Letters to the Editor

In defense of Jamieson

To the Editor:

Though claiming to abhor demagoguery, professor John Richetti uses demagogic vocabulary to portray my colleague Kathleen Jamieson's recent remarks in The New York Times on the rhetorical exigencies of presidential debates ("Critical letter circulates among profs," The Daily Pennsylvanian, 9/29/04).

Professor Richetti opines that "the theory of communication [Jamieson] enunciates" in suggesting that presidential candidates use plain language in the debates is "nothing less than Hitlerian."

Professor Richetti's characterization of our colleague is highly regrettable. His remarks also reflect a misunderstanding of how oral communication works with a large and varied audience.

Counseling that candidates in a fast-moving, live debate speak in a manner that a listening audience can easily understand isn't Hitlerian or demagogic -- it's common sense. Nor is straightforward, accessible language incompatible with serious and complex ideas. On the contrary, it is their best ally, and debate that aims to include the entire electorate is a real benefit to democracy.

Carolyn Marvin

The writer is the Frances Yates professor of communication at the Annenberg School for Communication.

Both profs are correct

To the Editor:

When I heard Sen. John Kerry use the word "gilded" in one of his speeches several weeks ago, I thought of Kathleen Jamieson. I learned more about communication in her class than in all of my writing classes combined. A recent article in The Times, in which professor Jamieson criticized Kerry's choice of words, has drawn the ire of English professor John Richetti ("Critical letter circulates among profs," DP, 9/29/04).

Professor Jamieson contends that people who use such words in political discourse are less effective in communicating their messages, while professor Richetti laments that such an attitude is contributing to the dumbing-down of our attitude toward "the most crucial election" of his lifetime. They are both absolutely correct.

As an English major and an aspiring author, I love the English language as much as professor Richetti does, and I find it woefully sad that someone might be considered an elitist for simply having a good vocabulary.

If we lived in the age of Lincoln and Douglas, it would be wonderful if professor Richetti were a presidential speechwriter, but the sad truth is that we live in an age of soundbites and attention deficit disorders. While we should embrace idealism, we must deal with realism, as professor Jamieson contends. Sen. Kerry has been given an opportunity to run against a man who history will record as being one of our worst presidents, and yet, the election is close. Why? Because President Bush, despite all his failures, knows his audience when he gives a speech. Effective communication and crafty packaging gets you elected; a nice vocabulary gets you praise from English professors.

Anthony Verrecchia

College '92

Clarifying mail delivery

To the Editor: Regarding your article ("Package delivery issues irk students," DP, 9/23/04), the University of Pennsylvania Mail Service is disturbed because our department is only responsible for the drop-off of dorm mail. We do not sort, distribute or send e-mail to the students. Datrose, an outside contractor that was hired by Housing and Conference Services, is responsible for the students' mail.

Penn Mail Service is very perturbed, because this is the second time in two years that we have been falsely accused of student mail problems.

The University community reads these articles and immediately thinks you are referring to Penn Mail Services, when in fact we are not responsible. Non-factual articles such as these are detrimental to our livelihoods.

We invite you to come and understand the task of our job responsibilities.

Penn Mail Service

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.