Speeches that Inspire, Speeches that Spit Fire
JFK’s most famous speech may have been about going to the moon, but that giant leap was a lot easier to achieve than peace in his (or our) time. Watch these selected excerpts from his “peace speech” at American University, then discuss with your team: is it possible to give a passionate speech about peace, and, if so, does JFK succeed here? Is he naïve about the role of the United States in world affairs? Then consider the speeches listed below and discuss with your team: are they, too, inspirational—or naïve? Can they be both?
​
On June 10, 1963, Kennedy, at the peak of his rhetorical eloquence, and he delivered the commencement address at American University. This significant speech is also known as "A Strategy of Peace". In it, he outlined a a proposal to slow down nuclear arms, but he also "laid out a hopeful, yet realistic route for world peace at a time when the U.S. and Soviet Union faced the potential for an escalating nuclear arms race." Kennedy also announced that the Soviets had expressed a desire to negotiate a nuclear test ban treaty, and that the U.S. had postponed planned atmospheric tests.
​
After the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962, Kennedy was keen to rebuild relationship with the Soviet Union to discourage another threat of nuclear war. Unlike his former speeches about American might in the Cold War, this is an olive branch and signal of peace to USSR. In fact, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev liked this speech so much that he ordered its full Russian translation published in Pravda and Izvestia, which was unprecedented at that time.
​
The speechwriter behind his masterful work is Ted Sorensen, who had been Kennedy's aide since his1952 Massachusetts Senatorial election. By 1963 he had written drafts for nearly every speech Kennedy delivered in office. Common elements of the Kennedy-Sorensen speeches were alliteration, repetition and chiasmus as well as historical references and quotations.
​
Transcript: What kind of a peace do I mean? What kind of a peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and build a better life for their children — not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women — not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.
​
This speech is inspiration for it speaks beyond American ideals and goes against the perception of American world domination. It uses soft power morals to persuade people of all backgrounds. Perhaps the weapons of war are no longer the biggest threats, but the message of men and nations growing remains relevant. Even though it has been more than half a century, it still resonates today.
​​​
Red Jacket (known as Otetiani [Always Ready] in his youth and Sagoyewatha [Keeper Awake] Sa-go-ye-wa-tha as an adult because of his oratorical skills) (c. 1750 – January 20, 1830) was a Seneca orator and chief of the Wolf clan, based in Western New York. On behalf of his nation, he negotiated with the new United States after the American Revolutionary War, when the Seneca as British allies were forced to cede much land following the defeat of the British; he signed the Treaty of Canandaigua (1794). He helped secure some Seneca territory in New York state, although most of his people had migrated to Canada for resettlement after the Paris Treaty. Red Jacket's speech on "Religion for the White Man and the Red" (1805) has been preserved as an example of his great oratorical style.
​
The speech is directed to White Men who are preaching and forcing their religion onto the Native Americans. Red Jackets first explains how their religion which believes in the Great Spirits has led them for many generations to prosper and live
peacefully on the land. Then he describes how the early Puritans came to North America and the Indians befriended them and provided them land and food, however, soon the White immigrants increased dramatically in numbers and took away the Native American's land, claiming they had "found" America. Furthermore, the White settlers believed they are enlightening the Native Americans and saving them through religion. Red Jackets uses pathos, ethos and logos to argue that Native Americans should have their own right to choose their own religion and that they do not perceive Christianity to be the only religion or only right religion. Some of points really stand out and reveal his coherent logic. The message is not one of violence, but rather how can different people from very different backgrounds find common ground to respect each other's choice in religion and not use religion as a way to promote dominance or self-interest.
​
"How do we know this to be true? We understand that your religion is written in a Book. If it was intended for us, as well as you, why has not the Great Spirit given to us, and not only to us, but why did He not give to our forefathers the knowledge of that Book, with the means of understanding it rightly. We only know what you tell us about it. How shall we know when to believe, being so often deceived by the white people?
​
Brother, you say there is but one way to worship and serve the Great Spirit. If there is but one religion, why do you white people differ so much about it? Why not all agreed, as you can all read the Book?"
​
Haile Selassie I （23 July 1892 – 27 August 1975) was Emperor of Ethiopia from 1930 to 1974. Selassie, seeking to modernise Ethiopia, introduced political and social reforms including the 1931 constitution and the abolition of slavery in 1942. He led the empire during the Second Italo-Ethiopian War, and after its defeat was exiled to the United Kingdom. When the Italian occupation of East Africa began, he traveled to Anglo-Egyptian Sudan to coordinate the Ethiopian struggle against Fascist Italy; he returned home after the East African campaign of World War II. As an internationalist, Selassie led Ethiopia's accession to the United Nations.
