From Linoleaks: Richard Keys and the Art of Damage Amplification

January 27, 2011
good habits bad habits

The Scene: A dark room. It is the office of Richard Keys, famous television presenter. No one is in it, save for the man himself.

Richard Keys: I need to correct the misinformation that’s been put about. I listen to the radio a lot. Perhaps I should go on Talksport?

Richard Keys: Good idea. But wait, I don’t have a spindoctor. I know nothing of the dark arts of PR. Should I do this?

Richard Keys: Yes. I can tell everyone what I said to that good-looking lineslady. After all, we had a spot of banter. It was fun. She was in good spirits. She agreed that myself and the ashen-faced football pundit had got it wrong, but didn’t mind.

Richard Keys: But then again, what if I wander off into the territory of absurd self-justification? What if I allude to the words which pass between testosterone-filled young men in dressing rooms up and down the country?

Richard Keys: That would be a good idea, so long as you mean football club dressing rooms and not those shared by young men in any other context. If that is the case, I would reveal that I am but one of a huge majority. A voice, as that song by the popular music combo Rage Against The Machine explains, at the mercy of dark forces.

Richard Keys: Yes, I could explain what goes on up and down the land. It is right for me to say sorry, but also right to say that I wasn’t wrong and was, in fact, right.

Richard Keys: Excellent idea. But what about the Karren Brady comment?

Richard Keys: Do me a favour. I tried to call her but she chose not to answer me. She is clearly struggling with trying to appoint Martin O’Neill at the same time as understand the offside rule. Poor girl.

Richard Keys: That is a dangerous card to play.

Richard Keys: But the tape is wrong. Or right. I  miss Andy Gray. Where he is now? Will I continue to work with him?

Richard Keys: That is a decision for others to make. My ego doesn’t need this. I love my job and am very proud of it. Our prehistoric banter may not be acceptable but at the end of the day it was acceptable. We were the best, we were wrong, totally wrong, but we were the best. So what if women don’t understand the offside rule? We’re not judging them. That’s for others to do.

Richard Keys: Like our viewers.

Richard Keys: Exactly. But don’t forget the dark forces. Who are they?

Richard Keys: Pick up any newspaper and you will see them. The reaction to our prehistoric banter is indicative of political correctness gone mad. But then again, that’s for others, like our viewers, to judge.

Richard Keys: We rang Karren and Sian immediately. But look, I fear this interview needs to be terminated.

Talksport: Why?

Richard Keys: Because the ad banner for your Sport IQ test is disgraceful. We object to it.

Talksport: But if the media is not a bastion of hypocrisy when it comes to sexism, the world has gone mad.

Richard Keys (as he leaves the building): We know. And to think – all because women are inherently incapable of understanding the offside rule. It is very sad. very sad indeed, to think that dark forces have prevented the exposure of this, a truth universally acknowledged by all except Karren Brady and, let’s face it, she is hardly the best judge, is she?

Sir Alan Sugar (for it is he): On behalf of Sky Television, you’re fired.

Exeunt Richard Keys and Richard Keys, in search of some good PR.

Pictured: a crossroads. It is not known in which direction Richard Keys went, but it is generally agreed that his stint on Talksport was a textbook example of how to do bad PR.


 

Comments

Please submit comments to Swordplay below.

If you’re Joey Barton, attack is not the best form of defence

May 17, 2012

Interesting times, these, in the life of Joey Barton.

If the violence displayed by the QPR captain at Manchester City last Sunday was remarkable, his subsequent conduct on Twitter has been astonishing. Barton appears to have radically reinterpreted the notion that attack is the best form of defence, lashing out at all and sundry via a series of tweets whose ultimate effect is entirely self-destructive.

In the past 24 hours, Barton has accepted one charge of violent conduct at the Etihad Stadium but denied another. The FA seems set to throw the book at him, and his club has declared that it will deal with the matter after the result of the FA investigation. Conspiracy theorists might conclude that QPR’s management team and board hope that the FA ban Barton for so long a period (four months and more) that their reported desire to rip up his contract can only be bolstered.

What, then, should Barton do? Should he:

(a) Keep his head down and say nothing, or

(b) Issue a sensible statement in which he acknowledges that both his conduct at the Etihad and subsequent tweets have brought QPR into disrepute, and

(c) Add an apology to said statement, or

(d) Go to Portugal, log onto Twitter and tweet that the world is against him but that he doesn’t care because everyone is a moron and he’s worked really hard to get where he is and if anyone is nasty to him again he is going to expose their secrets.

The answer is not (d).

The moral of the story is that if you’re a loose cannon, when you turn attack into defence there is a danger that you will blow yourself up.

Gunning foglessly for clarity

May 15, 2012

A fine piece, this, on Winston Churchill’s gift for language and the obscurantism that goes with so much corporate communication.

But wait, what’s this? Could this injunction have been phrased rather more successfully:

Be concrete, not abstract. Use metaphors to get your message across.

Metaphors are, by definition, not exactly concrete. But be that as it may: there is a lot of sound advice in Clare Lynch’s piece and a revelation, too. We had never heard of the Gunning Fog Index.  But it exists, and reveals the age at which someone would have to leave full-time education to understand given text.

We’re pleased to display our own Gunning Fog rating for the above words. That of the Churchill speech cited by Ms Lynch was 9.698.

The Gunning Fog index is 9.585

Spin at the Leveson Inquiry

May 9, 2012
Leveson witch hunt

The idea that Lord Justice Leveson and his Inquiry’s QC, Robert Jay, are in need of PR advice is intriguing.

Surely their respective tasks ought to be immune from spin? Then again, perhaps the way in which they execute them is deserving of some communications advice. Either way, times have changed. A similar inquiry from yesteryear (and such do exist) would surely not have been accompanied, albeit informally, by communications advice.

Pictured courtesy of this Flickr user: a portrait of the Leveson Inquiry.