Only To Distort

These are some of the things I dislike - misrepresentation, distortion, sensationalism, hyperbole, vitriol, vendettas, agendas, falsehoods, egoism, unquestioning acceptance, black and white. I may be guilty of some of them, but it still doesn't mean I like them. Some of them overlap, intertwine; they are all symptoms of a lack of balance or of proportion.

There have been examples of some of these in the reporting of Palmanova and in the ongoing Mallorca's expensive propaganda. Let us take a letter to "The Bulletin" yesterday, another letter to the paper going down the expensive route. It requires a response, and not one that kow-tows to the sentiments of the letter and calls for price controls. The writer states that paracetamol, as an example, costs almost 5 euros in Mallorca compared to 35 pence in a UK supermarket. What is wrong with this? Plenty. For starters, a pack of one brand of twenty 500 mg paracetamol tablets costs 2.30 from a chemists. It is more expensive than UK supermarkets, but not by the margin suggested (and for 35 pence, how many tablets does one get and at what strength?). Its sale is also controlled. The UK differs from Spain, and indeed other European countries, in allowing the sale of certain drugs outside the chemist channel. UK supermarket chains have enormous purchasing power that allows them to sell a small pack of paracetamol at a lower price than many UK chemists. There is also no equivalent of Boots in Mallorca. But if drugs are on prescription, some can cost a handful of centimos, such is the cheapness of many of them. You cannot compare like with like - it's a distortion of the facts to do so in order to seek to support an agenda that sets out to prove the expensive or more expensive case.

The letter goes on: vodka at the airport is similar in price to the UK. The airport shops are more expensive than ones in resorts, even for tobacco. But note that the price is "similar". The supermarkets in the UK are often criticised for their price competitiveness when it comes to alcohol and to fuelling binge drinking. The comparison has found evidence from one retail setting in order to try and prove a case; it is a further distortion, but even then an argument not well made. The letter believes that "prices in Mallorca are exceptionally higher than those in the UK". This is exaggeration, hyperbole. The truth of the statement, and it is not wholly untrue in certain instances, lies in the functioning of the market. Go back to the purchasing power of UK supermarket chains and add on the level of competition in that sector. You cannot compare it with that in Mallorca. A Wal-Mart or Tesco would shake up the Mallorcan supermarket scene, but neither would be likely to set foot on the island owing to cultural differences, logistics, labour rules and red tape. The letter also compares prices of named brands of sun lotion. They may well indeed be more expensive in Mallorca for the same reason of purchasing power. In which case, don't buy them. Recently I cited the example of the Müller store that sells spray lotions at different factors at very low cost.

Letter-writers, journalists, it does not matter which. One does not start, or should not start, from the conclusion, what one wants to prove; it is wholly the wrong approach, a top-down one that is bound to distort the true situation.


Then we come to Palmanova. "The Bulletin", through its editorial and another letter, makes a point in respect of the lack of information following the incident. The regional government president has since apologised for this lack of information. The point is well made that, without information, speculation was allowed to grow and an untrue representation as to the target of the bombers allowed to be made. There was a PR failure; the government admits this. The main concerns regarding the lack of information were to do with the lockdown of points of exit and of roads and in the immediate vicinity of the incident. There was inconvenience, annoyance and some anger, most of it the result of poor communication. But let's take a UK perspective. When the Glasgow attack occurred, what happened? Security measures were put into place in airports across the UK, immediate restrictions imposed. Much of the reporting had to do with, yes, a lack of information and poor communication and resultant annoyance and inconvenience caused to passengers.

The letter on the subject, otherwise a good analysis of the situation, concludes that Palmanova highlights a lack of political experience and a lack of fitness for office of the regional government. This is unfair and out of proportion. Take out the word political, and one has something more of the truth of the situation. Lack of experience in dealing with such an incident. The lockdown was the effecting of a plan that was already in place. The lesson of Palmanova is that experience should be gained in making communication a key element of that plan; it was this that was missing and has been acknowledged as having been missing. One also needs to consider the instructions of the police, the security forces and the interior ministry. It is they who drive events in such circumstances, not the tourism ministry. The latter should now become a firm feature of joined-up communication responses to any incident in the future, were one to ever occur. There were numerous groups that needed to be communicated with after Palmanova, not just tourists - the general public, the media, tour operators, airlines, other governments. And a final point, there is a language factor. Police not communicating with tourists in Palmanova may, as much as anything else, have been the result of their inability to speak languages. Indeed they could have made matters worse if they had expressed themselves incorrectly.

Ultimately, and despite the failures in communication and the sensationalism in the press, we learn that there are virtually no cancellations of holidays. Some will always respond in a paranoid fashion, but overwhelmingly there is an appreciation that Palmanova was not the manifestation of a threat to tourists. As with plane crashes, people move on very quickly on the principle that lightning very rarely strikes twice. Thankfully, most can see distortion and sensationalism for what they are.


QUIZ
Yesterday's title - Vic Reeves. One of the biggest responses ever, such as that from Dan. Maybe tells me something about future "quizzes". Today's title - we had her, as it were, only a couple of weeks ago. This comes from a terrific upbeat song.

(PLEASE REPLY TO andrew@thealcudiaguide.com AND NOT VIA THE COMMENTS THINGY HERE.)