​
His speech "Appeal to the League of Nations" came after the Italian invasion of Ethiopia on October 3, 1935. The Ethiopian Army was defeated, and Emperor Haile Selassie was exiled first in Palestine and eventually in Great Britain. On June 30, 1936, Emperor Selassie came before the League of Nations in Geneva, Switzerland to plead for assistance. He decried the use of poison gas which killed civilians and soldiers alike and at the end said, “I ask what measures do you intend to take? What reply shall I have to take back to my people?” ​​
​
Haile Selassie spoke with a dignified tone that invokes sympathy and justice for nations to act against the atrocities committed in his country. His language is clear, without flourish, yet powerful and personal. He addresses them about the solemn oath for to protect and honor liberty and human rights, "Also, there has never before been an example of any Government proceeding to the systematic extermination of a nation by barbarous means, in violation of the most solemn promises made by the nations of the earth that there should not be used against innocent human beings the terrible poison of harmful gases. It is to defend a people struggling for its age-old independence that the head of the Ethiopian Empire has come to Geneva to fulfill this supreme duty, after having himself fought at the head of his armies." With vivid imagery he describes the impacts of war on his people, "At the beginning, towards the end of 1935, Italian aircraft hurled upon my armies bombs of tear-gas. Their effects were but slight. The soldiers learned to scatter, waiting until the wind had rapidly dispersed the poisonous gases. The Italian aircraft then resorted to mustard gas. Barrels of liquid were hurled upon armed groups....In order to kill off systematically all living creatures, in order to more surely to poison waters and pastures, the Italian command made its aircraft pass over and over again. That was its chief method of warfare." It exposed crimes that would not have been known and called out the League of Nations to act as they promised. He went further to expose the Italians of deceit in signing the "Treaty of Friendship" of 1928 as a mask to their conquest.
​
He directs his accusation at the League of Nations, in their indifference and lack of action: "The Wal-Wal incident, in December, 1934, came as a thunderbolt to me. The Italian provocation was obvious and I did not hesitate to appeal to the League of Nations. I invoked the provisions of the treaty of 1928, the principles of the Covenant; I urged the procedure of conciliation and arbitration. Unhappily for Ethiopia this was the time when a certain Government considered that the European situation made it imperative at all costs to obtain the friendship of Italy. The price paid was the abandonment of Ethiopian independence to the greed of the Italian Government."
​
He further puts the blame on the League of Nations which promised protection and peace and thus, he and his peole did not prepare for war. "In October, 1935. the 52 nations who are listening to me today gave me an assurance that the aggressor would not triumph, that the resources of the Covenant would be employed in order to ensure the reign of right and the failure of violence....I thought it to be impossible that fifty-two nations, including the most powerful in the world, should be successfully opposed by a single aggressor. Counting on the faith due to treaties, I had made no preparation for war, and that is the case with certain small countries in Europe." In some sense, his words revealed his naivety towards global politics and the cruelties of war. It also questions, is multipolarity the most effective way to avoid conflict. Without a super power at the helm, no matter how many nations were in agreement, peace was not guaranteed. He ends his speech talking about the refusal to help from the League of Nations and how it signals the health of this organization. He worried that his words fell on deaf ears, for he has already witnessed the apathy of the nations towards a small power on the periphery of global economics. For a country without any "hard power" merely have "soft power" in a charismatic leader seems not enough.
​
Sir Robert Gordon Menzies (20 December 1894 – 15 May 1978) was an Australian politician and lawyer who served as the 12th prime minister of Australia from 1939 to 1941 and from 1949 to 1966. At 9.15 pm on a Friday evening in May 1942, Robert Menzies began a radio talk that was to define the shape of post-war Australia. As he spoke, Australian troops were fighting in the Pacific to halt the advancing Japanese. Public bomb shelters were being prepared in Sydney and boats were being moved
from their moorings in Rushcutters Bay because of the threat from Japanese submarines. Yet Menzies spoke not about the war but of an Australia at peace, setting out a vision for a free and prosperous nation in which individuals would be empowered to fulfil their dreams through education and hard work. In this speech, he talks about the class war between the rich and the poor and how he stands for the middle class.
​
"Quite recently, a bishop wrote a letter to a great daily newspaper. His theme was the importance of doing justice to the workers. His belief, apparently, was that the workers are those who work with their hands. He sought to divide the people of Australia into classes.
​
He was obviously suffering from what has for years seemed to me to be our greatest political disease - the disease of thinking that the community is divided into the relatively rich and the relatively idle, and the laborious poor, and that every social and political controversy can be resolved into the question: What side are you on?
​
Now, the last thing that I would want to do is to commence or take part in a false war of this kind. In a country like Australia the class war must always be a false war. But if we are to talk of classes, then the time has come to say something of the forgotten class - the middle class - those people who are constantly in danger of being ground between the upper and the nether millstones of the false war; the middle class who, properly regarded represent the backbone of this country."
​
He goes on to summarize the upper class and lower class, not by nobility, but by rights and resources to take care of themselves. For the middle class he describes them as people like himself: "They are for the most part unorganised and unself-conscious. They are envied by those whose benefits are largely obtained by taxing them. They are not rich enough to have individual power. They are taken for granted by each political party in turn. They are not sufficiently lacking in individualism to be organised for what in these days we call "pressure politics." And yet, as I have said, they are the backbone of the nation."
​
He address the importance for the middle class to unite and strive for a better country, not of ease, but of equality and unity. "The case for the middle class is the case for a dynamic democracy as against the stagnant one. Stagnant waters are level, and in them the scum rises. Active waters are never level: they toss and tumble and have crests and troughs; but the scientists tell us that they purify themselves in a few hundred yards.“ He makes allusions to history of Australians from Europe and employs some very vivid imagery. "Are you looking forward to a breed of men after the war who will have become boneless wonders? Leaners grow flabby; lifters grow muscles. Men without ambition readily become slaves."
​
He strives for Australia to not become strong from within, so that it can grow, not to be a periphery nation, but one that leads in values. "If the new world is to be a world of men, we must be not pallid and bloodless ghosts, but a community of people whose motto shall be, "To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield."
