Explorers or Boys Messing About?

Either Way, Taxpayer Gets Rescue Bill analysis

Two seasoned explorers, presumed to have extensive experience navigating the challenges of adventures, find
themselves in a helicopter crash, as detailed in a January 28, 2003, article by Steven Morris in The Guardian
newspaper titled "Explorers or Boys Messing About? Either Way, Taxpayer Gets Rescue Bill."

The article blends facts with opinions, where facts are presented as indisputable truths, while opinions reflect the
author's personal sentiments. Journalists like Steven Morris strive to inform and entertain their readers. The
informality of the title, along with the use of the verb "messing about," immediately shapes the audience's
perception, subtly mocking the explorers and portraying them as immature. Although the title appears to pose a
rhetorical question, designed for dramatic effect rather than requiring an answer, the reporter seems to provide his
own interpretation throughout the text.

Furthermore, the mention of the taxpayer having to cover the rescue bill further biases the audience against the
"boys" referenced in the headline. It serves as a reminder that regardless of how these men are perceived, it will
ultimately be the taxpayer who foots the bill for their rescue. This suggests the author's intention to engage the
readers by highlighting their stake in the issue and perhaps fostering animosity towards the two explorers.

Morris criticises the incident, describing it as having "ended in farce," which casts doubt on the actions of the men
and the overall outcome.

Despite this, the initial paragraphs primarily consist of factual details, structured like a report: "The men were
plucked from the icy water by a Chilean naval ship after a nine-hour rescue…" "The rescue involved the Royal Navy,
the RAF, and British coastguards." However, the writer's use of contrasting terms such as "expedition" and "farce"
implicitly suggests that this flight should never have taken place, conveying a critical undertone towards these
"boys." The narrative flow, mentioning nationalities such as "Russian, Chileans, and British," accentuates the
absurdity and expense of the expedition in terms of both resources and manpower.

Even within these factual statements, the choice of the verb "plucked" injects a subjective perspective on the
manner of their rescue, revealing a lack of journalistic impartiality. The use of "plucked" in the byline underscores
the explorers' vulnerability, offering readers further insight into the situation. The extensive duration of the naval
rescue ship's involvement, lasting "nine hours," underscores the irresponsibility of the men and the substantial effort
required for their rescue.

The writer highlights a list that underscores the enormity of the rescue mission, employing hyperbolic alliteration in
"tens of thousands of pounds," which underscores the economic impact of the failed mission on the government,
and particularly on taxpayers. This line brings focus to the excessive expenditure involved in their rescue, reinforcing
a preconceived notion of their recklessness when "experts questioned the wisdom" of their decision to use a small
helicopter.

The personification of the website, which claims they were planning to fly from the north to the south pole, and the
use of quotation marks around "trusty helicopter," serve to ridicule the duo's decision. Furthermore, the author's
use of the common noun "boys" is diminutive, portraying them as reckless teenagers who lack awareness of their
actions and neglect safety, which is contrary to what is expected from explorers.

Morris' reference to the explorers' ages, "42 and 40," implies an expectation of maturity and responsible decision-
making due to their advanced years, suggesting that the incident could have been avoided.

The specific jargon related to distinct parts of Antarctica and the technical details about the helicopter enhance
Steven Morris’ credibility and expertise on the subject, instilling confidence in the reader's perception of him. This
effectively elicits a negative reaction towards the two explorers and amplifies the shame and stigma surrounding
their failed exploration.

Simultaneously, the active voices in "ditched" and "scrambled into their life raft" are deliberate efforts by the author
to place blame on the two "boys." The mention of Mr. Brook’s “Breitling emergency watch” emphasizes the
expensive nature of their accessories, hinting at the wealth and status of the explorers, and may reflect an insult
stemming from his wife, Jo Vestey’s, perception of their expedition as mere “messing about.”
The journalist’s inclusion of statistics to specify the distance traveled by HMS Endurance, the Royal Navy's ice patrol
ship, and the use of the present continuous verb "steaming" highlights the prompt action taken by the British
government and the Chilean rescue team's swift response—an array of options unfairly exploited by Mr. Brooks and
Mr. Smith.

Morris' shift in narrative and the use of simple sentences in "both men are experienced adventurers," while detailing
the explorers' extensive background in previous explorations, asserts their privilege and the misuse of government
resources. However, the choice of the verb "claims" undermines the pair's integrity and expertise, while the implicit
mention of their wealth incites annoyance and frustration in the reader.

Similarly, the explicit mention of "one of the aims of the mission..." to demonstrate "how good the relations
between East and West had become" criticizes the duo's grandiose belief in their ability to unify political adversaries,
suggesting their naivety and delusion. In addition, the repetition of "wisdom," an abstract noun in lines 13 and 60,
emphasizes that Brooks and Smith's decision is the opposite of wise, portraying it as foolish and reckless—an
admonishment of their actions.

Ending the article with the wife's statement, "they'll probably have their bottoms kicked," a colloquialism implying
light punishment and the likelihood of future wrongdoing, suggests that these "two boys messing about" will likely
continue their actions, leaving taxpayers to bear the consequences.