One of the things I urge wannabe speechwriters to consider is this: what is the ‘official’ version of any serious speech?

It turns out that this is not so easy to answer as you might think. The classic answer is ‘the version on the website – that’s what they want to post for posterity’. But what if the words uttered by the speaker are not the words on the website?

The best speechwriters prepare at least three versions of a final speech:

The version for the speaker to use on the day, complete with ‘stage instructions’, any tricky pronunciations, indicated pauses etc, big font

The version for the media: a stripped down version of the full speech with jokes and informalities removed and key passages highlighted to steer the journalists towards quoting the best bits. It will have Check against Delivery prominently displayed at the top, telling the media that this is NOT the final or authorised version – they need to check the text against what the speaker actually says

The version for the website: more or less as the version for the media, although some humorous/personal touches might be left in. NB this version will need to be looked at in the light of what the speaker in fact says on the day. It also needs to be laid out in a way that is easy on the eye for the Internet reader: they are part of the audience and need all due courtesy. Don’t just dump a PDF of the speech on the site. And above all NEVER post a Word version of the speech on the site. Who knows what an inquisitive reader will dig out from Doc Properties?

Quae cum ita sint, how about an example?

Here is the full text of a 2014 keynote speech about global development issues by Helen Clark, UNDP Administrator. The final passages are these:

Many of the key issues involved in building peaceful and cohesive societies and the rule of law are controversial. The ongoing resistance in some quarters to the full empowerment and equality of women and to sexual and reproductive health and rights is disturbing.

Whatever the outcome of the global negotiations on post-2015, UNDP will get on with its work. We are mandated to help build sustainable development pathways, democratic governance, and resilient nations. That includes working in all the areas I have identified as being controversial in the current global context.

This work has a long time frame, particularly where societies have fallen into an abyss, like South Sudan, Central African Republic, and Syria. The rebuilding, when it can occur, will take decades. That is all the more reason now to be scanning the horizon with conflict-sensitive analysis to see where the precursors of upheaval are present and how they might be addressed.

It is my hope that with strong partnerships and goodwill, we can work for a world by 2030 when we do not see tragedies like those of today dominating our headlines. But our world will need a sea change on inclusive and effective governance, equity, human rights, and the rule of law to achieve that. As development actors, we can play our part, but those who lead countries and those who aspire to lead must also play theirs.

Hmm. This is dour, musty stuff. Note the thudding mixed metaphors as the hapless speechwriter strains to pep it up, and fails:

Scan the horizon with conflict-sensitive analysis(!)

World needs a sea change on governance

Precursors of upheaval

Work has a long time frame

It’s all classic ‘UN-speak’. Heavy nouns combine with evasive non-committal language to produce a pile of Stupid Words.

But … wait. Lurking in all the junk drafting is a hint of something interesting:

Many of the key issues involved in building peaceful and cohesive societies and the rule of law are controversial. The ongoing resistance in some quarters to the full empowerment and equality of women and to sexual and reproductive health and rights is disturbing.

Controversial? Disturbing! That sounds good. Why not lots more of that?

We know why. Spelling out ‘controversial’ issues and addressing ‘disturbing’ resistance to women’s rights might involve, ahem, offending certain parts of the world, not least (but also not only) those where Islam is prominent.

Nonetheless, watch how Ms Clark in fact delivers this passage:

Note that some of the UN-speak is so ludicrous that she can’t bring herself to use it and uses normal language instead.

Plus she tries to add some colour to the idea of ‘resistance’ to women’s rights by pointing out that most developing countries in fact ask UNDP to help them work on those issues: “there’s something a little bipolar here”. (Isn’t this ad-libbed formulation itself offensive to people with a specific psychological problem?)

Note too that the way the speaking notes and podium are laid out means that she has to keep looking straight down away from the audience for most of the time, reading out this grim text. She and the speech fleetingly come to life when she looks up and improvises.

So, which is the ‘official’ version?

The one on the website? Or the one Helen Clark delivered on the day? Did anyone at UNDP compare the two, or produce a transcript of her speech as delivered so that a judiciously edited version of that could be posted?

I report. You decide.