​
While his speech is inspiring, it also feels idealistic, for the middle class continues to struggle even today and that the world seems more and more divided by wealth and social disparity. Nevertheless, it is inspiring to see that out of each conflict, there are great men who voices for change and drives change among apathy.
​
"Tryst with Destiny" was an English-language speech by Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, to the Indian Constituent Assembly in the Parliament House, on the eve of India's Independence, towards midnight on 14 August 1947. The speech spoke on the aspects that transcended Indian history. It is considered to be one of the greatest speeches of the 20th century and to be a landmark oration that captures the essence of the triumphant culmination of the Indian independence movement against British colonial rule in India. He declared the end of the colonial era and called on citizens to recognize the promise and opportunity of the moment:
One part that stands out to me is: "That future is not one of ease or resting but of incessant striving so that we may fulfill the pledges we have so often taken and the one we shall take today. The service of India means, the service of the millions who suffer. It means the ending of poverty and ignorance and poverty and disease and inequality of opportunity. The ambition of the greatest men of our generation has been to wipe every tear from every eye. That may be beyond us, but as long as there are tears and suffering, so long our work will not be over." It may seem that India gained freedom so many years ago, yet, this message about freedom being a constant endeavor is an eternal issue that still plagues some countries today.
​
His speech went on to pay homage to Mahatma Gandhi's efforts in the Independence Movement and called upon his countrymen to work together to "bring freedom and opportunity to the common man, to the peasants and workers of India; to fight and end poverty and ignorance and disease; to build up a prosperous, democratic and progressive nation, and to create social, economic and political institutions which will ensure justice and fullness of life to every man and woman."​
​
The declaration ends with an exhortation to work together in the common weal and cautions against narrow sectarian or religious divisiveness: "All of us, to whatever religion we may belong, are equally the children of India with equal rights, privileges and obligations. We cannot encourage communalism or narrow-mindedness, for no nation can be great whose people are narrow in thought or in action."
​
Some people claim not to believe anything politicians say. For them, political speeches are works of fiction. But fictional politicians also give speeches—some of them very effectively. Consider the example below, then discuss with your team: what made them effective, and would they have worked equally well in the real world?
​​
​​
Braveheart is a 1995 American epic historical war drama film directed and produced by Mel Gibson, who portrays Scottish warrior William Wallace in the First War of Scottish Independence against King Edward I of England. In this famous pre-battle scene Wallace rallies the Scottish militia to fight with him against the English army. He cleverly incorporate humor (pathos) and also ethos. Set with cinematic music, it does sound very compelling and inspirational. The movies make everything sound
very idealistic, when in reality, the poor farmers facing heavy taxes and oppression were likely much more practical. It has been criticized for being overtly dramatic and a big "ode to Mel Gibson."
​
Wallace: Sons of Scotland, I am William Wallace.
Young soldier: William Wallace is 7 feet tall.
Wallace: Yes, I've heard. Kills men by the hundreds, and if he were here he'd consume the English with fireballs from his eyes and bolts of lightning from his arse. I am William Wallace. And I see a whole army of my countrymen here in defiance of tyranny. You have come to fight as free men, and free men you are. What would you do without freedom? Will you fight?
Veteran soldier: Fight? Against that? No, we will run; and we will live.
Wallace: Aye, fight and you may die. Run and you'll live -- at least a while. And dying in your beds many years from now, would you be willing to trade all the days from this day to that for one chance, just one chance to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take our freedom!!!
Wallace and Soldiers: Alba gu bra! (Scotland forever!)
​
Independence Day (also promoted as ID4) is a 1996 American science fiction action film directed by Roland Emmerich,The film stars an ensemble cast of high-profile actors including Will Smith (WSC likes Will Smith this year!) and Bill Pullman (President). The film follows disparate groups of people who converge in the Nevada desert in the aftermath of a worldwide attack by a powerful extraterrestrial race. With the other people of the world, they launch a counterattack on July 4—Independence Day in the United States. This speech was given right before the counter attack and rallies people from all over the world from different countries to unite and fight for mankind's survival. Very gung ho style of delivery and just like Braveheart has the David versus Goliath feel, that gets the audience to root for the little guy. The catch phrase uses rhyme and imagery - "We will not go quietly into the night! We will not vanish without a fight!"
​​
​The President: Good morning. In less than an hour, aircraft from here will join others from around the world. And you will be launching the largest aerial battle in this history of mankind. Mankind -- that word should have new meaning for all of us today. We can't be consumed by our petty differences anymore. We will be united in our common interests. Perhaps its fate that today is the 4th of July, and you will once again be fighting for our freedom, not from tyranny, oppression, or persecution -- but from annihilation. We're fighting for our right to live, to exist. And should we win the day, the 4th of July will no longer be known as an American holiday, but as the day when the world declared in one voice: We will not go quietly into the night! We will not vanish without a fight! We're going to live on! We're going to survive! Today, we celebrate our Independence Day!
​
The West Wing is an American political drama television series created by Aaron Sorkin that was originally broadcast on NBC from September 22, 1999, to May 14, 2006. The series is set primarily in the West Wing of the White House, where the Oval Office and offices of presidential senior personnel are located, during the fictional two-term Democratic administration of President Josiah Bartlet, played by Martin Sheen. The West Wing has been regarded by many publications as one of the greatest television shows of all time.
​
This scene was in episode 2 of the Fourth Season. A bombing at a collegiate swimming meet sparks a national tragedy. Bartlet delivers his 'angels and heroes' speech featuring the signature phrase "The streets of heaven are too crowded with angels tonight," praising
the heroism of the students who dashed in to save others. The clever and appropriate use of metaphor draws sympathy and underscores the virtues of these sacrificing individuals. In today's world, it would become a soundbyte that gets spread of social media with many hearts and thumbs up as it is touching and inspiring, a crowd pleaser for any politician.
