g the opinions and facts he got from different sources such as reading newspapers, magazines, and books in the library, he even interviewed some people who are really associated with the problem he was dealing with. But the part of saying “ I don’t care who said that” came the problem arising. He was not able to present the information regarding that portion. He should reach them in a manner that is persuasive so that the audience can feel the essence of the message and information he is trying to impart.
]Scott should face the audience confidently and showing dependency and amazingly believing what he got from his sources, but in mentioning what the mayor said regarding the Mexican problem, that’s where the revolts of the people arise.
He should not tell that to the people. Because such actions of telling bad things about other people is not good, most probably if you are to gossip that to the public. He must keep the name of the person clean. And he should stay innocent and acted just the mediator and the facilitator of the message. The message itself that will stimulate one’s ears to run their ideas and think logically about the situation.
As a speaker, you should consider the feelings of the audience. Always consider them as reactors once you throw words from you. They will probably react on everything you will say. Evidences and statements you gathered will be your defense and source for answering their questions. In communication there is always a producer and a receiver and of course a channel.
In here, Scott could be the producer or the channel, because the information came from him and so he uses his self to send the message to the audiences. The audience in Scott’s case reacted violently with what they heard was said by the mayor of the other city. That speaker’s should not say in front of the crowd offensive things. Due to this people around him gave their feedbacks.
Scott and his colleagues have a direct connection, but he can easily