论文部分内容阅读
Speechwriters are rarely figures of public note. The job is more often than not a quiet grind. Americans are predisposed to distrust the words that leave the lips of politicians， and the opacity of the speechwriting process can heighten those suspicions. Here are some misconceptions about our role.
MYTH NO. 1 Politicians are puppets.
Richard Nixon—who was out-orated and ultimately defeated by John F. Kennedy in 1960—dismissed JFK as a “puppet who echoed his speechmaker，” the great Ted Sorensen. The charge didn’t stick; Kennedy’s natural eloquence and wit were apparent in every ad-lib.
“Are some public officials simply mouthpieces？” wonders Kathleen Hall Jamieson， who teaches political communications at the University of Pennsylvania. It’s not unreasonable to assume that if someone isn’t writing for himself， he’s not thinking for himself.
Yes， something consequential was lost when political leaders abandoned the practice of working out their thoughts on paper， as Abraham Lincoln did. Writing， for him， was how he clarified his beliefs and determined a course of action. Still， it’s wrong to assume that today’s politicians are mere puppets or parrots. Speechwriting， for the most part， is intensely collaborative： Writers and speakers trade outlines and drafts， reconsider the flow or the focus of an argument， refine （and sometimes ruin） a good line.
MYTH NO. 2 Speechwriters are stenographers.
When speechwriters aren’t portrayed as puppet-masters， they’re seen as note-takers—transcribers—who record and then polish what the speaker provides. At a White House party on the evening of the 1997 State of the Union address， Clinton threw his arm around Michael Waldman， his chief speechwriter， and introduced him to a guest as one of “the guys who typed my speech.” The verb was not incidental. Many politicians have ambivalent relationships with their speechwriters—relying on them while resenting that fact. “I used to write my own speeches， you know，” Ronald Reagan once reminded Peggy Noonan.
However， smart speakers demand more than a stenographer. Elected officials have policy and political advisers， and the most effective speechwriters conduct themselves as speech advisers—making recommendations about the form， content， purpose and intended audience of remarks. Sam Rosenman， who wrote speeches for Franklin Roosevelt， said that FDR “expected us to criticize and argue with him， and to suggest changes in language and ideas.” Any writer who didn’t， Rosenman added， was “useless to” Roosevelt and “might as well go home.” MYTH NO. 3 “Off the cuff” means “from the heart.”
One of the weirdest obsessions of the Republican Party—is a piece of technology more than 60 years old： the teleprompter. The GOP is opposed to it. True， many Republicans use one， but the party’s semi-official position was articulated by Fred Davis， a media strategist， in 2011： A teleprompter， he said， is “a sign of inauthenticity. It’s a sign that you can’t speak on your own two feet.”
Anti-teleprompterism is not purely cynical; it reflects a widespread frustration with contrivance in politics. We have come to equate “off the cuff” with “from the heart，” as a former White House colleague of mine has put it. Which is just silly. Much of what Donald Trump blurts out is demonstrably false， while a well-crafted speech can be deeply revealing. Consider Steve Jobs’s commencement speech at Stanford University in 2005， in which he spoke about “love and loss” and living with cancer. He read it from a sheet of paper—though it wouldn’t have been any less genuine if he’d read it from a screen.
MYTH NO. 4 We can’t believe a word they’re saying.
Our collective skepticism—to put it politely—about the truth of what politicians have to say is well grounded in the betrayals of the past half-century， from the “light at the end of the tunnel” in Vietnam2 to the Watergate break-in and coverup， the Iran-contra3 scandal and the Lewinsky affair.