​
"More than any time in recent history, America's destiny is not of our own choosing. We did not seek nor did we provoke an assault on our freedom
and our way of life. We did not expect nor did we invite a confrontation with evil. Yet the true measure of a people's strength is how they rise to master that moment when it does arrive. 44 people were killed a couple of hours ago at Kennison State University. Three swimmers from the men's team were killed and two others are in critical condition. When, after having heard the explosion from their practice facility, they ran into the fire to help get people out. Ran in to the fire. The streets of heaven are too crowded with angels tonight. They're our students and our teachers and our parents and our friends. The streets of heaven are too crowded with angels, but every time we think we have measured our capacity to meet a challenge, we look up and we're reminded that that capacity may well be limitless. This is a time for American heroes. We will do what is hard. We will achieve what is great. This is a time for American heroes and we reach for the stars. God bless their memory, God bless you and God bless the United States of America. Thank you."
​
Love Actually is a 2003 Christmas romantic comedy film written and directed by Richard Curtis. The film features an ensemble cast, composed predominantly of very famous British actors. Hugh Grant plays David, the newly elected Prime Minister of UK. In this scene he is at a joint press conference with the President of the United States, David is uncharacteristically assertive while taking a stand against the president's intimidation techniques because he saw him kissing his love-interest. In a rom-com, this speech seems just the right touch, but in reality, it is so unlikely and cheesy that I can't imagine any really serious politicians speaking this way....wait maybe given recent politics, I can. It uses humor to address the serious topic of America being a superpower and bullying other countries - superpower vs great power dynamics going on here.
​​
President: Er, yes, Peter.
Reporter: Mr President, has it been a good visit?
President: Very satisfactory indeed. We got what we came for and our special relationship is still very special.
Reporter: Prime Minister?
Prime Minister: l love that word ''relationship''. Covers all manner of sins, doesn't it? l fear that this has become a bad relationship. A relationship based on the President taking what he wants and casually ignoring all
those things that really matter to, erm... Britain. We may be a small country but we're a great one, too. The country of Shakespeare, Churchill, the Beatles, Sean Connery, Harry Potter, David Beckham's right foot. David Beckham's left foot, come to that. And a friend who bullies us is no longer a friend. And since bullies only respond to strength, from now onward, l will be prepared to be much stronger. And the President should be prepared for that.
Reporter: Mr. President!
​​
​
There is a long history of famous leaders traveling abroad to deliver speeches to audiences outside their own countries—sometimes to ask for help, sometimes to inspire. Consider U.S. President Barack Obama’s 2013 speech to the people of Mexico, with special attention to the concluding paragraphs, then discuss with your team: would the prime minister in Love, Actually have cheered this speech—or criticized it? What would he have said about this speech by the president of Ukraine? What leaders from abroad would you like to have visit and speak in your own community?
​​​​
President Obama delivered this speech at the Anthropology Museum in Mexico City. It was during his first second term as president and he wanted to strengthen relationship with Mexico. US Mexico diplomacy has always been a bit off balance as US is a superpower and Mexico provides lots of labor and resources. It matches a core vs periphery model, but as Mexico is a strong regional power, it also influences the US with soft power in fashion, music and sports. Spanish is the second most spoken language in the US and almost all US presidents need to lobby for the Mexican American vote.
Here is a summary of the speech's main points:
-
Strong U.S.-Mexico Partnership
-
Obama emphasized the deep economic, cultural, and familial ties between the U.S. and Mexico.
-
Highlighted Mexico’s progress in economic growth, education, and democratic reforms.
-
-
Economic Cooperation
-
Praised Mexico’s economic potential and the benefits of trade (NAFTA mentioned as a foundation).
-
Stressed the importance of increasing trade and investment between the two nations.
-
-
Security & Drug Violence
-
Acknowledged Mexico’s efforts in combating drug cartels and organized crime.
-
Reaffirmed U.S. support in security cooperation while emphasizing shared responsibility.
-
-
Immigration Reform
-
Mentioned ongoing U.S. efforts to reform immigration laws to benefit both countries.
-
Recognized the contributions of Mexican immigrants in the U.S.
-
-
Shared Future & Youth
-
Encouraged young Mexicans to be agents of change through education and innovation.
-
"We’re going to focus on science and technology, on engineering and mathematics. And this is part of my broader initiative called 100,000 Strong in the Americas. We want 100,000 students from the United States studying in Latin America, including Mexico. And we want 100,000 Latin American students, including Mexican students, to come to study in the United States of America. (Applause.) Because when we study together, and we learn together, we work together, and we prosper together -- that's what I believe. (Applause.)"
-
Expressed optimism about a future of mutual prosperity.
-
"That's why I'm calling for us to forge new partnerships in aerospace, and IT, and nanotechnology and biotechnology and robotics. Let’s answer the hope of a young woman -- a student at the National Polytechnic Institute -- who spoke for many in your generation, so eager to make your mark. She said, “Give us jobs as creators.” Give us jobs as creators."
-
​​
The points made by Obama about investing in education seem positive and Obama is an eloquent speaker no doubt. He even tries to make it more personal by speaking a bit in Spanish and talking about the experience of his family and also Mexicans in America, but it can also seem very cliche. Spoken from a point of hard power (military, economy, education), it can easily feel like something "fluffy" just to appease the local people (living in poverty, still struggling with drug cartels) and have them continue to support US's policies and economy with local labor and resources.
