Controversy

I had you worried then, didn’t. You thought that I was going to say something that might be “Controversial”. Not at all. As I explained to my Dad, Grumpy goes out of his way to avoid anything that might get him into hot water. Call it cowardice, if you want. I call it self-survival. Whatever it is, preferred targets are those who cannot hit back. So, on to my favourite source of Grumpiness - The BBC 24 News Service and English Newspapers.

I know that it is good to teach people to “Engage or Attract the readers’ attention”. True. (HBR contributors; please take note) But do you want to engage your reader / viewer’s interest and hopefully their intellect (do you remember that part of your audience’s mind?) or do you want to stoke their emotions? No prizes for guessing what Grumpy thinks about the intentions of Television News and Newspapers. But in case you cannot guess (wake up those in the back row) ……….I am still not going to tell you. So there!!

If the openings of articles in the Harvard Business Review are designed to help insomniacs (my old friend from New College, Martin Mosse, helpfully suggests three pages of Keynes General Theory for people for whom the HB Review is too stimulating), then the English News reaches the other extreme. They use headlines specifically designed to engage the emotions. A search for any content in the article or programme will frequently fail.

When the subject does not seem interesting enough or there is very little time to prepare it, the use of the word “controversial” can be thrown in to create the illusion that the topic is very important. I wonder if this is not the most frequently four syllable word used in the newspapers. This is a shame, because the English language is very rich in ways to express different shades of meaning.

The BBC News reached new heights of “Controversial Absurdity” in a broadcast on 26th January with the sentence “…plan to scrap the controversial control orders and replace them with controversial new proposals.". That must rank as the current Number one of “Grumpy’s most hyped up openings”. I drew the immediate conclusion that it really was not that important, so decided that it was time to make a cup of tea.

Even the Economist falls into this trap. It reported on 20 November, “The government's efforts to reduce the inflow of foreign workers have re-ignited an old controversy.”

So does “Controversial” just mean that some people disagree? To be honest, I did not know what the sentence in the Economist really meant. Immigration has always been a subject, about which people disagree. Is it a “Controversy”, because people feel strongly or passionately about it?

I bet that you did not know that in order to force a Federal Referendum in Switzerland, you need a minimum of 100,000 signatures. Do you think that there is a minimum number of people holding an opposite view before it become a “Controversy” (and must they all be passionate about it)?

Let’s say that this number is 1,000. Then based on this, I have decided that the word “Controversy” can never be applied to work of politicians. Firstly, there are not enough of them to fulfil even any sensible minimum quota requirements. Secondly, it is important to recognise the difference between great skilful acting and passion. Behind all the raised voices and shouting in the Home of Democracy, the reality is little more than posturing along party lines. The “Opposition” are meant to “oppose” the Government. That is their job. Likewise, the Government is duty-bound to ridicule any proposals from the Opposition. It matters little whether or not the Opposition’s suggestion might be sensible or ought sensibly to be adopted.

I am going to form a political party. Its sole aim will be to force Parliament to pass a law banning the use of this word. The “Anti-Controversy Party”.