This kind of chicanery has become commonplace in politics. Yet observers might be surprised by the conscientiousness of most public servants， or by the scope and serious-mindedness of the fact-checking operation in the White House or a typical campaign. Data is checked and rechecked by the economic team; anecdotes are thoroughly vetted and scrapped if they seem suspect; grand claims are qualified in ways that result in accurate， if sometimes awkward， phrase-making. Clinton wanted to set a goal in his 2000 State of the Union address of making America the safest country in the world. He had to settle for “the safest big country in the world”; senior policy advisers warned that the United States was never going to top little Iceland or Denmark. ■
演說写手是鲜为公众关注的群体，这项工作通常都是默默的苦差：本来，政客一开口，美国人民就心生疑窦，加之撰稿的过程不透明，就更令人疑窦丛生了。这里说说人们对我们写手作用的误解。
迷思一：政治人物是线偶。
1960年，理查德·尼克松在辩论中输给约翰·F.肯尼迪，后在选举中败北。他把肯尼迪贬为“演说写手的应声线偶”，这位写手就是牛人泰德·索伦森。但尼克松的说法站不住脚，每一次即兴演说中，肯尼迪天生的口才和机智显而易见。
宾西法尼亚大学教授政治传播课的凯瑟琳·霍尔·贾米森提出一个问题，“有些官员是否仅为传声筒？”若说一个人不亲自捉笔，思想就不是他自己的，也不是没有道理。 确实，政治领袖不再自己动笔整理思想，是个重大缺憾。亚伯拉罕·林肯就不同，对他来说，动笔是阐明观点和决定行动方向的方法。但如果把当今政治人物说成提线木偶或学舌鹦鹉，那也不对。总体而言，写演讲稿是需要高度配合的工作：写手与演说人交流提纲和草稿，推敲论证逻辑或重点，打磨（有时是毁掉）金句。
迷思之二：演说写手是记录员。
写手不是被当成木偶提线人，就是被看作记录员，抄抄写写，记录演说者所言，然后再加以润饰。1997年国情咨文演说后的白宫晚会上，克林顿揽住他的演说主笔麦克尔·瓦尔德曼，向一位来宾介绍：“我的讲话，是他们敲出来的。”用“敲”字并非偶然，许多政治人物与演说写手的关系很矛盾——离不开写手，却又耿耿于怀。罗纳德·里根有一次提醒佩姬·努南，“要知道，以前的讲话稿可是我自己写的”。
但精明的演说人要的可不仅仅是个记录员。当选官员手下都有政策和政治顾问，那些演说撰稿高手会把自己经营成演说顾问——从演说的形式和内容，到演说目的和目标受众，他们都会给出建议。效力于富兰克林·罗斯福的山姆·罗森曼说，罗斯福“希望我们对他的观点进行批评和争论，对语言和观点提出修改意见”。罗森曼还说，如果不这么做，那么这个人对罗斯福就“百无一用”，“很可能得走人”。
迷思三：即席讲话等于真心话。
一项已有60多年历史的技术一直让共和党纠结不已，这就是提词器。共和党是反对用提词器的。不错，许多共和党人在用，但媒体谋士弗雷德·戴维斯在2011年阐述了该党的半官方立场。他说，提词器“透着假，说明你没有脱稿讲话的本事”。
反对提词器倒不纯属吹毛求疵，只是反映出人们已普遍反感政治中的造作。我的一位前白宫同事说，我们已经开始把“即席”与“真心”画上了等号。这简直荒谬：特朗普张口就来，但显然讲的很多都不靠谱;而一篇精心写就的演说却能发人深省。乔布斯2005年在斯坦福大学开学典礼上的演讲就是一例，他谈到“爱与失”，讲述了与癌症共存的经历。演讲时他拿的是纸稿，但若换成提词屏，那种真诚也丝毫不会减弱。
迷思四：政客的话，一个字也不能信。
对政客言辞真实性的集体怀疑（这是客气的说法）是有充分理由的。过去半个世纪，我们屡屡遭到背叛，从越战中“隧道尽头看到光亮”的承诺到水门事件中的入室窃听偷拍未遂和事后种种掩饰，从伊朗门事件到莱温斯基性丑闻。
此类骗局在政界已成家常便饭。但如果了解大多数公务人员是有良知的人，了解白宫或正常竞选中核查事实时的投入和较真，那么观察家们可能会感到意外。经济团队会反复核实数据;各种轶闻会彻底查证，存疑者弃之不用;重要提法会进行定性，以求造词准确，尽管有时让人觉得别扭。2000年，克林顿在国情咨文中提出要把美国建成世界上最安全的国家，但资深幕僚们说，这一方面美国永远也赶不上小小的冰岛或丹麦，克林顿最后只好接受“世界上最安全的大国”这一措辞。 □
（譯者为“《英语世界》杯”翻译大赛获奖者）
1杰夫·谢索尔曾任克林顿总统的演说写手。
2 1967年，随着美军伤亡日渐增多，美国国内反战声浪越来越大，而约翰逊总统、白宫高官乃至美军援越司令部指挥官却都乐观地宣称，越南战争正在到达一个转折点，美国正在赢得战争（“We are winning”）。1967年11月21日，威廉·威斯特摩兰将军（Gen. William Westmoreland）在演讲中说，已经看到了“胜利的曙光”（light at the end of the tunnel）。1968年1月31日凌晨3时，北越发动了规模空前的春节攻势（Tet Offensive），对南越几乎所有的大小城市发起进攻，让美国和南越军队猝不及防。对战持续数月，导致美国人对越南战争彻底丧失信心，威斯特摩兰和约翰逊关于“胜利即将到来”的承诺便成了笑话。 3“伊朗门”是指发生在美国80年代中期的政治丑闻。里根政府向伊朗秘密出售武器，将军火交易得到的3000万美元转移到尼加拉瓜反政府武装（Contra）手中，此事被揭露后造成严重政治危机。因新闻界将其与尼克松水门事件相比，故此亦称为伊朗门事件（Irangate）。
MYTH NO. 1 Politicians are puppets.
