Every day in boardrooms and conference centers across the country, thousands of people are acting out a charade they rarely talk about. Speakers deliver PowerPoint presentations, pretending that their audiences understand and enjoy them. Meanwhile, those watching the presentations play their own parts, pretending to pay attention, to comprehend, and to care.

Maybe it’s time to finally admit what almost everyone knows: the emperor has no clothes! The majority of PowerPoint presentations are boring and unintelligible. Very seldom do they promote any kind of understanding and ultimately, learning.

Then why do so many smart people continue to play the game, knowing that for both presenters and listeners, it’s a waste of time? They do it because everyone else does it that way, it’s always been done that way, because that’s the way their company or organization expects it to be done, and especially because to change will take more time and effort.

Ban Bullet Points

The main problem with boring PowerPoint presentations is bullet points; slide after slide filled with bullets, sub-bullet points, and sub-sub-bullet points. Unfortunately, PowerPoint (and Keynote) templates encourage that mind-numbing format by leaving placeholders for titles and bullets.

According to the findings of John Sweller at the University of New South Wales, Australia, people cannot read and listen well at the same time. He calls it the cognitive load theory.

“It is effective to speak to a diagram or chart, because it presents information in a different form,” Sweller told the Sydney Morning Herald in 2007. “But it is not effective to speak the same words that are written, because it is putting too much load on the mind and decreases your ability to understand what is being presented.”

Ditch the Data Dump

Richard Mayer, an educational psychology professor and researcher at the University of California, Santa Barbara, reports similar findings. Our working memory (or short-term memory), the part of the mind focused on a presentation, briefly holds information while working to integrate it into long-term memory. But working memory is limited and can only absorb information in small chunks.

Unfortunately, the average PowerPoint presentation dumps huge amounts of data in a short period of time, assuming that once that information is sent, the listener will receive and remember it intact. But delivering a presentation that way is like sending a fire hose full of water to an audience that has the capacity to drink only drops at a time.

Create Three Presentations in One

So how do we make our presentations more interesting, understandable and effective? First, think of your PowerPoint as an audiovisual aid, not an audiovisual crutch. The slides aren’t there for your benefit, to help you remember your presentation. Instead, they should help guide the audience by supporting visually what you are saying orally.

Ideally, a presentation will have three different parts. First are the slides that the audience sees, containing visuals and as few words as possible. These slides should never be able to stand alone. If they do, there’s no reason for you to be there. Instead, just mail it in.

The second part is the notes that only you will see. This is where you list the points you want to make and supporting information, the stuff that used to be in your bullet points. You can have the notes in front of you while you deliver the presentation.

Third is the written handout you give to the audience. This can include the main points as well as more in-depth information and back-up data that is too detailed and complicated to include in your presentation.

Stop Making “Slideuments”

The only way to improve PowerPoint presentations is to stop creating what Garr Reynolds, author of Presentation Zen, calls a “slideument,” a combination slide and document. To save time, people want to plan their presentation so it can serve as both projected visuals and stand-alone handouts. That way they can kill two birds with one stone. But as Reynolds says, the only thing “killed” is effective communication. You end up with a bad slide and a bad document.

It’s difficult to fight this disfunctional culture of PowerPoint. It’s engrained in our workplaces, our churches, our schools. But I sense the movement for change picking up steam. You have a choice: continue to feed the problem with PowerPoints that don’t do anything but bore the audience; or work to change the way things have always been done by creating presentations that engage, enlighten and entertain.

If the upcoming Presidential election were about who is the best public speaker, Barack Obama would win by a landslide. But we aren’t that superficial; that isn’t how we determine who will run our country for the next four years. Or is it?

The way candidates come across during their presentations directly effects their likability and credibility, which in turn influences whether or not they appeal to the public.

We all know the impact of the first Nixon/Kennedy debate in 1960. Much has been written about how Richard Nixon, who refused makeup, looked pale and sickly. During cut-aways, he wiped sweat from his face. Meanwhile, a tanned, handsome John Kennedy appeared cool and calm. People who heard the confrontation on the radio believed Nixon had won. But those who watched it on TV overwhelmingly favored JFK.

In this election, the contrast seems almost as vivid when the candidates read their speeches from a TelePrompter. Obama retains his natural eloquence and charisma. John McCain comes across as wooden, phony and unfriendly.

Ironically, in person, and often in interviews and speeches where he’s expressing himself extemporaneously, McCain is as charming as Obama. He’s funny and self-effacing, authentic, friendly and engaged. But then give him a script he has to read word for word and watch that natural charisma disappear.

This is true of most people who try to read speeches, whether with or without a TelePrompter. They are so concerned about the words they are reading, they lose the timing, pausing, and conversational character of regular speech. Also gone are their natural gestures, eye contact and facial expressions.

