Hello and welcome to the March newsletter. The world is warming up here and we’re starting to get some sunny days - which makes all the difference! Let’s get going with another look at all things deception, honesty, and the hidden truths in the words people use.
Love Buzz
Courtney Love is back in the news this month, with fresh speculation about the circumstances of Kurt Cobain’s death. I’ve had a few requests to look at the words used by people at the centre of this story, and I came across a very curious interview between Love and Barbara Walters. Walters takes no prisoners with her questions, as you can see here.
At first listen, Courtney is quick to give a straight “no” in response to questions about drugs - but there are a couple of moments where she breaks that pattern. Take a look:
“Walters: You are on nothing? Love: No”
(Jack: A double negative. I’d have been more comforted here if she’d answered more fully - something like “No, I’m not taking any drugs.”)
“Walters: You are on nothing today? Love: No, no Walters: No heroin? Love: My god!”
(Jack: Love avoids answering this question, unlike the previous ones. Whatever the truth, the fact is that Love does NOT confirm here that she isn’t taking heroin.)
“Walters: No more heroin? Love: No, no, no, no, no, no”
(Jack: Again, we have a potential double negative - and a repeated “no” rather than a straightforward denial.)
“Walters: Prozac? Love: Stop… it didn’t work… the prozac didn’t work”
(Jack: Here we get an expanded answer - the kind I’d have preferred to see earlier. She volunteers more detail: “it didn’t work,” and names the drug directly. Which makes me more curious about why she didn’t expand on the heroin questions.)
“Walters: Ever do drugs in front of your child? Love: My god… what a question… no”
(Jack: She does give a “no,” but it isn’t her instinctive first response. And her reaction isn’t disgust at the thought of doing drugs in front of her child - it’s that she’s been asked the question at all. “What a question” tells us where her discomfort lies. Not reassuring.)
In just 40 seconds, there are multiple red flags suggesting Love wasn’t telling the full truth about her drug use.
Turnaround
Do you ever receive an email, maybe a work one, and think “there’s something more going on here”?
That happened to staff at BrewDog at the beginning of this month. Here’s an extract from an email sent to all employees by the CEO:
“We appreciate this is an unsettling time for everyone, and we want to ensure that all colleagues have the opportunity to hear directly from us about what happens next.
“We will therefore be holding a series of company-wide All Hands calls tomorrow (Monday) for all employees across the whole business. These will be scheduled tomorrow.
“To enable everyone to attend, and to comply with licensing issues arising from an anticipated change of ownership, we have taken the decision that none of our bars will open tomorrow (Monday). All sites will remain closed for the day.
“We have also cancelled food and beer deliveries, as well as customer bookings, for that day.”
Plenty of corporate speak - it was obvious change was coming. But could we have predicted the nature of that change from the words used? Yes!
The first thing I noticed was the relentless focus on all staff. “Everyone,” “all colleagues,” “company-wide,” “All Hands,” “all employees,” “the whole business” - that’s six variations in two paragraphs. The repetition makes it clear: whatever was coming would affect everyone.
Then came the unexpected emphasis on bar closures. This could have been handled simply: “To enable all employees to attend, our bars will be closed.” Instead, there’s a much more elaborate explanation devoted to the closures - as many words spent on bars (a small part of the business) as on the meetings themselves. A sign that the closures were significant.
There’s also no mention of when the bars would reopen. The phrase that caught my eye was “none of our bars will open tomorrow.” You could just as easily say “our bars won’t be open tomorrow.” The “none of” phrasing implies there are different categories of bars - and that some could have stayed open if they’d chosen to.
Think of: “none of the ambulances came quickly enough” vs. “the ambulances didn’t come quickly enough.” The second treats all ambulances as the same. The “none of” version implies different types of ambulances that could have been quick - but not one of them arrived in time.
My conclusion on reading the email: the change of ownership would affect all staff, and the bars wouldn’t be reopening. Sure enough, BrewDog was sold, and all but a handful of bars closed for good.
All Apologies
Tourette’s syndrome sufferer John Davidson found himself at the centre of attention after the BAFTA awards. While the world debated the rights and wrongs of broadcasting his outburst, he stayed silent - only releasing a statement more than a week after the incident.
Here’s what it said:
I hope you spotted the non-apology!
“Whilst I will never apologies for having Tourette syndrome, I will apologise for any pain, upset and misunderstanding it may create”
This is remarkably weak. “I will apologise” is future tense - it’s not an apology now, only a promise that one might come. There’s no admission that pain, upset, or misunderstanding have actually occurred - he refers to “any pain,” leaving it hypothetical. And he weakens it further with “may create” - not that it did cause those reactions, only that it might.
Finally, this is a statement about Tourette’s in general. He never addresses the specific BAFTA incident that made the news.
I admired John Davidson’s quiet dignity while the world around him lost its head - but this was a textbook non-apology.
Stay Away
In Australia, the soap opera that is Kyle and Jackie O rolled on. The two radio hosts had a monumental falling out on air, which led to Jackie leaving the show and Kyle being suspended.
Jackie issued this statement:
Sometimes it’s not what is said, but what isn’t said, that catches my attention. Jackie tells us what didn’t happen: “I want to make one important point very clear: I did not quit or resign.”
But she doesn’t tell us what did happen - what actually caused her “departure from the show.” Reading the statement, you might assume she was fired. But she doesn’t say that, so we can’t conclude it.
Can we work out what happened? I think the clue is in the phrase “appropriate legal channels” - which tells us this is a legal dispute. That means there’s a disagreement about what actually occurred.
Jackie believes she didn’t quit. Her bosses will argue, legally, that she did.
Here’s how I think it played out:
• Jackie refuses to work with Kyle
• Bosses say: “If you don’t come back, you’ll have broken your contract”
• Jackie: “I can’t come back until something changes”
• Bosses: “You have to come back or you’re in breach”
• Jackie: “I’m not coming back until something changes”
• Bosses: “Then you’ve quit”
• Jackie: “You’ve fired me”
There’s so much to learn from what people don’t say.
Kyle released a statement too which I’ve broken down on my LinkedIn - you can read it here
If you want a deep dive into the argument that finished off Kyle and Jackie O, you can watch it here:
Talk To Me
I’ve been watching the investigation into the death of Celeste Rivas with interest, finally someone connected with D4vd spoke and I broke Neo’s words down for LA Magazine here: https://lamag.com/news/deception-expert-says-neo-langstons-post-creates-distance-from-d4vd-investigation/
Finally - if you can spot the connection between the headings in this newsletter, reply and let me know!
See you next month,
Jack
The headlines are songs Nirvana performed!
Thank you for all the lessons Mr. Fox much obliged in Canada :)