​
On March 8, 2022, Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, has delivered a historic address to the House of Commons that was beamed into the chamber via a live feed as his country continues to resist invasion by Russia. Watch the video and reflect if it has a similar message to another speech in the curriculum. How should the world react. Are good speeches enough to move the world? Inspiring, yet are they enough to get countries or people to take action?
​​
Here are the key points of the speech translated into English translated from Ukrainian:
-
Unwanted War
-
Zelenskyy emphasized that Ukraine did not provoke or desire the war but is forced to defend its sovereignty against Russian aggression.
-
Compared Ukraine’s fight to Britain’s resistance against Nazi Germany in WWII, invoking shared historical resilience.
-
-
13 Days of Brutal Invasion
-
Day 1: Russia attacked at dawn with cruise missiles, shocking the nation into war.
-
Day 2-4: Ukrainian soldiers refused to surrender, even when outgunned; civilians joined the resistance.
-
Day 5-6: Russian forces targeted children, hospitals, and Babi Yar (a Holocaust memorial site), revealing their brutality.
-
Day 8: Attack on a nuclear power plant risked a global catastrophe.
-
Day 9: NATO’s refusal to enforce a no-fly zone left Ukraine feeling abandoned.
-
Day 10-13: Civilian protests, mass casualties (including 50+ children), and a siege on Mariupol—where people were left without food or water.
-
-
Ukraine’s Heroism & Resolve
-
Despite being outmatched, Ukrainians became "heroes," fighting tanks with bare hands and defending cities.
-
"Ukraine were not looking to have this war. The Ukraine have not been looking to become big but they have become big over the days of this war. We are the country that are saving people despite having to fight one of the biggest armies in the world. We have to fight the helicopters, rockets. The question for us now is to be or not to be. Oh no, this Shakespearean question. For 13 days this question could have been asked but now I can give you a definitive answer. It’s definitely yes, to be."
-
“We will fight until the end, at sea, in the air. We will continue fighting for our land, whatever the cost. We will fight in the forests, in the fields, on the shores, in the streets. I’d like to add that we will fight on the banks of different rivers and we’re looking for your help, for the help of the civilised countries." - (A direct nod to Churchill’s WWII rhetoric).
-
-
Appeal to the UK & West
-
Urged stronger sanctions against Russia.
-
Asked for military aid to protect Ukrainian skies and ensure Russia faces justice.
-
Praised Britain’s support but pressed for more action aligned with its "greatness." - Great powers must step up or lose its moral respect as one of the "great". This is one of the rules of great powers the recognition of others.
-
-
Closing
-
Ended with emotional tributes: "Glory to Ukraine! Glory to the United Kingdom!"
-
​​
The overall tone o the speech is emotional with vivid descriptions of the action on the ground. It is strikingly similar in tone to the speech to the League of Nations by Haile Selassie (1936) to protect Ethiopia against Italian invasion. In doing so, it is asking countries to reflect what should do now, taking in how it will be reflected a generation later. He appeals with ethos to great powers their moral and humanitarian responsibilities.
​​
Explore the history of broadcasting and mass communication. How does technology impact the effectiveness and reach of speeches, news, and entertainment programs? Be sure to explore the following historically significant examples and discuss: how did technologies (new or repurposed) make each of them possible, and could they have worked in different mediums? For instance, would FDR’s fireside chats have been as effective if delivered over the Internet?
​
Broadcasting has been around for over a century and its evolution has matched and closely influenced the information age. From the early days of the radio to today's digital social media, it has an inextricable relationship with social development.
The origin of broadcasting traces to the late 19th century, when inventors Guglielmo Marconi and Nikola Tesla conducted groundbreaking experiments in wireless communication. Marconi, in particular, played a pivotal role through his work on wireless telegraphy, forming the foundation for modern radio broadcasting. In 1895, he achieved a major milestone by successfully transmitting radio signals over a distance of more than a mile. This marked the beginning of a new era in global connectivity.
​
By early 1900s, radio rapidly evolved into a dominant force for sharing news, entertainment, and information. A pivotal moment occurred in 1920 when Pittsburgh's KDKA station made history by broadcasting live updates of the U.S. presidential election results - the world's first scheduled radio transmission.
​
These decades witnessed radio's rise as America's dominant entertainment and information medium. The infamous 1938 "War of the Worlds" broadcast demonstrated radio's extraordinary power to influence public perception, while the war years proved its unmatched ability to unite nations through live news and entertainment. Legendary voices like Murrow's didn't just report history - they helped shape collective memory through the intimate medium of sound.
​
Television's official arrival in 1948 through networks like NBC and CBS sparked a cultural transformation in American households. The glowing screen became a modern hearth where generations bonded over laugh-track sitcoms, suspenseful dramas, and shared national experiences - from World Series victories to humanity's first steps on the moon. Visionary programming like Lucille Ball's slapstick revolution "I Love Lucy," Rod Serling's thought-provoking fantasies "The Twilight Zone," and The Ed Sullivan Show's star-making platform demonstrated TV's unique narrative power. Almost immediately, advertisers recognized this intimate new connection with consumers, giving birth to the commercial television landscape we know today.
