This is largely just an argument against bad presentations - PowerPoint or otherwise. I agree that PowerPoint is not the right medium for many things (e.g. technical reports), but a lot of these critiques are also the strengths of PowerPoint. The lack of space forces the presenter to slim down their argument to the essentials. That shouldn't encourage burying important information in sub-bullets, but to the contrary, encourage highlighting key risks/concerns.
The downside of technical reports and white papers is that it's far too easy for people to blather on without purpose, and it's far too hard for me as the audience to review. I can skim through a PowerPoint in minutes and get a good sense for whether it's worth my time. It's much harder to do that with a long free-form text. I also think the presenter is more important than the medium in most cases: I bet the same person making those awful NSA slides would write an awful white paper (and vice-versa).
Long story short, people have a really hard time concisely and precisely expressing their arguments, and we all need constant practice to get better. Everyone should also have several options in their presentation tool kit and be able to use the right one for a given task.
The downside of technical reports and white papers is that it's far too easy for people to blather on without purpose, and it's far too hard for me as the audience to review. I can skim through a PowerPoint in minutes and get a good sense for whether it's worth my time. It's much harder to do that with a long free-form text. I also think the presenter is more important than the medium in most cases: I bet the same person making those awful NSA slides would write an awful white paper (and vice-versa).
Long story short, people have a really hard time concisely and precisely expressing their arguments, and we all need constant practice to get better. Everyone should also have several options in their presentation tool kit and be able to use the right one for a given task.