Communicative Virtuosity

A job description for “Vice President - Communications” at St. John’s the Divine in New York advertised for someone with the skill of “Communicative virtuosity to mentor those you manage and convince those you don’t”

It made me wonder if I had “communicative virtuosity”. What did that even mean? Does it describe a super-expert communicator, someone so ahead of her field that she has become a virtuoso? Or a communicator who could inspire virtuosity in her staff?

To my surprise, I learned that the term applies to an approach to communications strategy that is often employed at Camino PR. The basic idea is that communications are not simply a vessel through which information travels, bur rather is itself a mechanism by which a myriad of social changes occur. In short: communications strategies matter not just because they work to exchange information, but they matter because they will impact the way information is understood and used.

W. Barnett Pierce wrote about communicative virtuosity, “..If [we] can develop a greater ability to recognize and take responsibility for what we are making by communicating the way we do, then there is hope for a better world.”

I’m not certain how Pierce applies his theories to current events. But it occurred to me that recent stories about a new strain of staph infections is a good example of what might be avoided with better communications virtuosity. Researchers published a study on a new strain of staph infection in the annals of Internal Medicine that sparked vitriolic — and unplanned — media spin. Among other news coverage, a London tabloid concluded that the study pointed to “the new HIV”, and an anti-gay group called on educators to teach kids about the “sexual deviancy” and “special health risks” associated with homosexuality. The researchers issued an apology for the manner in which the research had been reported to the public, and scrambled to halt the damaging press.

What’s the opposite of communicative virtuosity? Probably the Presidential elections. I am glad that candidate Duncan Hunter bowed out today, because these national debates about leadership will only improve without candidates that are using “isms” as a stepping stone to power.

About a decade ago Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Dean of the Annenberg School of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, led Congressional leaders in a retreat on civility and subsequently testified at a hearing on the subject. The in fighting in Congress had become a publicity problem, and Jamieson was brought in to pinpoint solutions. One factor she pointed to was fatigue - name calling increased on the floor of the House when people got tired. Jamieson also pointed out that the increased reliance on speechmakers had resulted in an increase in message bills - that is, legislation created to serve a communications purpose. The conventional wisdom among speechwriters was that a good speech needed policy proposals, and therefore legislation was created for the speech, not necessarily for the public good.

Mr. Bach from the Library of Congress also testified, claiming it a victory that the term “fatso” had not been used on the House floor in a decade. Bach further described his ongoing delight at the Congressional orientation program where Tony and Dolores Beilenson talk to “new Members and their wives” about “what kind of pressures congressional service puts on marriages and families”. No mention about what women Congressmembers with husbands in tow thought about that comment.