​
​In the 1980s and 1990s, channels diversified and 24-hour news channels emerged, changing how we consume information. By the 2000, the Internet had once again revolutionized broadcasting, with new platforms
YouTube, Hulu and Netflix providing audiences with a vast library of content from any decade. By 2010, social media platforms Facebook and Twitter have taken over, granting viewers the ability to become content makers with user generated content spreading like wildfire through bloggers and netizens on TikTok and more. Some of it is powerful and personal and at times, it is crowded and full of noise leading to negative behaviors. Nevertheless, the power of broadcasting is ever changing with new technology that enable messages and content to become increasingly global and diversified.
​
The Fireside Chats were a groundbreaking series of radio broadcasts delivered by President Franklin D. Roosevelt between 1933 and 1944. Speaking in a warm, conversational tone, FDR connected directly with millions of Americans, addressing critical issues such as economic recovery during the Great Depression, the Emergency Banking Act, New Deal programs, and World War II updates.
​
Facing antagonism, Roosevelt used these broadcasts to correct misinformation, reassure the public, and explain complex policies in simple terms. Imagine struggling homeless Americans listening to his messages of hope. His calm, confident demeanor provided stability during periods of national crisis, helping maintain his strong public approval throughout his unprecedented four terms. Fireside Chats was a revolutionary use of radio and changed how the President connects with the American people.
​
The American people I think would definitely appreciate this style of presidential communication that is more personal, authentic and less provoking, but rather educational. Especially given Trump's erratic/shocking messages on @POTUS and sometimes ambiguous messages from White House Press Secretary.
​​
​​Why Fireside Chats still can work.
-
Hunger for Authenticity
-
In an age of curated social media and polarized media, FDR’s plainspoken, chats felt like a trusted neighbor speaking directly to citizens—a stark contrast to today’s polished political rhetoric. It would be the antithesis of fake news.
-
Example: Podcasts like The Daily or even Queen Elizabeth's video broadcast during Covid prove people crave unscripted, human connection from political, national leaders.
-
-
Crisis Communication
-
During emergencies (pandemics, wars, economic crashes), people seek clear, calm leadership. FDR’s chats excelled at explaining complex issues (banking, war) in simple terms. Today, they might center around climate change and social media anxiety.
-
Modern example: Dr. Fauci’s COVID briefings
-
-
Platform Flexibility, instead of just radio, FDR might use
-
Podcasts (for long-form depth), Short video clips (TikTok/Instagram for key soundbites), Live Q&A (Twitch/YouTube to boost engagement). Although I can imagine a lot of just noise and complaints.
-
Challenges in the Digital Age:
-
Digital generational have short attention spans; thus, FDR’s 30-minute monologues should be broken down into short segments.
-
Misinformation & Polarization
-
Today’s media landscape could distort or weaponize his messages, and immediately following each chat, I imagine a lot of fact checking and criticism, such as following a presidential debate.
-
-
Social media algorithmic hurdles
-
Social media platforms are tuned into negativity bias and positive message might get lost or not be as popular as reality TV shows geared for entertainment.
-
-
Memes & Soundbites
-
Catchy phrases need to be spread through graphic soundbite videos to reach a younger audience and endorsed by other celebrities, like how Taylor Swift and others support their favorite candidate.
-
​​​
​
Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill (30 November 1874 – 24 January 1965) is one of Britain's most respected and well-known Prime Ministers, writer, and orator. His broadcasts during the WWII inspired the nation and the world to fight against the Nazis. Many of his famous speeches still are remembered for their punchy phrases of hope and courage.
​​
Why Churchill's wartime broadcasts can still be powerful. Churchill’s core themes—courage, sacrifice, and democratic resilience—are timeless.
-
Crisis Leadership Demand
-
In moments of global upheaval (pandemics, wars, climate disasters), people still crave moral clarity and resolve. Churchill’s "blood, toil, tears, and sweat," ""Never give in, never give in, never, never, never—in nothing, great or small, large or petty," or "we shall fight on the beaches" rhetoric on morality and integrity could cut through today’s noise as it did in 1940.
-
-
Meme-able Soundbites
-
Churchill’s punchy phrases are tailor-made for Instagram, tweet, and TikTok clips. Slap them on a meme and it goes viral.
-
-
Authority
-
In an era of deepfakes and popularity contest, Churchill's no frills style of address feels like a leader and not a politician.
-
​​
How to adapt for modern audience.
- Condense for digital consumption, especially by younger millennials.
-
Less English Empire and more Global Citizenship
-
His UK is not the same as the UK of 2025. From a superpower empire to a great power, UK dominance has changed from hard power to soft power.
-
-
Take​ the stage at TED. Beyond just audio, go full on video. His presence is enough to impress a lot of people.
As Churchill himself said: "The empires of the future are the empires of the mind."
​​
​
Apollo 11 was the historic NASA space mission on July 16-24, 1969, achieving humanity's first-ever moon landing. The crew, led by Neil Armstrong with Buzz Aldrin, successfully touched down their lunar module Eagle on the Moon's surface on July 20 at 20:17 UTC. Armstrong became the first human to set foot on the lunar surface, famously declaring it "one small step for man and one giant step for mankind."
​
The happened during the height of the Cold War phase of the Space Race between US and USSR. The public communications strategy for Apollo 11 was a meticulously orchestrated effort by NASA, the U.S. government, and media networks to broadcast the mission’s progress to a global audience while maintaining control of the narrative. It gave the US a huge surge of creditability, especially JFK.
