Posted: Tuesday 13 December 2011
Warning - beware of a Christmas meltdown!
By Austin Flynn
Before I begin, I must point out that I love Christmas. I always have done and hopefully always will do. However, one of the annual events that raises my hackles at this time of year is the rather hackneyed article that always appears in the press, usually in the second week of December, advising us to be careful in our choice of Secret Santa gifts for colleagues. It’s usually written by an employment lawyer and it’s obviously intended to portray that lawyer as being "on the ball" and able to tailor his/her advice to "real-life situations". Now, I’m not for a moment suggesting that there isn’t some truth in the article, but the suggestion that we shouldn’t give gifts of alcoholic drinks to colleagues who may be "religious" always drives me up the wall. Apart from the fact that any recipient of such a gift could always give it away (or swap it for another politically-incorrect gift from Santa) it also begs the question: what does it mean to be "religious"?
Does being "religious" involve a publicly stated belief in a deity? Does it also involve regular attendance at a place of worship? If so, how "regular" must that attendance be to qualify: once a week, once a year, or only for family weddings and funerals? Who knows? Certainly not the employment lawyer who trots out the article every year at this time. I know lots of people who would probably qualify as "religious" in common parlance but who would happily receive and consume a bottle of wine from Santa at the office party.
I suppose the point I’m making is that there seems to be increasing tendency in the media to use phrases that suggest something in broad terms, but that lack detail. I suspect it’s a result of the fact that news is pushed at us 24 hours a day, even when nothing newsworthy is happening. Therefore the people who write the news items (who may or may not be real journalists) feel the need to dress them up to catch our eye. That is done either by using catchy headlines ("Secret Santa in Employment Tribunal shocker") or by using rather alarming headlines: ("Eurozone in meltdown", "Economy falls off a cliff" or "Unemployment soars").
When I was a teenager in the 1980s and CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament for those of you under a certain age) was at its peak, "meltdown" was a technical concept. It was used in the nuclear industry to describe the catastrophic failure of a nuclear reactor as a result of inadequate cooling of the fuel rods, possibly leading to the escape of radiation. It had a proper meaning (think of Chernobyl in 1986). Nowadays, its use tends to mean that the journalist in question can’t be bothered to describe in detail what is going on (or doesn’t have a clue) but it’s something unpleasant and potentially headline-grabbing. My wife tells me that I’m a pedant (and I’m very proud to be a pedant) but when I see a ‘"Eurozone in meltdown" headline, I want to know what that means. However, so far, I haven’t been able to find a proper explanation of what may happen if the "meltdown" occurs. I’ve no doubt that it won’t be good but I’d like to know more.
Likewise, nothing seems to "increase" these days. It has to "soar" (which gives the impression of a grim and relentless rise). Why not say "Unemployment increases by 2%" (or whatever the figure is)? It may well be a grim and relentless rise, but give me the facts and I can think for myself. As for "falling off a cliff", the nonsense of that phrase speaks for itself.
It all goes back to my earlier blog about certainty and clarity in business dealings. The only way you can have such certainty and clarity is by having the facts at your fingertips. A clause in a legal agreement that gave one party certain rights in the event of a "meltdown" would only work if "meltdown" was properly defined, otherwise it’s utterly meaningless; a bit like many "news" articles these days.
