Westminster-speak

There were two interesting additions to Britain’s political vocabulary during an interview on Today with the junior health minister Ivan Lewis.

He was on the programme to explain his admission that Gordon Brown and his colleagues had “let people down”.  He was out to show that they’d learned lessons and were the right party to steer the country through the current choppy waters.

Apparently, according to Mr. Lewis, the country is no longer being run by a “government” or a “Cabinet” but by an entity called “Team Labour at Westminster”.

Also, at the next election, each party will not be presenting the electorate with a “manifesto” but with something called an “offer”, with Labour’s “offer”, according to Mr. Lewis, likely to prove more attractive than the “offer” from the Conservatives.

At the next election are the good citizens of Bury South (Mr Lewis’ constituency) likely to be quizzing canvassers about their parties’ respective “offers”, while asking Mr Lewis about the record of “Team Labour at Westminster”?  I don’t think so.  A classic example of an interviewee not speaking the same language as their audience.

Misguided policy

For the most excoriating and quietly ridiculing hatchet job on the nonsense churned out by many official spokespeople, read this piece by Charles Moore in the Daily Telegraph.

It’s a warning to journalists, too, not to get sucked into using the same language.

We don’t need no education (if it’s like this)

This morning’s Today programme grilling of the schools secretary Ed Balls was arguably one of the most impenetrable interviews to have been broadcast in ages.

Mr Balls was on the programme to discuss a further round of exam reforms, in which greater emphasis will be placed on diplomas.

The secretary of state failed to explain clearly and concisely what the new system was all about, to the extent that John Humphrys suggested that one “needed a diploma to understand the diplomas”.

Mr Balls responded by saying it would have been preferable for John and he to have had an hour together before the programme to discuss the subject.

Wrong.

The first law of live broadcast interviews is that the interviewer is rarely going to have 60 minutes, or even six minutes, to discuss the topic with an interviewee before going on air.

The second is to make sure you can condense what you want to say with the usual 2-4 minute time slot.

The third rule is that if you have anything technical or complex to explain, make sure you’ve worked out the simple version before you go into the studio.

Mr Balls ignored all three rules, leaving John Humphrys, and no doubt many listeners, totally baffled.

Highly leveraged interbank synergies

Greg Wood, who presents the money news on the Today programme, is obviously very knowledgeable when it comes to business and finance.

Even though he worked in the City before becoming a journalist, Greg never forgets that his first responsibility is to listeners who might not be so well clued-up as he is. Nor does he forget that the money slot on Today is just one part of a general news programme i.e. he’s not just broadcasting to financial geeks.

Consequently, Greg is never reluctant to interrupt if he thinks an interviewee is starting to lose the audience or is spurting out jargon that might go over their heads. Even if it’s a fairly well-used financial phrase, he’s never scared to step in and decode what’s been said in case some listeners didn’t get it.

An example of this occurred on this morning’s programme when he stopped markets commentator Justin Urquhart-Stewart in his tracks. Normally, Urguhart-Stewart is an outstanding commentator – upbeat, clear and simple in his explanations. At one point in his interview this morning, however, he referred to the “Libor – the interbank wholesale rate of the money”. Greg interceded straightaway with the layman’s version: “You mean the rate at which banks lend to each other.”

“Yes,” replied Urquhart-Stewart.

There was another example of Greg’s refusal to accept mumbo-jumbo last week when another analyst was talking about BAA possibly selling off Heathrow’s duty-free stores. The analyst spoke of BAA’s Spanish owners Ferrovial having bought Heathrow on a “highly leveraged basis”. “You mean they borrowed a lot of money,” said Greg.

These exchanges reminded me of a similar interruption a year or so back when the money slot presenter (it might have been Greg Wood) was interviewing a bloke who’d just presided over the merger of two companies. Asked what the benefits of the merger would be, the interviewee replied; “Synergies”.

“You mean job losses,” came the reply.

