Certainly the President has improved on the weekly radio address by converting it to a video podcast. But he is still preaching to the choir, since I haven't seen any media outlets paying any attention to the radio address since the Reagan days. (It helped that Reagan took them seriously, worked hard on them and used them to break news.)
But Pres. Obama needs to reach farther back, to FDR, to really explain issues, not just his view of them. If one looks at the texts of the Chats (Fireside Chats, you realize that they would take a good length of time to read aloud--some of them 15 or 20 minutes. Second, they explain the entire context of the problems being addressed, not just describe the president's position. When he talks about the banking crisis, he actually explains how banking works. The President should have explained why one has to engage in deficit spending when there is a dip in employment, even though the deficit may be high and be a problem to be dealt with in time. Most Americans know nothing about macro-economics, and think the deficit is like an overdraft in their checking account, when it is in fact a very different thing. FDR, Clinton and Reagan all used metaphor and analogy very effectively, and Obama's team needs to step that up.
Most importantly, FDR spoke to his listeners one on one, not like a speechmaker, but as if he'd dropped into the listener's house, perhaps sitting over some coffee and having a nice talk. Here is an excerpt from a speech about his first term accomplishments:
But the simplest way for each of you to judge recovery lies in the plain facts of your own individual situation. Are you better off than you were last year? Are your debts less burdensome? Is your bank account more secure? Are your working conditions better? Is your faith in your own individual future more firmly grounded?
Also, let me put to you another simple question: Have you as an individual paid too high a price for these gains? Plausible self-seekers and theoretical die-hards will tell you of the loss of individual liberty. Answer this question also out of the facts of your own life. Have you lost any of your rights or liberty or constitutional freedom of action and choice? Turn to the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, which I have solemnly sworn to maintain and under which your freedom rests secure. Read each provision of that Bill of Rights and ask yourself whether you personally have suffered the impairment of a single jot of these great assurances. I have no question in my mind as to what your answer will be. The record is written in the experiences of your own personal lives.
In other words, it is not the overwhelming majority of the farmers or manufacturers or workers who deny the substantial gains of the past year. The most vociferous of the doubting Thomases may be divided roughly into two groups: First, those who seek special political privilege and, second, those who seek special financial privilege. About a year ago I used as an illustration the 90% of the cotton manufacturers of the United States who wanted to do the right thing by their employees and by the public but were prevented from doing so by the 10% who undercut them by unfair practices and un-American standards. It is well for us to remember that humanity is a long way from being perfect and that a selfish minority in every walk of life -- farming, business, finance and even Government service itself -- will always continue to think of themselves first and their fellow-being second.
(Incidentally, note that FDR is unafraid to take it to the people who are lousing things up. He doesn't attack members of Congress, but simply unnamed people who put their own interest ahead of those of the American people. That's the good kind of populism.)
This calls for some real media skill, not just pointing the camera at himself. I would propose a full 30-minute special for each topic covered, with real voters the President talks to, experts to cut away to, graphics, news footage, animations--the full media toolkit. I'm sure David Geffen or another supporter in the media business could find writers and directors to execute these. They could run as paid time on cable and be posted online, which would get them far more traction than the television run. And news organizations would have a bank of material to draw clips from the would explain why tax cuts for millionaires costs too much, or why the HC mandate saves money--common sense explanations of why Obama is making things better, even if it's not immediately obvious.