Thanks Jack. Two comments in one here...I was very touched by your piece about your mother. Beautifully expressed and very moving. In this piece, it's easy to mix self-censorship with politeness, diplomacy or tact and care. It's also cultural. I met a lady from (tactfully, I won't say where!) who swore that utter fankness was the only way to understand people. And she put this into practice with every word. As a result, very soon nobody would talk to her. They were all Brits. As a writer, I believe one gets one's points across to more people with sensitivity not blunt 'honesty'. So I don't think you should beat yourself up (if indeed you were) about not always meaning exactly what you write. As for the topics you choose (or were chosen for you by editors), that's OK too. What's definitely NOT OK - and that seems to happen often in journalism - is the need to espouse views you do not share because of editorial policy.
Thanks, Brian, for your kind words about yesterday's newsletter. Wrt today's, I think I get most annoyed when I realise a few days (or even worse, hours) later that I didn't get across what I intended. And agree about sensitivity. Amazingly, calling people stupid — whether they are or not — rarely leads to minds changing or useful debate!
Apologies! I did the same - be cross with myself- it was your grandmother! And I so take your point. I learn every day that someone misunderstands what I mean all the time. And it’s always our fault if people don’t!
I think it is incumbent upon us all to read a wide range of views so that we are, firstly, not in an echo chamber and think that everybody has the same view as us and, secondly, so that we can change our view as and when appropriate.
We all do this as a means of getting our views across without offending anyone. The worst example is Brexit. Millions of people with not a clue to the benefits of the largest trade body in history, voted Leave because they were led to believe that £350 millions a week were being paid to the EU and “could” be paid to the NHS. It is impossible to tell them it was a lie because it wasn’t. BoJo could have used “should” or “would” but they both implied that if he won he would do that. When Leave won they were faced with the impossible task of managing the beliefs of millions of farmers and fishermen that they would be better treated. Needless to say, they were not.
I don't always agree with what you say, but I enjoy hearing your viewpoint and would prefer that you don't self-censor. Just let it flow
Thanks, Dick. Will do my best!
Thanks Jack. Two comments in one here...I was very touched by your piece about your mother. Beautifully expressed and very moving. In this piece, it's easy to mix self-censorship with politeness, diplomacy or tact and care. It's also cultural. I met a lady from (tactfully, I won't say where!) who swore that utter fankness was the only way to understand people. And she put this into practice with every word. As a result, very soon nobody would talk to her. They were all Brits. As a writer, I believe one gets one's points across to more people with sensitivity not blunt 'honesty'. So I don't think you should beat yourself up (if indeed you were) about not always meaning exactly what you write. As for the topics you choose (or were chosen for you by editors), that's OK too. What's definitely NOT OK - and that seems to happen often in journalism - is the need to espouse views you do not share because of editorial policy.
Thanks, Brian, for your kind words about yesterday's newsletter. Wrt today's, I think I get most annoyed when I realise a few days (or even worse, hours) later that I didn't get across what I intended. And agree about sensitivity. Amazingly, calling people stupid — whether they are or not — rarely leads to minds changing or useful debate!
Apologies! I did the same - be cross with myself- it was your grandmother! And I so take your point. I learn every day that someone misunderstands what I mean all the time. And it’s always our fault if people don’t!
I think it is incumbent upon us all to read a wide range of views so that we are, firstly, not in an echo chamber and think that everybody has the same view as us and, secondly, so that we can change our view as and when appropriate.
Agree, but am afraid that is not... a widely acted upon view.
We all do this as a means of getting our views across without offending anyone. The worst example is Brexit. Millions of people with not a clue to the benefits of the largest trade body in history, voted Leave because they were led to believe that £350 millions a week were being paid to the EU and “could” be paid to the NHS. It is impossible to tell them it was a lie because it wasn’t. BoJo could have used “should” or “would” but they both implied that if he won he would do that. When Leave won they were faced with the impossible task of managing the beliefs of millions of farmers and fishermen that they would be better treated. Needless to say, they were not.
People also forget what they thought at the time. I struggled to remember how I voted in the 2011 AV referendum!