First name terms

A plea to editors.

Could they please instruct British correspondents covering the US election campaign to stop referring to Senator Clinton as “Hillary”.  It’s Hillary this, Hillary that.  Her opponents are enjoying no such familiarity.  They’re just “McCain” or “Obama”.  Correspondents aren’t referring to them as “Barack” or “John”.

Those reporters mentioning Senator Clinton by her first name come across as losing objectivity and of being too close to her campaign.

What next?  “Jacqui” instead of “Home Secretary”?

Crash Landing

BA’s chief executive Willie Walsh turned in a professional appearance in front of the TV cameras following the crash landing of one of his planes at Heathrow.

He followed the essential rules:  stay calm;  praise the crew and the emergency services;  stress cooperation with the investigating authorities;  on no account get drawn on the possible causes of the crash.

Mind you, the questions put to him were a bit soft.

Imagine…

Imagine a nightly TV news programme where the newsreaders remain sitting at their desk, where those newsreaders talk to us, not at us – and where reporters simply tell their stories without the need to lecture us at a blackboard.

Welcome back News At Ten.

Change of underpants

When you’re in the hot seat or on the back foot in an interview, it’s best not to come across as too belligerent.  It simply reinforces an impression in the mind of the viewer or listener that the interviewee is seriously rattled.

Interviewed on Today about Marks and Spencer’s Christmas sales downturn, chief executive Sir Stuart Rose came out with all guns blazing.  Barely pausing for breath, he set about giving interviewer Sarah Montague a sales lecture.

While conceding at the start of the interview that M&S had “reduced prices” by 6%, Sir Stuart then proceeded to argue that this was not a “discount” – obviously baffling Sarah who, for all I know, might herself be a regular M&S shopper – like many of her listeners.

“It’s not discounting, Sarah, it’s positioning yourself in the market as a retailer that offers value…There’s a big difference between being on sale and having a first price, right price.”

Not sure many M&S shoppers would have understood that lot.

Undeterred by Sarah’s thinly-disguised rebuke about “marketing language”, the M&S boss then used the dreadful phrase “across the piece” to describe the “better values” he claimed the stores were offering.  He then announced:  “We don’t trade on price alone.  We trade on value, which is quality times price.”

All ok for an analysts’ meeting, but the 0730 slot on Today?  Definitely not.  Would the interview have left shoppers feeling warmer about M&S?  Unlikely.  Will I continue to buy my underpants at M&S?   Not if I have to do a “value versus quality versus price” analysis while standing at the counter.

Comeback kidette

Congratulations to Newsnight’s US pollster Frank Luntz for picking up the late surge in favour of Hillary Clinton in the New Hampshire primary.

While most other pundits got caught up in a post-Iowa media frenzy behind Barack Obama, Luntz offered a more cautious forecast of the New Hampshire result.

While still predicting an Obama victory, he dismissed suggestions of a landslide.  The outcome would not be by the “devastating amount that lots of people are expecting”.  Luntz’s take on forecasts of a 10-15% margin of victory for Obama was:  “It ain’t gonna happen”.

On the subject of the American election, a plea to all editors:  Can we please have an edict banning the clichés “snatching victory from the jaws of defeat” and “it ain’t over till it’s over”.

‘Tis the time for New Year revolutions…

So how about abolishing a few worn-out words from 2008? All suggestions welcome, but let’s start with “systemic”, used to explain and somehow excuse a major fault or widespread breakdown in an organisation. Regularly employed by Government ministers instead of an apology or admission of failure.

It would also be a service to mankind if we removed “robust” from the lexicon of official spokespeople. It is virtually worn-out through overuse, and is not altogether appropriate. According to one OED definition, “robust” means “strong and rich in smell”. Come to think of it, though…

And can we see the back of “going forward”? For example, “we shall be setting in place a series of improvements going forward” – a sentence in which the last two words are totally redundant.