Richard Nixon—who was out-orated and ultimately defeated by John F. Kennedy in 1960—dismissed JFK as a “puppet who echoed his speechmaker，” the great Ted Sorensen. The charge didn’t stick; Kennedy’s natural eloquence and wit were apparent in every ad-lib.
“Are some public officials simply mouthpieces？” wonders Kathleen Hall Jamieson， who teaches political communications at the University of Pennsylvania. It’s not unreasonable to assume that if someone isn’t writing for himself， he’s not thinking for himself.
Yes， something consequential was lost when political leaders abandoned the practice of working out their thoughts on paper， as Abraham Lincoln did. Writing， for him， was how he clarified his beliefs and determined a course of action. Still， it’s wrong to assume that today’s politicians are mere puppets or parrots. Speechwriting， for the most part， is intensely collaborative： Writers and speakers trade outlines and drafts， reconsider the flow or the focus of an argument， refine （and sometimes ruin） a good line.
MYTH NO. 2 Speechwriters are stenographers.
When speechwriters aren’t portrayed as puppet-masters， they’re seen as note-takers—transcribers—who record and then polish what the speaker provides. At a White House party on the evening of the 1997 State of the Union address， Clinton threw his arm around Michael Waldman， his chief speechwriter， and introduced him to a guest as one of “the guys who typed my speech.” The verb was not incidental. Many politicians have ambivalent relationships with their speechwriters—relying on them while resenting that fact. “I used to write my own speeches， you know，” Ronald Reagan once reminded Peggy Noonan.
However， smart speakers demand more than a stenographer. Elected officials have policy and political advisers， and the most effective speechwriters conduct themselves as speech advisers—making recommendations about the form， content， purpose and intended audience of remarks. Sam Rosenman， who wrote speeches for Franklin Roosevelt， said that FDR “expected us to criticize and argue with him， and to suggest changes in language and ideas.” Any writer who didn’t， Rosenman added， was “useless to” Roosevelt and “might as well go home.” MYTH NO. 3 “Off the cuff” means “from the heart.”
One of the weirdest obsessions of the Republican Party—is a piece of technology more than 60 years old： the teleprompter. The GOP is opposed to it. True， many Republicans use one， but the party’s semi-official position was articulated by Fred Davis， a media strategist， in 2011： A teleprompter， he said， is “a sign of inauthenticity. It’s a sign that you can’t speak on your own two feet.”
Anti-teleprompterism is not purely cynical; it reflects a widespread frustration with contrivance in politics. We have come to equate “off the cuff” with “from the heart，” as a former White House colleague of mine has put it. Which is just silly. Much of what Donald Trump blurts out is demonstrably false， while a well-crafted speech can be deeply revealing. Consider Steve Jobs’s commencement speech at Stanford University in 2005， in which he spoke about “love and loss” and living with cancer. He read it from a sheet of paper—though it wouldn’t have been any less genuine if he’d read it from a screen.
MYTH NO. 4 We can’t believe a word they’re saying.
Our collective skepticism—to put it politely—about the truth of what politicians have to say is well grounded in the betrayals of the past half-century， from the “light at the end of the tunnel” in Vietnam2 to the Watergate break-in and coverup， the Iran-contra3 scandal and the Lewinsky affair.
