or deceived.... conversely, could the same be said when watching politicians giving a speech? 

We probably expect politicians to be fairly boring because the subjects they present are serious in nature.   Politicians are not immune to using trickery, although their techniques can be more manipulative than David Copperfields’. 

Take the recent example of Prime Minister Ardern wearing a hi-jab when addressing the family members and victims of the Christchurch Muslim Massacre.

Prime Minister Ardern. Source: TVNZ (2019).

The intention was calculated.  It was designed to portray sympathy, understanding, acceptance and respect. On the other hand, some could argue that it was an attempt to accrue support for her political agendas.

Many said she showed ‘good leadership’ in her handling of the aftermath. Her opponents may say, confronting the issues before they reach crisis point would define better leadership.

Would this be considered trickery?  Is this smoke and mirrors? 

The term smoke and mirrors comes from Phantasmagoria shows during the late 1700s. Smoke was used to create a mysterious atmosphere and lights projected gory images onto screens using mirrors.

These days the term smoke and mirrors has come to suggest deception or obscuring the truth. The phrase is often used to describe political tactics which aim to distract, deflect, deny, minimise or blame. This tactic is usually employed to avoid taking responsibility for something or to bring another party into disrepute.

Words and language are constantly evolving, and the way speeches are received has changed also.

The rise of the internet and availability of information allows us to view almost any speech uploaded or even watch them live while sitting at the beach.  We can do this from our mobile devices and we’re more connected now than ever in human history. 

TED Talks have become a thing and social media platforms have given rise to a new generation of DIY presenters who aim to gain more followers for their causes.

Speeches have shifted from monologues to become more like illustrated conversations.  Presenters often use informal language to connect with an audience and hook them in with questions to make them feel part of the conversation. Presenters also make their points visual through the use of graphics, text, animation and video. 

These days, people online tend to move from one item to another, so getting the point across swiftly fits with our ‘clickable culture’.

Greta Thunberg. Source: Swedes in the States (2018).

In 2018 at the United Nations Climate Change Conference, 15 year old Greta Thunberg presented a striking speech which she read from her script.

What was good about it?

It was a short punchy speech with no visual aids.

I was impressed by her speech because she was passionate, it was spoken clearly, delivered at slow pace with pauses and had a strong message.

She used statements that stir the conscience, such as...... ‘’You’re not mature enough to tell it like it is........ even that burden you leave to us children’’.

Greta used vivid metaphors and examples to support her ideas.

Her mannerisms were captivating, she made powerful eye gestures; with her head tilted she conveyed an air of vulnerability and innocence.

How could you not believe someone who seems so innocent and vulnerable?

Due to her age, the audience might feel a desire to protect her and feel guilty or shameful for contributing to the problems she addresses.

Was Greta using smoke and mirrors?

Let’s go a little deeper and take a look.

Our perception of what is ‘good’ is influenced by our beliefs.

We tend to believe things in varying degrees; therefore, beliefs could be understood as being on a spectrum. Usually we only take action in varying degrees, hence, the greater our belief, the more committed we are to take action.

For instance, Greta strongly believes that climate change has been caused by humans; therefore she’s taken strong action to raise awareness of the issues surrounding it.

On top of this, we tend to have cognitive biases that align with our beliefs.  Our biases keep us in our circles so we can be validated by those around us who’re saying similar things.

For instance, you may think climate change is a hoax... or merely a naturally occurring cyclic event. Therefore it makes sense to maintain relationships with those who’re like minded.

For those who believe that climate change is caused by humans, Greta’s speech would seem very convincing, factual and powerful because it aligns with their thinking.

On the other hand, would the energy sector that relies on continued profits from burning fossil fuel find her speech convincing?

Probably not.

Would they try to discredit her and twist the meaning behind her actions to influence public perception?

Quite likely.

The use of devious methods to manipulate situations and engineer consent is by no means new. Propaganda has been developed in various forms to influence public perception for centuries.

Many psychological theories have been folded into the mix which can appeal to our unconscious desires and egocentric imperatives. Political party’s team up with corporations and employ such tactics to lasso our subconscious cravings. They want to gain our attention and get us on their side.

Politicians use influencing speeches to make us take action and to rally behind an idea. Depending on our values and beliefs, we can be persuaded to take on new versions of these, especially when we sense a connection and feel validated in our stance. The government and corporations work collectively to convince us that ‘they know best’ and have ‘our best interests’ at heart.

