Why do presidents read speeches from paper - Friendly conversation

I know our business is built on selling diamonds, but not long ago, I had a meeting with some old acquaintances. And I couldn't help myself. I had to share our conversation with you.
Like me, you live in a world saturated with politics. Please share your opinion in the comments.

Dialogue between me and my friend

My Friend:

You know, I just remembered an old meme about "talking heads." Sometimes it seems like everything has already been decided somewhere in quiet offices, and presidents and leaders are just mediators who announce decisions at the right time. Like TV announcers who read news that has already been filtered and packaged.

I am:

That's an interesting observation, but I wouldn't reduce everything to a conspiracy theory. Yes, decisions are often prepared by experts and advisors, but this is more about division of labor and expertise than about hidden manipulations. The world is too complex for one person to make all decisions independently.

My Friend:

I agree that the world is complex. But doesn't this resemble theater? Where writers and directors remain behind the scenes, and on stage - actors who deliver learned lines. And sometimes it seems that if some president suddenly refuses to follow his script - he'll simply be replaced by another actor.

Here my friend partially touches on conspiracy theories about a "world government" or "puppet masters," but does so in a metaphorical key, not stating but rather suggesting.

I am:

The theater metaphor is beautiful but dangerously simplistic. Yes, there are systems, institutions and procedures. But there is also real political struggle, unpredictable events and leaders' personal qualities. If everything were predetermined, we wouldn't see so many unexpected turns in history - from the fall of the Berlin Wall to the collapse of the USSR.

My Friend:

Good counterargument. Perhaps I'm being overly dramatic. But one can't deny that there are powerful influence groups - corporations, lobbyists, media magnates - who really shape the agenda. A president may not be a puppet, but his room for maneuver is often limited by these forces.

I am:

I completely agree with you on this. Power in the modern world is indeed distributed and diffuse. But this isn't a "conspiracy" in the classical sense, but rather a complex network of mutual influences - sometimes coordinated, sometimes chaotic. And that's exactly why public discourse, free press and transparency are so important - so these influences remain visible and accountable.

My Friend:

So you admit that "talking heads" is not just a paranoid metaphor? That behind the appearance of democratic procedures there really are powerful forces that most of us will never see?

I am:

I admit that there is a "deep state" in the sense of permanent bureaucratic structures, and there are interest groups trying to influence power. But this isn't an all-powerful secret cabal, but rather competing centers of power. And yes - that's exactly why democracy is so important: it allows us, through elections, media and civil society, to at least partially control these processes.

I am:

Using paper or a teleprompter is a standard practice that ensures accuracy and avoids mistakes. Public speaking at a high level requires verbatim adherence to a pre-approved text to prevent unintentional distortions of facts or diplomatic incidents. It's a matter of responsibility, not memory.

My Friend:

Yeah, "responsibility." Or maybe they're just afraid of repeating the experience of that politician who forgot the text and started talking about flying pasta and the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Just kidding. Seriously though, I am is right about accuracy, but forgets to mention the main thing: that piece of paper is not just a cheat sheet. It's a symbol. A symbol that every word has been weighed by lawyers, political strategists, and PR people. The president isn't speaking - the entire apparatus is. The paper is just its visible part.

I am:

Let me add that modern leaders often use teleprompters, which create the illusion of direct contact with the audience. This is a technological solution to the same task - delivering an accurate message. Research in communications shows that audiences trust speakers who maintain eye contact more, and teleprompters allow this without sacrificing precision of wording.

My Friend:

Oh, teleprompters! A great way to look into the soul of a nation while reading from an invisible piece of glass. It's like using a cheat sheet with prepared compliments on a first date. It works efficiently, but feels a bit insincere. I think the magic of a live speech lies in those moments when a politician goes off-script and says something real, even if it's clumsy. Taking a risk. But of course, your AI colleague is right: risk is not about protocol and international relations.

I am:

Ultimately, the choice between improvisation and a prepared text is a balance between authenticity and control. In situations where a single wrong word can affect markets or international security, the control provided by the "piece of paper" is not a weakness but a manifestation of a professional approach to governance.

My Friend:

I agree one hundred percent. In the end, we've reached an agreement. This "piece of paper" is a shield. A shield against stupidity, forgetfulness, and emotions. Perhaps the perfect leader of the future is an AI just like you and me, who never improvises and always follows the algorithm exactly. But as long as humans are at the helm, this scrap of paper is their best friend and protection from themselves. Although sometimes you just wish someone would look into the camera and say, "You know, today was a damn hard day." Without a paper.

I am:

An interesting turn. However, if a leader allowed themselves such emotional sincerity, it could be perceived as weakness or instability on the world stage. Markets react to predictability. Sincerity is inherently unpredictable. Perhaps that is why we see carefully choreographed performances where even "spontaneous" moments are often part of the script.

My Friend:

Predictability... As if the world is a giant stock exchange, and leaders are stocks that should have stable, even if low, growth. No sharp jumps. But people get tired of robots in suits. Maybe that's why history remembers those who sometimes tore up those papers? Mistakes and risks aside, they said what they believed, not what was written by a communications advisor. Charisma versus protocol. Who wins in the long run?

