4 ms·
“These claims have absolutely no merit, and we will vigorously defend ourselves against them in court,” Quibi said in a statement Monday. The company declined t
by bsanr2 7y ago
“These claims have absolutely no merit, and we will vigorously defend ourselves against them in court,” Quibi said in a statement Monday. The company declined to comment on Eko’s lawsuit.
I know that this is far from the first time I've seen it, but does anyone else find it unnerving to see these statements be presented as coming directly from the companies? As if there is an entity called Quibi that literally vocalized that sentence, instead of it being presented by a lawyer representing Quibi. How long ago did the absurdity of "corporate personhood" worm its way into our very language?
- rtkwe 7y agoIf it's an official statement on behalf of the company I think it's the most reasonable way to frame it. I don't care who the random lawyer or spokesperson actually reading the statement is 90% of the time what's more relevant is what the official stance of the company as decided by it's various parts is.
- sjeuueheh 7y agoNo because most people understand that it's just a convention for helping the reader understand the context of the statement.
- wayoutthere 7y agoThis kind of language is not remotely new. It makes sense too, as a statement issued by a company in written form was likely authored by many people (who may or may not individually share the views in the statement) for the benefit of the company.
- bsanr2 7y agoWhich is fine. But no one cares to humor the notion of a link between the lack of accountability for individuals within companies, when wrongdoing is apparent, with the way we scrub individuals from company interaction with the public? I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that the way we talk about companies influences how we regard and treat them.
- wayoutthere 7y agoWe do the same for all groups of people, not just companies. And the conventions aren't much different in other languages.
- bsanr2 7y agoWhen we do, it's largely for the negative purposes of extending blame to all within a group, not obfuscate or diffuse blame, as is the case here.
- jariel 7y agoThere's nothing wrong with that language and it has little to do with corporate personhood. The merits of the issue may be another story altogether. I'd be interested in hearing someone with more knowledge of the situation.
- danso 7y agoCreating and issuing these kinds of statements – which includes getting it vetted by the company's legal team and its executives – are one of the main functions of a company's public relations department. That is not new.