Debunking Philip Yaffe's 'Most Pernicious Myth'

As a voice specialist, public speaker, and former college professor, I disagree with Mr. Yaffe’s article, Debunking the 7% Rule, Public Speaking's Most Pernicious Myth. The idea that one’s content is more important than one’s delivery could only be believed by a journalist.

Mr. Yaffe is speaking from a background of print journalism, not one of public speaking. Not only is the former vastly different from the latter, so too is print journalism dissimilar in style to fiction and non-fiction writing.

If one’s delivery is of lesser value than one’s content, why not copy the speech, pass it out, and then everyone can go home or back to work? Assuming your audience is there to hear you speak about a topic of interest to them, is it not advisable to deliver your material in an engaging fashion? Why not captivate your audience? No matter how scholarly your content, a boring delivery doesn’t sell.

Given the opportunity to hear Henry Kissinger or Bill Clinton give a speech, I would sooner listen to Clinton. Without a doubt, Kissinger’s material is going to be much more erudite than that of the former President; however, Mr. Kissinger’s style of delivery is non-existent. His voice is dour; he speaks in a monotone; and, he has absolutely no expression.

Having taught Public Speaking as well as Voice & Diction and Oral Interpretation, I found that, in the beginning of the course, my students tended to be stronger in their content than in their abilities to present. I therefore spent much of the time on improving those skills. Differing from others teaching Public Speaking, I never gave them exams on ‘book material.’ Their presentations were their exams. Public Speaking is a practical course, much like acting or music. Memorizing terminology, rules or theory for a test in this particular subject is of lesser value than the application and practical usage of that material.

Because my first teaching position was at the University of Western Ontario’s Graduate School of Journalism, I am more than familiar with the differences between students of print journalism and those pursuing broadcasting. And, while I am generalizing, I found that my print journalism students showed little if any expression in speaking while my broadcasting students were much more ‘colorful’ in their delivery.

Further to this study, it is interesting to note that of the thousands of people with whom I’ve worked for the last 25 years, my mentally-centered clients such as scientists, accountants, engineers, and journalists need much more work in their style of delivery than my other clientele who tend to be more emotionally-centered. Again, I am generalizing, however, listening to an expressionless accountant give a 40-minute report on the quarterly budget can be nothing short of a nightmare for the audience.

By the same token, I have often found it quite challenging to listen to journalists being interviewed on radio or TV because of their lack of expression and, in many cases, their inability to speak fluidly or smoothly. Many artists, musicians and writers are weaker in their speaking skills because their acuity, as well as their emotion, is in their art. Again, I am not saying that all people in those chosen professions have poor delivery skills but it has been interesting to note the differences between the ‘mentals’ and the ‘emotionals’ in their abilities to communicate.

There is a radio talk show host in Philadelphia who is both a doctor and a lawyer. Possessing a whiny, nasal, high-pitched voice, this young man does not speak distinctly and most unfortunately sounds like a woman. The radio station actually advertised his new talk show by ridiculing his voice. Mr. Yaffe may believe that one’s delivery skills are secondary to one’s content, but I find it exceedingly difficult to listen to this particular host because his voice is like nails on a chalkboard. His inadequate vocal skills belie his obvious intelligence. The saying, “It’s not what you say but how you say it,” is truer than Mr. Yaffe is willing to give it credence.

The great Roman orator, Cicero, said, "Without effective delivery, a speech of the highest mental capacity can be held in no esteem, while one of the moderate abilities, with this qualification, may surpass even those of the highest talent."

I think I will take the side of the Roman orator and be thankful that the print journalist isn’t teaching me Communication Skills!

[Incidentally, if I’m not mistaken, in another of Mr. Yaffe’s articles he did say that “if a shorter word would do just as well, prefer it.” Possibly he might apply that rule to the word ‘pernicious.’]