You do realize it's a common phrase that was suggested and has been used to the point of overkill in the public speaking sector to "visualize your audience in their underwear" or even "naked" to make public speaking not seem so stressful.
While of course we are always going to have some fun with people who mispeak in public, and I blogged about this earlier today too, I don't think it was "riabald" or that "shocking" considering the years it's been out there.
posted by psyche777 at 11:32 A.M. EST on Sat Feb 17, 2007 #
psyche777,
What I realize is that it was an insensitive thing to say in public about 2 women who, because of their jobs, were acquainted with Mr. Schwartz at the Port Authority.
The question is, what did the 2 women who were identified as being the subject of his unwarranted attention think? Well, we don't know because they wouldn't or couldn't be reached by the reporter.
I wonder if it wasn't due to the report that these 2 women were supplier representatives who had to suck up the embarrassment because they need to provide for their families and would be afraid that their careers might be adversely affected if they complained.
I would apologizing well into next week if I were Mr. Schwartz.
Of course, that's just little 'ol me wondering...
posted by paulhem at 12:55 P.M. EST on Sat Feb 17, 2007 #
Considering the women didn't respond I think it's presumptious to assume how they felt. Especially since it is a very common phrase that anyone who has done any public speaking is aware of.
My personal reaction as a woman was, Brian needs to work on his opening lines rather than being offended.
:-)
posted by psyche777 at 01:02 P.M. EST on Sat Feb 17, 2007 #
Presumption goes both ways, doesn't?
I mean it is presumptious for you to assume that they wouldn't be offended, as your first comment indicates.
Also, I said the "quesion is..." and "I wonder..."
So who is being presumptious here? I respect that fact that you are a woman. However, it is presumptious for you to dismiss someone "wondering about" or asking a "question" regarding any offense that the 2 women might have taken because just because you are a woman.
;-)
posted by paulhem at 02:37 P.M. EST on Sat Feb 17, 2007 #
psyche's initial comment imo is spot on, but I think this article is much more interesting than the first 4 sentences.
I was especially interested in Brian's comment: Mr. Schwartz, who is paid $78,000 a year, said he would resign if the mayor asked him to commit an "egregious violation" of the First Amendment, before adding that he believes people who behave "boorishly" should lose their access to news conferences.
I would have liked to hear him list some times when Kevin Miliken acted 'boorishly' at a press conference.
Im also still waiting for some concrete examples of the mistruths, half truths and outright lies he accused WSPD of.
posted by billy at 02:59 P.M. EST on Sat Feb 17, 2007 #
Ah yes, but some are missing the boat. It has been a speaking tactic, for a nervous speaker - to be taught to try to mentally visualize the audience in their underwear. It's to try to take some of the pressure off of a speaker.
It has NEVER been a ribald joke of any sort - nor used as a 'speech opener'.
It is not polite to make references to underwear while speaking publicly, unless you are a comic.
Mr. Schwartz, I believe, is in the uncomfortable, yet deservedly, position of having made so many people angry that they are now actively seeking things to 'get him' on.
And to think, he was hired to represent our cities, CEO to the public.
{Bangs her head on desk,,,bangs her head on desk}
posted by katie82640 at 03:44 P.M. EST on Sat Feb 17, 2007 #
Personally, I think that seven posts is far too many in response to this story, but...
The way the first six comments have gone, you would think that Schwartz said he wanted to kill someone. That "joke", as bad as it was, was in no way offensive, ribald, off-color, insensitive, impolite, etc...It was just a poor attempt at humor. Were the women offended or embarassed? I have no idea. Should anyone else be offended or embarassed? Only Schwartz, since he can't seem to tell a joke. Making this stupidity out to be anything more than that is asinine. (Thank you Toledo Blade and others)
posted by MoreThanRhetoric at 04:04 P.M. EST on Sat Feb 17, 2007 #
Making this stupidity out to be anything more than that is asinine. (Thank you Toledo Blade and others)
As a retired Army officer, I assure you that had a military PAO/PIO made such a joke, then he would have been fired and MOST LIKELY his career ruined.
There is just no excuse for this kind of unprofessional conduct from a person who is paid $78,000.00/year to be a spokesperson/ Public Affairs Officer.
And I believe that it is asinine not to recognize that fact.
posted by paulhem at 05:20 P.M. EST on Sat Feb 17, 2007 #
As a female, had I been sitting in the front row, it wouldn't have bothered me. Although it is standard in public speaking to begin with a joke this was not exactly the best one with which to start. That visualization idea to lessen the fear of public speaking has been around a long, long time. Much ado about nothing. Ribald? Hardly. Dumb, probably. Worthy of a news article? Not at all.
posted by holland at 05:39 P.M. EST on Sat Feb 17, 2007 #
That comment wouldn't have bothered me - I think we take political correctness entirely too far. As stated many times already here, it's an old public speaking exercise to deal with your nervousness in speaking publicly. I remember hearing about that decades ago, so I'm sure the two fragile minded women had to have heard it as well. Maybe they need to get over themselves & find their sense of humor again.
posted by starling02 at 06:20 P.M. EST on Sat Feb 17, 2007 #
That's why I posted it. I thought it was funny.
Then, I had someone who wanted to make sure "I realized" that it was an old public speaking technique (duh!). And the same person thought that it was just no big deal and gosh she blogged it too, even though we're "...having fun with people..." When I pointed out that one person's idea of fun is anothers agony, well... I was presumptious.
Now, we have a Holland Village councilperson who advises The Blade that it really wasn't worth an article. Thankfully, the First Admendment allows The Blade to independently decide what to run, regardless what the councilperson thinks.
Of course the story was REALLY about the First Admendment. Now, there's irony! Brian Wilson gets into it with one government servant about the First Admendment, and another wants to tell The Blade what stories to run.
I think I'll be listening to WSPD more often.
posted by paulhem at 07:03 P.M. EST on Sat Feb 17, 2007 #
OOPS
That's First Amendment NOT First ADmendment.
More ads is what we want in The Blade, though.
;-)
posted by paulhem at 08:02 P.M. EST on Sat Feb 17, 2007 #
Ironically the story in the Blade had very little to do with the real purpose or the majority of what was said. Too bad, I would have been interested in hearing the audio from that portion rather than what was provided.
:-)
posted by psyche777 at 08:22 P.M. EST on Sat Feb 17, 2007 #
What a waste of space in the paper. If I were the reporter, I would have told my editor that this was not worth writing about.
posted by toledojim at 10:05 P.M. EST on Sat Feb 17, 2007 #
I have to agree with you. This wouldn't 'ordinarily' be news. I just think that Brian has caused enough ire within the community that the media knows people will gravitate toward any old type of GOTCHA Brian!!! type thing.
Sad, but it's his own doing really.
posted by katie82640 at 10:07 A.M. EST on Mon Feb 19, 2007 #
I like to make funny faces at people to get them laughing. 8-)
posted by tm at 11:05 A.M. EST on Mon Feb 19, 2007 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