​
Some key aspects of the event:
1. NASA’s Real-Time Broadcast and audio
-
Live Television Coverage: NASA fed major networks (CBS, NBC, ABC) footage from lunar landing and moonwalk, to an estimated 600 million viewers worldwide (1/5th of Earth’s population at the time). ​
-
The whole world heard exchanges like "The Eagle has landed" and "Tranquility Base here" in real time.
2. Press Conferences & Briefings
-
NASA held press briefings at the Johnson Space Center that explained technical details without jargon.
-
Astronaut wives (Janet Armstrong, Joan Aldrin) promoted the "all-American family" image.
3. Global Media Frenzy
-
Newspapers & Radio: Headlines like "Men Walk on Moon" (NYT) and live radio simulcasts reached every corner of the world.​
-
The U.S. leveraged Apollo 11 as a Cold War victory, emphasizing "free world" transparency vs. Soviet secrecy. The moonwalk’s timing (10:56 PM EDT) ensured prime-time viewership in Europe and the Americas.
4. Managing Public Perception
-
Downplaying Risks: NASA avoided discussing near-disasters (e.g., computer overloads, low fuel before landing) until after the mission. The agency framed challenges as "overcome by teamwork."
-
Symbolic Gestures: Armstrong’s "One small step" line and planting the U.S. flag were carefully staged for maximum patriotic impact.
​
In today's world, it’d be a Twitter/X, TikTok, and YouTube free-for-all—with way more memes and fact checks, and expert commentary. Also, there would be comments about wasting money on space while Earth has enough problems and how space is like a billionaire's ego game. From SpaceX's and the incredible chopstick in 2024 to the 2025 all female space journey led by Jeff Bezo's Blue Origin, the message is often diluted and the creators have less control over the narrative.
The Nixon vs. Kennedy debates (1960) were the first-ever televised presidential debates in U.S. history, marking a turning point in political communication. They debated a total 4 times on different topics ranging from domestic to international diplomacy. While Nixon outperformed Kennedy in the Narrative Index during the first three debates, public perception shifted decisively in Kennedy’s favor by the third encounter. This seeming contradiction reveals a critical lesson: medium shapes message. Words are important but looks matter a great deal.
The first debate famously demonstrated this divide. Radio listeners, relying solely on verbal content, overwhelmingly judged Nixon the winner—aligning with his stronger narrative structure. Yet television viewers, swayed by Kennedy’s poised demeanor and Nixon’s haggard appearance, reached the opposite conclusion. This divergence underscores how visual presentation can override substantive rhetoric, cementing the debates as a case study in media’s power to reshape political reality.
​
The camera told a different story. Television audiences overwhelmingly favored the composed, youthful Kennedy—later dubbed America’s first "telegenic president"—over a visibly uncomfortable Nixon, whose perspiration and unshaven appearance undermined his message. These visual cues, completely absent in radio broadcasts or transcripts, proved decisive. These landmark debates heralded the dawn of the "Television Presidency." The stark contrast between radio listeners (who favored Nixon’s arguments) and TV viewers (who responded to Kennedy’s image) revealed a transformative truth: in the new media age, presentation could eclipse policy. Politics would never again be solely about what candidates said—but equally about how they looked saying it.
​
Unfortunately, image still matters greatly. With teleprompters, make-up, post-production, wardrobe and camera angles, it seems it might be easier to be an attractive politician now then it was before, but the stakes are so much higher. The last presidential debate between Biden vs Trump was viewed by 73 million people and Trump vs Harris was 67 million people, still a considerable audience.
​​​​​​​
The "Miracle on Ice" stands as one of the most legendary upsets in sports history, occurring during the 1980 Winter Olympics in Lake Placid, New York. On February 22, 1980, the underdog U.S. men's hockey team faced off against the dominant Soviet Union squad in a medal-round showdown. Despite the Soviets being four-time defending gold medalists and overwhelming favorites, the young American team pulled off a stunning 4-3 victory. This triumph transcended sports, becoming an enduring symbol of hope and determination during the Cold War era. The moment was immortalized by ABC broadcaster Al Michaels' electrifying call in the game's final seconds: "Do you believe in miracles? Yes!" - a phrase that still echoes as a defining declaration of against-all-odds achievement.
​​
In 2004, a movie about the event named "Miracle" further cemented its place in sports beyond hockey fans. In general underdog stories get a lot of buzz because it offers the element of surprise. Additionally, Olympics is unique in that it pushes for nationalistic pride beyond just sports, making it easier to fan the flames.
​
The Vienna New Year's Concert (Neujahrskonzert der Wiener Philharmoniker) is a beloved New Year's Day tradition featuring the Vienna Philharmonic. This prestigious classical music event takes place at 11:15 AM each January 1st in Vienna's Golden Hall at the Musikverein. While the orchestra performs the same program on December 30, 31, and January 1, only the New Year's Day concert receives worldwide radio and television broadcast.
​
The program consistently features works by the Strauss dynasty - Johann Strauss I and II, Josef Strauss, and Eduard Strauss - maintaining
this tradition since the concert's inception. What began as a primarily European cultural event has grown into a global phenomenon, attracting millions of viewers worldwide. Ticket access demonstrates the event's extraordinary popularity: hopeful attendees must enter a lottery a full year in advance for the chance to purchase seats. Some privileged Austrian families hold multi-generational claims to certain boxes, passing these coveted tickets down through families. Austria's national broadcaster ORF produces the international broadcast, which reaches classical music enthusiasts across the globe.
