3rd December 2021
One of the joys of dealing with press officers is their insincerity.
They know they are being insincere and evasive, and you know they are being insincere and evasive.
But they are in their role, and you are in yours.
One of the increasing common formulations adopted by press officers is “We do not recognise [x]”.
The phrase is not a denial: it is not being stated that [x] is false.
Nor is it, of course, an admission.
It is something in between.
In this way the phrase is like “We do not admit” used by civil litigators – though in litigation you should only use that phase if the fact is actually outside of your knowledge, even if you do not accept it to be true.
*
“We do not recognise [x]”.
So an alleged thing may be true and unwelcome – but a spokesperson has managed to find something about the thing alleged which means they can avoid admitting it without denying it.
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1466708215983398913
As a lawyer, I would just then want to ask “well, what do you recognise to be the case?”
Though so deft are press officers at their insincerity and evasion that this clever follow-up will also no doubt be dodged.
And so we have this phrase – joining the likes of “we do not want to get into speculation” and “we do not give a running commentary” – as a means by which government press officers pretend to you (and perhaps to themselves) that there a good reason for not providing the information or confirmation requested.
The shame of it is that government press officers are (or should be) public servants.
The provision of information to the press and the public, in the public interest, is what they are actually being paid to do (and for which many will get civil service pensions and even gongs).
Yet they seem to to take pride in not serving the public interest but the political interests of current ministers.
This uncomfortable truth should be stark and glaring to those who work in government press offices.
But they do not see it.
Perhaps they do not recognise it.
******
This daily law and policy blog needs your help to continue – for the benefit of you and other readers.
Each free-to-read post takes time and opportunity cost.
This law and policy blog provides a daily post commenting on and contextualising topical law and policy matters.
If you value this free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary – both for the you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.
*****
You can also have each post sent by email by filling in the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).
******
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated.
Comments will not be published if irksome.