Presentations in Action - Jerry Weissman [50]
Mr. Obama’s first four words were, “No, no, no, no.”
Caren Bohan of Reuters then asked, “Did you underestimate how hard it would be to change the way Washington worked?”
The president replied, “I don’t think I underestimated it. I don’t think the American people underestimated it.”
Chip Reid of CBS News asked the third false assumption question: “You talked about that if your plan works the way you want it to work, it’s going to increase consumer spending. But isn’t consumer spending, or overspending, how we got into this mess? And if people get money back into their pockets, do you not want them saving it or paying down debt first, before they start spending money into the economy?”
Mr. Obama said “no” again. “Well, first of all, I don’t think it’s accurate to say that consumer spending got us into this mess. What got us into this mess initially were banks taking exorbitant, wild risks with other people’s monies, based on shaky assets.”F67.2
In each case, the president demonstrated his trademark cool demeanor, contradicting his interrogator and then moving on to correct the fallacy by stating his own position on the given issue.
The next time someone asks you a false assumption question, follow Colin Powell and Barack Obama’s examples and take Nancy Reagan’s advice: Just say, “No!”
68. Madoff and Cramer Plead Guilty: How to Respond When Guilty as Charged
In an ironic coincidence, two prominent public figures pleaded guilty on the same day in March 2009: Bernie Madoff to a judge, and Jim Cramer to Jon Stewart. Mr. Madoff, caught red-handed on 11 felony counts of swindling stocks, had to confess; Mr. Cramer, caught red-handed of hyping stocks, did not. Hyperbole is not a crime—yet. But if Mr. Cramer’s admissions were an effort to tell the public that he intended no malice, he could have done so more positively. Instead, he withered in the line of Mr. Stewart’s fire.
Jim Cramer certainly had the wherewithal to stand up for himself in a contentious exchange, such as his appearance on The Daily ShowF68.1 was sure to be. As a Harvard-trained attorney (including a stint as a research assistant to the famously contentious Alan Dershowitz) and as a seasoned television professional, Mr. Cramer surely knew a thing or two about handling tough questions. Moreover, Mr. Stewart’s questions were not surprising—he had spent the three prior episodes that week trashing Mr. Cramer and CNBC. USA TodayF68.2 had touted Mr. Cramer’s appearance with a banner headline, and Business WeekF68.3 had called it the “week-long match of the century.” Mr. Stewart himself previewed the encounter as a “battle between a man who makes people laugh for a living and whatever people think I do.”
Yet when Jim Cramer took his place in the hot seat, he capitulated completely. As Jon Stewart repeatedly berated him, Mr. Cramer repeatedly agreed, saying, “Okay,” or “You’re right,” or offering shoulda’, woulda’, coulda’ replies. And when not agreeing with Mr. Stewart’s charges, Mr. Cramer shifted the blame to “the regulators” or to the “lying CEOs.”
Worse still was Mr. Cramer’s presentation. On his own CNBC show, Mad Money, he usually stomps around the set shouting loudly and waving his arms wildly. Seated across from Mr. Stewart, Mr. Cramer spent most of his time docilely nodding his head in agreement or shrugging his shoulders, his arms splayed open in submission.
Did Jim Cramer prepare himself, as anyone with a modicum of experience with tough Q&A sessions would? Did he anticipate a list of the worst-case questions? In fact, before Mr. Cramer came onstage, Mr. Stewart performed his own mock preparation session: responding to shouted questions from off-screen voices while seated against a bare brick wall, under the glare of a naked light bulb.
What could Jim Cramer have been thinking? If he wanted to make amends to the public he had misled, he could have done so on his own turf, to his own unseen and unheard audience.