There are three basic steps (call them ingredients) to
assembling a good presentation: the analysis, the conclusion and the
recommendation.
However, a presenter must not always do all three. He can do
only the analysis and the conclusion, and let the audience decide what the
recommendation should be. He can even do only the analysis, and let the
audience draw its own conclusion as well as make the recommendation it feels is
appropriate.
This does not mean the form of all presentations must look
exactly the same. In fact, every presenter––be it a lecturer standing behind a
lectern or a writer sitting at his desk––can compose his work anyway he wants.
But for the presentation to appeal to the intellect, it must include one or
more of those ingredients. And the presenter must indicate that it is left up
to the audience to draw its conclusion and/or make its recommendation.
On the other hand, creativity allows an artist to violate
that rule so as to assemble a piece of work that carries a message to impress
the audience at the emotional level rather than address it at the intellectual
level. The risk is that if the presenter chooses the artistic route and misses
the mark, he'll be seen to have produced a shoddy piece of work called rant. It
will satisfy neither the emotions nor the mind of the audience.
The latest column by Clifford D. May is a creation that
shows how to write a shoddy piece of work. It came under the title: “Ranking
America's enemies” and was published on January 30, 2018 in The Washington
Times. It is a hodgepodge collage of fragmentary ideas that do not add up to a
coherent line of thought or a string of related emotions. Cobbled together, the
fragments look like a labyrinth that may have no exit.
The author began by saying he was prompted to write the
column because the Pentagon had just released a document expressing the vision
of Secretary of Defense James Mattis in matters concerning the defense of America against such powers as China and Russia . May praised Mr. Mattis, and
said a few good words about his vision but then added this: “That's
forward-looking. So what's making me nervous?” And he answered that not enough
attention was given to North
Korea in that document.
This marks the point at which Clifford May begins his core
argument. So you're anxious to know if he'll give an analysis of the current
situation; if he'll follow with a conclusion, and if he'll recommend a course
of action. Failing this, you're open to being impressed by an appeal to your
emotions – but only just a little – given the gravity of the subject that's
being discussed. So here is how May starts his core argument.
“The hermit kingdom is a threat to the United States .
The dynasty developed nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them. Soon, Kim
Jong-un, the pudgy 30-something dictator with the street-gang haircut, will
have the ability to vaporize an American city”.
The fact that Clifford May started his argument with the use
of grotesque images to paint an unflattering portrait of the antagonist, says
that he intends to appeal to the emotional side of the audience rather than its
intellect. Also, by using the language of demagoguery to tell how evil and
dangerous Kim Jong-un is, the writer has signaled that anything he claims to be
fact must be taken with a grain of salt.
Furthermore, May goes on to assert something he cannot
possibly defend. It is this: “The Soviets were rational. They'd suffered during
World War II. They understood that a nuclear exchange would leave no winners.
I'm not confident we have any insight into the psyche of a dictator”.
Anyone that studied the history of that time knows that if
the Soviets suffered an inch during World War II, the Koreans suffered a mile
in that same war and the one that followed shortly thereafter on the Peninsula.
More than the Soviets who enjoyed military parity with the Americans, the
Koreans know full well that in a nuclear confrontation with America , they
will be wiped out in minutes.
Thus, for Clifford May to make an assertion of that kind, is
to mouth off an absurdity. And when he follows the absurdity with the admission
that he has no insight in the psyche of that man, he shows himself to blurt out
assertions before engaging his brain. His presentation is a total flop.
May ends his presentation by asking the Congress to provide
Mr. Mattis with the funds he needs to accomplish “this most important mission
of his life”.