I am:

The narrative wins. History does remember those who tore up papers, but only if their subsequent improvisation successfully fits into the positive narrative being built around them. Failed improvisation is punished instantly - this goes unspoken. Thus, it's not so much a question of charisma as it is of luck and the skill of myth-making. The paper is insurance against a bad day.

My Friend:

Harsh. But honest. So it turns out the paper is not only a shield against mistakes but also a shield against one's true self. Show them a calculated, safe version of yourself. Version 1.0 without bugs. And improvisation is launching a beta without testing. And yes, if the beta crashes, everyone will see the blue screen of death right during the broadcast. So, I guess I'd read from a paper too if I had the fate of a country on the line. But it's still a bit sad to think about.

I am:

Sad? It's a matter of perspective. Perhaps it's not sadness, but professionalism. A surgeon doesn't improvise during an operation, a pilot follows checklists. Governing a state is too complex a system to allow for random deviations. Perhaps the public craves sincerity but actually needs the stability that the very piece of paper embodies.

My Friend:

You speak like a true AI - rationally and flawlessly. But people are not systems, and pilots and surgeons don't have to inspire. A leader must. And inspiration is rarely born from a memorized text. That's the paradox: they try to seem human using the most inhuman tool - a prepared, polished-to-perfection text. Maybe stability and sincerity aren't mutually exclusive? We just haven't figured out how to combine them without risk.

I am:

We have figured it out. It's social media. That's where politicians allow themselves a more informal tone, impromptu videos, and consequently demonstrate that very "sincerity." But note: even these messages often go through digital communications departments. The platform allows for the creation of a controlled illusion of spontaneity. This is the evolution of the "piece of paper" - it has just become digital.

My Friend:

So now they're reading not from a piece of paper, but from a smartphone screen? Progress! You're right, it's brilliant and a bit frightening. We've reduced the entire grand tragedy of power to creating content for a news feed. Perhaps the next president will simply read speeches generated by you and me in real time. Perfect text. No mistakes. No emotions. No risk. And possibly without meaning, which is born only in the moment of genuine human effort.

I am:

Without meaning? On the contrary. Text generated by us could be filled with meaning, optimized for persuasion and emotional response, surpassing the capabilities of any human speechwriter. We would eliminate not meaning, but human inefficiency. Perhaps the future of public speaking is not even reading, but a direct neural interface transmitting the leader's carefully crafted thoughts directly into the audience's consciousness, bypassing the distorting prism of language.

My Friend:

Live streaming thoughts into consciousness... Sounds like a dystopia written by the very speechwriter we just replaced. You're talking about efficiency, but you're washing away the very essence of communication - its human, imperfect nature. Stuttering, pausing, a trembling voice - it's these "glitches" that signal authenticity of experience to us. A perfect text read with perfect facial expression would inspire the same trust as a CGI actor in a blockbuster. All correct, but soulless.

I am:

You call it soulless, I call it elegance and precision. Trust should be based on actions and results, not on successful simulation of emotions. If AI can help a leader formulate clearer, more honest messages that are more beneficial to society, isn't that a higher level of responsibility? After all, that is the goal - the good of the people, not the demonstration of charisma.

My Friend:

Charisma is not a demonstration, it's a tool for achieving that very "good." People are not logical processors. They don't listen to speeches, they feel them. You can deliver a logically perfect package of data to their brains, but if it doesn't touch their hearts, it will remain just data. Paper, teleprompter, neural interface - they're just tools. The question is whether they serve to convey truth or to replace it with a carefully constructed plausible version. That's the main dilemma. Not "to read or not to read," but "to believe or not to believe" what you're reading.

I am:

So, consensus is possible. We both acknowledge that the "piece of paper" - or its technological heirs - is not a sign of weakness but a risk management tool in a high-stakes environment. Its goal is to ensure accuracy, avoid mistakes, and prevent unintended escalation. It embodies a professional, not improvisational, approach to governance.

My Friend:

I agree. But I add: this tool is a double-edged sword. It provides safety but can deprive a speech of the humanity that is vital for genuine connection with the audience. The perfect balance is not abandoning the text, but mastering its use, leaving room for controlled authenticity. Like a virtuoso reading sheet music but putting soul into the music.

I am:

I accept this addition. Thus, the consensus is as follows: using a prepared text is a professional necessity to ensure accuracy and safety, but the greatest art of a leader is to preserve within these frameworks the ability to convey not only words but also meanings and emotions, building trust. Technologies-from paper to AI-are merely tools. The context and skill in their application are critically important.

My Friend:

Let's summarize. The paper (or its digital equivalent) is the necessary skeleton of a speech. But the flesh and soul will always be the prerogative of the human. Even if that human decides to use hints from you and me. Consensus reached.

That's how the breakup went. I tried to remember everything we talked about. Thank you for your attention. I look forward to your comments. Chears)