​
The Vienna New Year’s Concert remains remarkably relevant in today’s digital world, though its significance has evolved. Here’s why it endures—and even thrives—in the modern era:
1. Global Digital Reach
-
Live Streaming & On-Demand Access: The concert’s broadcast now reaches over 90 countries via platforms like YouTube
-
Social Media Boost: Clips of the "Blue Danube Waltz" or "Radetzky March" go viral annually, with hashtags like #Neujahrskonzert trending
2. A Timeless Tradition in a Fast-Paced World
-
Cultural Anchor: the concert’s fixed format (Strauss waltzes, flower decorations, the Musikverein’s golden hall) offers nostalgic stability.
-
Shared Experience: Families worldwide still gather on New Year’s Day to watch
3. Modern Adaptations
-
Interactive Elements: The ORF now integrates behind-the-scenes livestreams, conductor interviews, and multi-angle camera options for digital viewers.
-
Educational Outreach: Digital programs explain the history of each piece and foster younger classical lovers.
4. Exclusivity & Scarcity in a Digital Age
-
Ticket Lottery Drama: The near-impossible ticket access fuels fascination,
-
Anti-Digital Allure: No filters, no takes, just a flawless orchestra playing as clocks strike noon.
5. Soft Power & Brand Partnerships
-
Austria’s Cultural Export: The concert promotes Austrian tourism and craftsmanship
-
Luxury Collaborations: Brands like Rolex (official timekeeper) tie into the event’s prestige
​
Overall, the Neujahrskonzert is still very relevant with 7.5M views, even though music has new icons. (It can't compare to Taylor Swift's world Tour in numbers.) But it remains an iconic soft cultural power for Austria. The concert masters the analog-digital balance: a live, unrepeatable experience that leverages digital tools to grow its audience while preserving its magic. As long as humanity craves beauty, tradition, and shared joy, the Vienna Philharmonic’s New Year’s gift will endure.
​
.jpg)
The Voice of America Jazz Hour (1955-2003) was a landmark radio program that introduced jazz to global audiences. Originally hosted by broadcasting legend Willis Conover (later succeeded by Russ Davis), the show launched on January 6, 1955 despite congressional opposition. Its signature theme, "Take the A Train," became synonymous with jazz diplomacy during the Cold War.
​
At its peak, the program reached an estimated 30 million listeners worldwide. While the Smith-Mundt Act technically prohibited domestic broadcasts, many Americans still accessed the program through shortwave radio. Behind the Iron Curtain, where jazz was often banned, Conover's deliberately apolitical broadcasts became a cultural lifeline, secretly sustaining jazz appreciation in Soviet bloc nations.
​
The program's influence extended beyond music: Conover's precise, deliberate diction directly inspired VOA's development of "Special English" in 1959. After nearly five decades, the Jazz Hour was incorporated into VOA Music Mix (now VOA1) as "Jazz America," leaving behind a legacy as one of America's most effective tools of cultural diplomacy.
America continues to pump out cultural influences through music, whether it is Taylor Swift or Hip Hop rappers performing on Super Bowl, reaching millions of fans around the world. Of course, many countries are also in the same space with Korea's K-Pop and UK's Ed Sheeran (WSC fav).
The Eurovision Song Contest (French: Concours Eurovision de la chanson), commonly shortened to Eurovision, stands as the world's premier international song competition. Organized annually by the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), this televised spectacular brings together member nations to showcase original musical performances in a live broadcast transmitted globally through the Eurovision and Euroradio networks. The unique voting system sees participating countries evaluating each other's entries to crown a winner.
​
Born from the inspiration of Italy's Sanremo Music Festival (established 1951 in the Italian Riviera), Eurovision launched in 1956 as an ambitious experiment in transnational entertainment. With its uninterrupted annual run (save for the pandemic-canceled 2020 edition), it holds dual distinctions as both television's longest-running international music competition and one of broadcast history's most enduring programs.
​
The competition's inclusive framework allows participation from all EBU active members and select associate members, resulting in an ever-expanding musical mosaic. As of 2024, representatives from 52 sovereign states and territories - ranging from European powerhouses to Middle Eastern and Asian participants - have graced the Eurovision stage, transforming what began as a modest continental event into a truly global cultural phenomenon that annually captivates hundreds of millions of viewers worldwide.
​​
Post WWII, it is like the Olympics of music, uniting people and culture together. Even though there are many different singing competitions, it is still influential. Although rare to see the winners becoming big global talent.
​
The Intervision Song Contest (ISC) was an international music competition created by the International Radio and Television Organisation, serving as the Eastern Bloc's counterpart to the Eurovision Song Contest. Broadcast through the Intervision network, the event was held in Czechoslovakia and at Poland’s Forest Opera in Sopot.
​
Originally running from 1965-1968 and then 1977-1980, the ISC saw a planned revival in 2023 after Russia, following its exclusion from the 2022 Eurovision Song Contest, left the European Broadcasting Union. Russian President Vladimir Putin approved a decree to restart the contest, with Moscow set to host it in 2025.
It's hard to see something like this making a big global comeback. Its relevance hinges on whether it can evolve beyond a symbolic rebuttal to Eurovision. To carve a niche in today’s fragmented, digital-first entertainment world, it can't just be a nostalgic show for Neo-Sovietism. If framed as a platform for underrepresented regions, it could gain traction—but as a geopolitical project with regional influence. Additionally, many former participating countries are already being saturated with Western music through other singing competition shows and Internet streaming, so unless it has links to big Hollywood stars or goes viral, it seems like it belongs in the past.
​
