Videos Mayor Nutter's Budget Speech Contained Several

Videos Mayor Nutter's budget speech contained several effective elements. The mayor is delivering a challenging budget. IN order to deliver this news, he begins with two effective devices. The first is that he rallies the support of the people by pointing out that he is a leader they can trust (had an open house at City Hall) and that the people of Philadelphia had rallied to meet challenges before (picking up trash, etc.). The second effective device was that he wanted to create a sense of urgency about the situation.

In order to deliver bad news, it is important that a sense of urgency is created because it compels the listener to want to act right away, as opposed to delaying action. Thus, the mayor effectively recounts how bad the recession is, and the ways that it has already had a negative effect on the national economy and on the budgets of other major cities in the U.S. One of the ineffective elements of his speech is that he does not use effective use of voice in his speech.

The middle part of the speech, where he discusses specific budget proposals, he lacks specificity on the major points, but goes into detail on employee bonuses, for example. This is relatively dry material for the average taxpayer, but during this time his diction does not change. As a result, the speech drags at this point.

Remembering that the core of the speech is to spur the taxpayer to accept the changes in his budget, the Mayor needs to speak with more energy, and attempt to rally the taxpayer around his proposals. This is tricky, because he is talking about service cuts and pay cuts to his staff, but ultimately the taxpayer is going to tune the mayor out before he reaches what should be a rousing closing.

The Mayor should have omitted some of the details at this point in the speech and focused on energy words and phrases, and continued the strong rallying cry from the beginning of the speech that was so effective. This element is ineffective primarily because the mayor loses track of his audience. He speaks too directly to people concerned with individual issues, and some of what he is talking about would be of interest mostly in response to specific issues.

Thus, while he is effective in the beginning talking to a broad audience using unifying language that stirs emotions in all of the audience members, in the middle part of the speech he becomes too focused on narrow issues. The audience in this case is a general audience, and the ineffectiveness of this section derives from the mayor speaking to a different audience than he started the speech with.

With the $14 billion auto bailout video, there are mostly ineffective elements of speech with few elements that could be considered to be effective. The video was largely ineffective in terms of its content. The news clip did not outline the issue very well. For example, it was never explained why an auto industry bailout would be effective, aside from an allusion to three million jobs.

For a viewer, the nature of the desire for the bailout, and the nature of the Republican Senator's opposition to the bailout plan is not clear. This incomplete reporting makes the issue seem unimportant, or perhaps something of importance to those are in the industry only. This is unfortunate framing of the issue by the media outlet, because the issue involves a massive amount of taxpayer money and represented a fundamental shift in the interaction between government and business in America.

There were few effective elements in the video as a result of that lack of substantive content. The video gave a summary overview of the issue, and reported on the events of the day. That could be regarded as something effective, but without context it was only partially so. Additionally, the narrator failed to imbue any sense of importance to the issue. The narrator is supposed to be objective, so in a sense his dryness was expected and not out of place.

However, the narration was so dry that the debate in the Senate seemed like the usual political wrangling, as opposed to a significant issue that is of national importance. The piece was ineffective largely because it failed to reflect the needs and interests of the audience. In particular, the subject was treated as something that the audience either would not really understand or did not really care about. This led to major pieces.