This kind of chicanery has become commonplace in politics. Yet observers might be surprised by the conscientiousness of most public servants， or by the scope and serious-mindedness of the fact-checking operation in the White House or a typical campaign. Data is checked and rechecked by the economic team; anecdotes are thoroughly vetted and scrapped if they seem suspect; grand claims are qualified in ways that result in accurate， if sometimes awkward， phrase-making. Clinton wanted to set a goal in his 2000 State of the Union address of making America the safest country in the world. He had to settle for “the safest big country in the world”; senior policy advisers warned that the United States was never going to top little Iceland or Denmark. ■
演說写手是鲜为公众关注的群体，这项工作通常都是默默的苦差：本来，政客一开口，美国人民就心生疑窦，加之撰稿的过程不透明，就更令人疑窦丛生了。这里说说人们对我们写手作用的误解。
迷思一：政治人物是线偶。
1960年，理查德·尼克松在辩论中输给约翰·F.肯尼迪，后在选举中败北。他把肯尼迪贬为“演说写手的应声线偶”，这位写手就是牛人泰德·索伦森。但尼克松的说法站不住脚，每一次即兴演说中，肯尼迪天生的口才和机智显而易见。
宾西法尼亚大学教授政治传播课的凯瑟琳·霍尔·贾米森提出一个问题，“有些官员是否仅为传声筒？”若说一个人不亲自捉笔，思想就不是他自己的，也不是没有道理。 确实，政治领袖不再自己动笔整理思想，是个重大缺憾。亚伯拉罕·林肯就不同，对他来说，动笔是阐明观点和决定行动方向的方法。但如果把当今政治人物说成提线木偶或学舌鹦鹉，那也不对。总体而言，写演讲稿是需要高度配合的工作：写手与演说人交流提纲和草稿，推敲论证逻辑或重点，打磨（有时是毁掉）金句。
迷思之二：演说写手是记录员。
写手不是被当成木偶提线人，就是被看作记录员，抄抄写写，记录演说者所言，然后再加以润饰。1997年国情咨文演说后的白宫晚会上，克林顿揽住他的演说主笔麦克尔·瓦尔德曼，向一位来宾介绍：“我的讲话，是他们敲出来的。”用“敲”字并非偶然，许多政治人物与演说写手的关系很矛盾——离不开写手，却又耿耿于怀。罗纳德·里根有一次提醒佩姬·努南，“要知道，以前的讲话稿可是我自己写的”。
但精明的演说人要的可不仅仅是个记录员。当选官员手下都有政策和政治顾问，那些演说撰稿高手会把自己经营成演说顾问——从演说的形式和内容，到演说目的和目标受众，他们都会给出建议。效力于富兰克林·罗斯福的山姆·罗森曼说，罗斯福“希望我们对他的观点进行批评和争论，对语言和观点提出修改意见”。罗森曼还说，如果不这么做，那么这个人对罗斯福就“百无一用”，“很可能得走人”。
迷思三：即席讲话等于真心话。
一项已有60多年历史的技术一直让共和党纠结不已，这就是提词器。共和党是反对用提词器的。不错，许多共和党人在用，但媒体谋士弗雷德·戴维斯在2011年阐述了该党的半官方立场。他说，提词器“透着假，说明你没有脱稿讲话的本事”。
反对提词器倒不纯属吹毛求疵，只是反映出人们已普遍反感政治中的造作。我的一位前白宫同事说，我们已经开始把“即席”与“真心”画上了等号。这简直荒谬：特朗普张口就来，但显然讲的很多都不靠谱;而一篇精心写就的演说却能发人深省。乔布斯2005年在斯坦福大学开学典礼上的演讲就是一例，他谈到“爱与失”，讲述了与癌症共存的经历。演讲时他拿的是纸稿，但若换成提词屏，那种真诚也丝毫不会减弱。
迷思四：政客的话，一个字也不能信。
对政客言辞真实性的集体怀疑（这是客气的说法）是有充分理由的。过去半个世纪，我们屡屡遭到背叛，从越战中“隧道尽头看到光亮”的承诺到水门事件中的入室窃听偷拍未遂和事后种种掩饰，从伊朗门事件到莱温斯基性丑闻。
此类骗局在政界已成家常便饭。但如果了解大多数公务人员是有良知的人，了解白宫或正常竞选中核查事实时的投入和较真，那么观察家们可能会感到意外。经济团队会反复核实数据;各种轶闻会彻底查证，存疑者弃之不用;重要提法会进行定性，以求造词准确，尽管有时让人觉得别扭。2000年，克林顿在国情咨文中提出要把美国建成世界上最安全的国家，但资深幕僚们说，这一方面美国永远也赶不上小小的冰岛或丹麦，克林顿最后只好接受“世界上最安全的大国”这一措辞。 □
（譯者为“《英语世界》杯”翻译大赛获奖者）
1杰夫·谢索尔曾任克林顿总统的演说写手。
2 1967年，随着美军伤亡日渐增多，美国国内反战声浪越来越大，而约翰逊总统、白宫高官乃至美军援越司令部指挥官却都乐观地宣称，越南战争正在到达一个转折点，美国正在赢得战争（“We are winning”）。1967年11月21日，威廉·威斯特摩兰将军（Gen. William Westmoreland）在演讲中说，已经看到了“胜利的曙光”（light at the end of the tunnel）。1968年1月31日凌晨3时，北越发动了规模空前的春节攻势（Tet Offensive），对南越几乎所有的大小城市发起进攻，让美国和南越军队猝不及防。对战持续数月，导致美国人对越南战争彻底丧失信心，威斯特摩兰和约翰逊关于“胜利即将到来”的承诺便成了笑话。 3“伊朗门”是指发生在美国80年代中期的政治丑闻。里根政府向伊朗秘密出售武器，将军火交易得到的3000万美元转移到尼加拉瓜反政府武装（Contra）手中，此事被揭露后造成严重政治危机。因新闻界将其与尼克松水门事件相比，故此亦称为伊朗门事件（Irangate）。