Caution: May Contain Traces of Humour
Who says you can’t believe a word you read in the papers? This morning Ephraim Hardcastle writes that the Cote d’Azur is plagued with stinging jellyfish (pelagia noctiluca); think large lump of violet snot wielding a tazer and you have the measure of this little darling. I know this first hand.
So what is the point of providing a newspaper with a defensive statement? Mostly it is to explain your position. X says Y about you and you have a couple of sentences in which to clarify, justify, verify, amplify (that’s enough fys for one day). Speed is critical. Truth and accuracy are presumed but not always evident. There may be legal implications which prevent fervent apologies or gulping mea culpas.
But you have to judge the audience. Put it bluntly - who gives a shit? Get it wrong and you risk saying something so inappropriate that you raise the hackles of even the most disinterested reader. Garnish it in unctuous corporate double-speak and you have committed at least six of the seven deadly spins.
Boots managed all of the above this week, in their response to an averagely over-egged Daily Mail story, about their galumphing handling of a silly little girl who tested (stole?) a dab of nail polish she couldn’t afford. You can read the story for yourself, and the comments are interesting too, but take special heed of their quote.
A Boots spokesman said: ‘During the recent event at our Folkestone store we worked with Miss Gilbert and subsequent local law enforcement to ensure an effective resolution was met. Mrs Gilbert’s daughter remained on the premises until she was able to be released safely into the care of her parents. ‘These safety measures are in place to ensure our customers have a continued safe shopping environment.‘
Ignore the barefaced dishonesty, savour the toe curling language! “we worked with (no you didn’t).. … local law enforcement (is that the police by any chance?)…safety measures..safe shopping environment. (Oh thank you Boots for saving Britain from this 12 year old girl)
I suspect Boots hoped to assuage the Daily Mail with mealy mouthed bunkum, rather than escaping into the simple truth. They had a number of routes. They could have said we are sorry. They should have said that groups of girls flooding in to their store after school and nicking (sorry testing) stuff is a major problem and will be dealt with toughly. That would have been both honest and resonate well with the audience.
I found this in Matthew Parris’ column in the Times today:
From The Times last week, headlined “Ceviche: the new sushi”: “Put down the maki rolls and sashimi, the hot new trend in raw fish is spicy South American ceviche - marinated prawns on a bed of lettuce…” etc. An excellent piece about the national dish of Peru: raw white fish “cooked” in lime juice and chilli. Delicious.
But I remember when a cholera epidemic gripped Lima, where the fish are brought in from the Pacific - and the city’s untreated sewage is pumped back. Unsurprisingly, fish sales had plummeted and the industry faced ruin. An alarmed fisheries minister got straight on to national television to reassure Peruvians there was no danger. To prove it he ate a huge bowl of ceviche in front of the cameras, live. The following morning he was rushed to hospital with cholera. (c) Times Newspapers Ltd, 2008