Even the Mighty and Omniscient Larry Fink has Feet of Clay!

I have long regarded Larry Fink as Mr. Omniscient! As many of my readers know, he is the co-founder and CEO of the highly respected corporation BlackRock which, at $4.8 trillion in assets under management, is the world’s largest multinational investment management firm. Given the sheer size and reach of BlackRock, I believe Mr. Fink, together with his top executive team, must be knowing anything and everything there is to know when it comes to investments, which translates to knowing everything significant occurring on our planet, hence his presumed omniscience! Not surprisingly, whenever the BlackRock CEO makes an appearance on “Charlie Rose,” which is alas much too infrequent, I hungrily lap up every syllable that he utters. Yes, there is gold in his words. Did you know that, late last month, the Chinese government picked his brain for possible solutions to get its economy--the world’s second largest--back on track? 

A marquee statement that contains an astonishingly poor choice of words: Larry Fink’s last appearance on “Charlie Rose” (February 22, 2015) helped me realize that the saying “No one is perfect: Everyone has feet of clay” even applies to demigods, people of Mr. Fink’s preeminence. Toward the end of the interview (at the 47-minute mark in the 54-minute program), Charlie Rose zeroed in on a (perhaps recent) marquee statement by the BlackRock CEO, even displaying it prominently on the television screen. It read “We are maniacal about driving high performance but we are also a family. Our clarity of purpose is crystal clear, has never changed, and never will.” (The emphasis in red is mine, for reference later in this post.)  

[Larry Fink’s response to Charlie Rose’s next question “What’s the clarity of purpose?” is not relevant to this post, but it contained salutary advice for long-term investors like me, so here goes: “To provide a better financial future for our clients, to help them think about outcomes… instead of focusing on noise in the papers…and on market volatility, which is meaningless. If you (have/ are focused on) a pension fund with a 30-year objective, does it really matter what’s happening in India or Greece today?”] 

Discussion of the poor word choice above and my recommendations: I am sure many of my readers will be struck by the redundancy--and the resulting inelegance--in the “clarity of purpose” sentence highlighted in red. “Our clarity of (such-and-such thing) is crystal clear” is no different to saying something like “the sincerity of my apology/ friendship/ advice…is absolutely sincere” or “the difficulty of task is extremely difficult.” There are many different ways Mr. Fink could have made that key statement with the same vehemence but correctly. Two alternatives, for instance: 

1. Our clarity of purpose is a constant--has never changed, and never will. It is immutable!
2. Our purpose is crystal clear (or, is unquestionably clear) and unambiguous/ precise... It has never changed and never will.

The second alternative sounds better, and is more penetrating, because the dropping of “clarity” from the beginning of the sentence allows me to reinsert Larry Fink's vivid and evocative phrase “crystal clear.” Still, if Mr. Fink wanted to emphasize the term “purpose” at the very beginning of the sentence, he could have used a variety of stirring adjectives. For example: “Our singular purpose is…” or “Our overarching purpose is…” or “Our defining purpose is…” and so on.  

What explains the kind of muddy wording, the redundancy, as in the “clarity of purpose” sentence (a clumsiness that I do encounter occasionally)? Too much passion and emotion clouding out clarity of language. But what amazes me most about this particular case is how come no one on Mr. Fink’s presumably highly talented team noticed the screwed-up language? Or maybe some did but succumbed to timorousness! 

Has Larry Fink’s glaring solecism dimmed my high esteem for his intellect? Not an iota! In fact, I can hardly wait for his next appearance on PBS. Given the many disturbing and tectonic events in recent months, and the ongoing tumult in China, a glimpse into his latest thinking would be like manna from heaven.

 

© Copyright 2015 V.J. Singal

 

A Glaring Solecism: Dylann Roof, Perpetrator of the Charleston Church Shootings, a “Gentleman”?

In the six days since that stunning massacre of nine African Americans in a church in Charleston, leading South Carolinians have, justifiably, used such terms as “a hardcore white supremacist,” “an extreme racist,” and “an embodiment of evil” to describe the 21-year-old perpetrator, Dylann Roof. There has been an outpouring of equally strong denunciations from prominent Americans elsewhere.

So, you can imagine my annoyance and indignation when, during yesterday’s edition of the “Diane Rehm Show,” the highly respected Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne used the word gentleman while referring to Dylann Roof.  “Unforgivably thoughtless of Dionne, considering his vast experience as a guest on NPR and other radio programs,” I immediately remarked to myself. When it comes to more appropriate words, Dionne had a choice of numerous alternatives—man, person, individual, fellow, killer, shooter…I could go on.

[E.J. Dionne’s exact words--“…it became very clear as the weekend unfolded that this gentleman was motivated by a deep racism...”--were in response to Rehm’s opening question and can be seen at the 10:08:25 mark in the transcript: https://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2015-06-22/gun-homicides-mass-violence-and-racism-in-the-u-s]

Of course, E.J. Dionne’s solecism is not the first time I’ve heard a radio or TV guest apply the word gentleman for the perpetrator of something heinous. Time and again, I hear law enforcement officers commit the same “crime,” i.e., “murder” the word gentleman by using it when referring to, say, a terrorist, a rapist, or an armed burglar.

Bottom line--The thing to ponder for my blog readers is: Has society become so reflexive, so robotic, in its use of gentleman that the word has lost its complimentary sense and is now no more than a synonym for “a male adult”?  In other words, using the word gentleman for a criminal is no longer an impropriety?

 

© Copyright 2015  V. J. Singal

 

Because of a Poor Choice of Words, Guest on the “Diane Rehm Show” Came Across as a Scold

Avoid using the phrase “as I told you…” unless you absolutely must. Why? Because, unless the words are accompanied by friendly and pleasing nonverbals, you can come across like a scold!  Here is a specific example:

During the October 1, 2013, edition of the “Diane Rehm Show,” which was about the shrinking population of the monarch butterfly, as guest panelist Tamie DeWitt (an invertebrate biologist and a “monarch expert”) was explaining how her team catches monarchs, she added: “It’s a lot easier than you think because as I told you before, these monarchs are very focused on getting to Mexico.” [This sentence occurs at 11:13:15 in the transcript.]

Now, I have no doubt that Tamie DeWitt is as endearing and pleasing a personality as is the subject of her pursuits--i.e., monarch butterflies--and I am sure she meant to respond in a most friendly and pleasing manner. But the words “as I told you before,” compounded by her relatively strong voice and rapid speech, made Ms. DeWitt sound like a scold. To us radio listeners, who couldn’t see any disarming or mitigating facial expression and other body language (if there were any), she came across—at that precise moment—as one who was admonishing or at least mildly reprimanding the person asking the questions, host Diane Rehm.

So, how else could Ms. DeWitt have worded her response? Well, how about something like this: “As I was saying earlier…” or “As I indicated earlier….” In some situations, one could use an even humbler alternative: “As I was suggesting earlier...”

Bottom line: Unless you are using appropriately friendly and endearing body language or you really mean to chide someone (or express annoyance or irritation), it’s best to avoid using the word “told” as in “As I told you….”

© Copyright 2013  V. J. Singal