Just one word can do it. It can make all the difference between just neutrally reporting what someone said and implying they 'went a bit too far' in what they said:
Here's Norman Smith on Monday's The World at One:
The central message the Chancellor wants voters to take from today is that families will be permanently poorer if the UK votes to leave the EU. The 200 page Treasury analysis, says Mr Osborne, proves conclusively that leaving will not just cost families the equivalent of £4300 pounds but will also cost public services £36 billion in lost revenue or a third of the entire NHS budget. Remain campaigners hope this blunt message will overshadow and trump all other arguments in this referendum and swing undecided voters behind them. Leave supporters have reacted with fury, variously describing the Treasury report as absurd, ludicrous and fanciful. They've pointed to the past forecasting failures of the Treasury most recently in the significant revision in economic outlook between the Autumn statement and the budget. How then they ask could a Treasury forecast for the economy in 2030 be credible? One prominent leave campaigner John Redwood even warned of a conspiracy to mislead voters.
I'd say there was more than one word to object to there. The Chancellor's claims are presented the way he would want them presented..."central message to take" , "cost families" (despite teh bogus figure relating to GDP per household rather than family income impact), and "blunt message" (well blunt people speak the truth don't they?). On the other side we have "reacted with fury" - which is what unstable people with poor ability to study things coolly and calmly do. They can't even get their response are desdcribed adverbially as "variously" , as though it's a kind of emotional spasm rather than a co-ordinated response.ReplyDelete