It's not what you say, it's the way that you say it

I had my attention drawn on Facebook to a sad story on the i newspaper's website of a couple who are facing deportation because they misunderstood the over-complex rules for their visa. It is surely essential that a good immigration system has simple and easy to follow rules - this needs sorting. I feel sorry for anyone at the mercy of byzantine immigration rules.

However, what also struck me was how carefully phrased the wording of the article was to support a particular viewpoint.

Here's the bit in question:


With the article's wording, what they did was the apparently harmless 'let the jobs lapse.' But let me rephrase that.
The bosses kept on staff for the shortest period necessary to get the visa, then the staff were fired. Two people lost their jobs. 
Does that sound as nice and fluffy as 'let the jobs lapse'?

It's amazing how the phrasing of the two versions - both arguably factually accurate - can make a lot of difference to the picture that's painted.

Comments