Songyi Yuan

ENG4U

Stratton

Due: 2013-07-22

Summative Report

In An honest answer? Shocking! the author William Watson convinces the readers that people often do not want to hear the truth, as they are accustomed to falsehood and being told what they want to hear. A positive first impression, crafty lies, and a comforting, albeit deceiving demeanor is what people need in times of crisis. Any deviation from this accustomed expectation of lies results in utter disbelief, despite seemingly good intentions, as expressed by Edward Burkhardt and his press conference at Lac-Megantic. Watson uses very strong and highly effective contrast between what Burkhardt did and what an ideal representative would have done. Watson describes this person as a hired spokeswoman, who expressed seriousness yet appeared attractive. She should be wearing blue to show trust, but not an outrageously gaudy suit as it fits in with the low-incomes of most disaster victims. Of course, being in Quebec, she would begin her presentation and apology in French first, and then English. Her goal is to give a generic apology, seem to feel concerned, and come press conference question time, and merely rephrase what she had said. This idea spokeswoman would emphasize the obvious, but takes a neutral, passive stance in the whole matter. This course of action will not only please her company (Maine, Montreal and Atlantic Railway), but also please the families of disaster victims with her well-calculated compassion. In contrast, Ed Burkhardt was sent in all his mocking glory. A 74 year old CEO arrived five days late in a private jet from Calgary, and then chauffeured into Megantic in a limousine. Not only does Burkhardt respond to questions solely in English, he makes the biggest mistake any corporate spokesperson makes: pointless rambling. While the idea spokesperson would avoid piercing questions and answer most with the same idea: Im sorry, but I understand you concern, Burkhardt would awkwardly scour his mind for any truth he can grasp on, regardless of whether or not it helps with his public image or portrayal of his apologetic message. Burkhardt not only betrays his company (claims the train accident was a mechanical fault by his engineers, and not simply an accident), but also openly insults the severity of the accident when he refuses to apologize again after being asked to (he says that he had already apologized 10 times that day). In addition, the method of generalization of individuals also develops what Watson is trying to prove. His claims of the ideal spokesperson generalizes stereotypes, albeit those with

positive connotations. Watson states that women show more empathy when disasters involve losses of lives. A persons physical appearance, dress, and age are also key factors on pleasing an audience. The reader is shown that an audience overlooks status, wealth, and power in favour of knowledge, praise, and trust. This description is also parallel to Thomas Mores attitude concerning the divorce of King Henry VII, as the king trusted a man who pleases the populace without the use of power, wealth, or status, but on his trustworthiness and honour. Watson uses a highly critical tone throughout the editorial, but does so effectively to convey a sense of hatred and dismay even while in a serious attitude. In the article, Burkhardt was described as someone who put his financial loss on a par with all the deaths. This shows the deep astonishment of the author that the subject would even remotely regard personal wealth with the lost lives of fifty people, and further emphasizes the severity of the occasion, and how Burkhardt really values the truth (as, indeed, he did lose quite a considerable sum of money) over appealing to his audience. The article states that BS is [not] false but that [BS] is phoney. This quote is significant in establishing the critical tone of the piece as it even puts down truth as although being truth, it is not genuine. This is attacking Burkhardts attempt at an apology in that stating his concerns, public image, financial losses, mourning of the deaths, and the cause for accident is valid, but not in the sense that he supports his claims. As quoted, [Burkhardt should have said that] involvement in conceded, [but] responsibility is not. An honest answer? Shocking! and A Man for All Seasons is closely connected in their idea of theme such that silence is more beneficial for ones well-being, as ones opinion, even if it is the honest and whole truth, is disregarded and frowned upon in favour of that of which appeals society. Consequence to following this will result in public image deprecation and the eventual downfall. In A Man for All Seasons, protagonist Thomas More, when approached by the king to condone his divorce, refuses to even satisfy the simple wish of a statement of approval. More does so because he is so dedicated to his conscience that his desire to keep his morals intact overrules the pressure to conform to the wants of society and his king. Mores action of pursuing the truth results in his loss of job, imprisonment, and execution. Although not as dramatic, Burkhardts crisis is a very similar case to that of More. Burkhardt was approached by the citizens of Lac-Megantic and the press on his opinion on the accident. Instead of following the usual guidelines of accepting full responsibility and displaying genuine sorrow, much to

the surprise of his audience, Burkhardt immediately pointed an accusatory finger to his engineers and train operators, and even becomes frustrated and commanding of his audience. Even though Burkhardt never uttered a single lie in his press conference and interview, his truth hurt the townspeoples feelings even more than a lie could have. By refusing to derail from the truth, Burkhardt faced public ridicule, a ban from the town, and exile from any further attempts of him to fix the problem. This revelation of the theme topic of silence and its strength effectively is demonstrated in both the editorial An honest answer? Shocking! and the play A Man for All Seasons.