But do they really have our best interest at heart?  And how do we know that it’s not all smoke and mirrors?

As Noam Chomsky once said “The general public doesn’t know what’s happening, and it doesn’t even know.... what it doesn’t know”.

Noam Chomsky Quote. Source: Addicting Info (2012).

For instance, when a political party takes a stance against immigration, they know they’re going to attract those who believe that immigration is a causal factor regarding social infrastructure and jobs.

This is exemplified by the New Zealand First party leader, Winston Peters, who uses this idea to suck people into his election trap.

He knows that we have differing views on this issue and he works to emphasize these impacts upon society. Housing prices and homelessness are a sore point nationwide.

Mr Peters provides some rationale in his speeches to influence those who may be unsure about the perils of rampant immigration. This however could be perceived as manipulating the truth, as what we perceive to be true also depends on our cognitive biases.

Discourse analysis can explain how we become attuned to seeing a new reality when one is presented before us. If the new reality fits within our beliefs, we can attach to it and it becomes part of our shared culture and identity.

How language, behaviour and props are used to portray a certain picture becomes a crucial element when trying to influence an audience.

Winston Peters. Source: YouTube (2017).

For instance, Mr Peters presented a speech in 2017 to an audience and begins by saying,  “Now we’re a political party who have been described as being anti immigrant, it’s a terrible lie of course told by our opponents”.

Discrediting those who oppose the stated doctrine could be seen as unethical, yet it’s a common tactic in political speech making.  In a way, this is smoke and mirrors because like many politicians, he is able to deflect criticism from himself and his party by discrediting his opponents.

In doing this, the audience is lead away from the real issue by the manipulative speech maker who twists words.

What makes Winston Peters a good speech maker? 

His personality and charisma have a lot to do with it.  He cracks occasional jokes. He trades on his longevity in politics. 

People listen to what he says - whether they agree or not because he’s interesting to watch. He uses facial gestures at just the right moment, much like a well trained actor who’s played their role in a long running series.

He’s become one with his character and his character has become him. He’s a likable rouge who’s confident in his role. And confidence is the currency for politicians.

Whether reading a speech or delivering off the cuff comments, Mr Peters comes across as being solid and unflappable. And he does smile quite often.

The antithesis of Mr Peters could be Simon Bridges....  The current leader of the National Party......

Simon Bridges. Source: NZ Herald (2019).

Mr Bridges tends to deliver effective presentations when reading from a script; nonetheless, he appears to struggle when responding to random questions. 

In my opinion, speeches and interviews are both opportunities to convey messages..... Conversely, being seen to respond to random questions in an interview can amplify an ability to deal with spontaneous situations in a masterful manner.

Mr Bridges delivers speeches using an air of confidence, his body upright, making occasional eye contact. He possesses a degree of charm yet at the same time, comes across shaky during interviews.

This transmits a sentiment of unease that could be interpreted as deceptiveness which then breeds a sense of mistrust. He’s a relative new comer to politics so he’ll probably become more comfortable in his role over time.

I believe speeches are merely a formalised format for transmitting information or sentiment, however, responding to questions requires more brain power, wit and creativity.

Does this mean speech makers must resort to using deceptive measures to manage public perceptions?

I don’t think so.

Making a speech that imparts ideas that connects with the audience is what my speech is about.......... Smoke and mirrors is merely a term for deceptive tactics that aim to distract or hide the truth. Throughout history, those who deceive are usually caught out and left to bathe in their bad deeds.  

Let’s face it, it’s unethical to lie and cover up the truth.

Chris Anderson. Source YouTube (2016).

When it comes to making an impressive speech, head of TED Talk, Chris Anderson suggests there are just four things to consider.

1. Focus on one major idea (make it poignant and vivid so people can picture it and thread the idea throughout the presentation).

2. Give the audience a reason to care about your idea (stir their curiosity, ask provoking questions, reveal the disconnection between the idea and their world view..... then motivate them to understand it).

3. Build the idea with familiar concepts using common language and metaphors.

4. Make the idea worth sharing, ask yourself: Who does this idea benefit? (Believing in the idea passionately and conveying this will inspire the audience).

The audience needs to believe.... that the idea can help them... in some way.

You don’t need to be David Copperfield to entertain and deceive the crowd. Meticulous planning and preparation can make for an impressive presentation without the need smoke and mirrors.