One side note: Often, the speaker isn’t the only one at fault. Being able to come across conversationally is directly related to how a speech is written. If the writer drops contractions (saying “do not” instead of “don’t”), uses big words and long sentences, even the best speakers will have a difficult time being natural.

People can learn to read a speech effectively — Obama has — but it’s very difficult. Like any skill, one has to work at it seriously and consistently. I’m sure McCain has been coached on how to read better, but I doubt that in the last months of a grueling campaign he’s going to have the time or inclination to improve.

The best thing McCain’s staff could do to help their candidate win is give him an outline or bullet points and let him speak spontaneously. Of course that’s risky. The stakes are high. With no script to fall back on, he’s more likely to make a mistake and say something damaging. But with a script, he’s more likely to lose the the election.

The media often tend to overplay the death of one of their own, but in the case of Tim Russert I feel the numerous tributes and coverage over the last six days have been entirely justified.

There was something special and different about Russert as a journalist and as a “TV personality.” As someone who hated phonies in politics or anywhere else, he was as real as they come. He had not one shred of arrogance. Neither the power of his pulpit on Meet the Press nor his celebrity status ever went to his head. He never forgot his roots or what it was like before he was rich and famous.

It’s common for viewers to think they “know” people they see on TV. After all, these are people coming into the intimacy of their living rooms or bedrooms. But I believe Tim Russert was so real and approachable, viewers really did know him even though they never met him. How else to explain the thousands of everyday folks who came to Washington to honor him, some driving hundred of miles to get there?

Beside those regular people streaming past his casket or going to his memorial service were the most powerful figures in politics who also admired and respected Russert (even though they’d occasionally been skewered by him). They knew he was smart and tough, but also a genuinely nice guy.

I’ve worked with a lot of people in broadcasting who are just “readers.” They come into the newsroom, get their script from the producer, deliver the news and go home. Russert was the opposite. He spent all week preparing for his one-hour program. He knew politics. He loved politics. He wanted the rest of us to understand and appreciate it as much as he did.

I can’t imagine watching this election year unfold without Tim Russert to guide us and provide insight on what’s happening and what will happen. How sad he didn’t get to finish covering this, his favorite election. How lucky we were to experience him as long as we did.

A new twist on food contamination lawsuits: the meat company is suing the victims.

When one elderly woman died, and 17 others became ill after eating meatballs in 2006 at a Lutheran church social in Minnesota, Nebraska Beef was sued for providing beef tainted with deadly E. coli bacteria. Pretty ordinary stuff. You expect the two sides to talk and reach an out-of-court settlement.

But Nebraska Beef has taken the very extraordinary action of suing Salem Lutheran Church, contending that the 20 volunteer church ladies who prepared the food were negligent. The church’s lawyer effectively fired back by putting a very human face on her client: “These are really lovely ladies. They have collectively, oh, 500 years of cooking experience between them. These women have been cooking years and years and years without incident.”

It’s hard to imagine what Nebraska Beef expects to gain from its actions. Certainly, public relations wise, the company can’t benefit from blaming 20 little old church ladies for killing one of their friends, even if it does win the lawsuit. No matter what, the meat supplier comes across as a bully.

And winning seems like a big stretch. Unless there is undeniable proof that the volunteers were at fault — and so far there isn’t — it’s difficult to imagine a jury punishing a group of grandmothers for trying to raise money for their church.

Either I’m missing something or Nebraska Beef is making a huge blunder.

After years of telling others how to do their best in media interviews, I had a chance recently to “put my money where my mouth is.” A local TV station wanted to interview me about my critique of Barack Obama’s and John McCain’s presentation skills. The experience pretty much reinforced many of the things I’ve been telling my clients.

As is typical, they called at the last minute, wanting me to come down to the station within the hour rather than them coming to me. I hurried up — and then cooled my heels in the lobby waiting for someone to get me. When the reporter finally came, he didn’t even introduce himself. I guess he figured because he was on TV, everyone knew him. I didn’t.

We went through the newsroom (not much changed from the newsroom I worked in 20 years ago), back to where the videographer was setting up the camera and lights. I chatted with the reporter for about five minutes and then, without any warning, we were taping. That didn’t throw me, but could easily have rattled someone less experienced.

I tell my clients that a TV interview is a sprint. It’s over before you know it, so you can’t wait to get “warmed up.” You have to be ready to go full force from the very beginning. My race lasted about three minutes.

I also advise my clients to go into the interview armed with a couple of clear, concise, colorful soundbites to use in their answers. I figured I should take my own advice, so I started my first answer with this: “If the election were about who is the best speaker, Obama would win hands down.” Sure enough, he used it in the finished story.

I spent 15 years as a reporter and anchor, asking the questions. But answering them with the lights and camera on you is an entirely different, and in some cases, much more daunting task. Like many challenges in life, it’s all about getting practice and experience.