Just a verbiage issue
Gwyneth Paltrow reassures us that she is not talking bullshit by talking bullshit.
Earlier this year, the lifestyle corporation fell under scrutiny once more when nonprofit group Truth in Advertising accused Goop of exploiting women with products which claim to combat health problems.
And now Gwyneth has opened up about the controversy.
When asked by the Radio 4 Today Programme about the flack the company has faced about some of the health benefits the products claim to have, Gwyneth replied that she thinks the criticism is important.
“If we’re not criticised we’re not doing our job. What we’re here to do is trailblaize and try to move culture forward,” she said.
“If we’re not criticised we’re not doing our job”? What’s she talking about? If you’re a corporation that purports to sell products that promote “wellness” then why is criticism required to do the job? Why not just sell the correct stuff to promote “wellness” instead?
And then the trailblazing. Why should a movie star be “trailblazing” on medical products? She has no relevant education or training. She’s an actor. And what does she mean by “move culture forward”? Isn’t it, rather, backward? Back to a time when no one knew very much about medicine so guesswork was all they had?
When asked about the specific law suit the company faced she explained:
“In that case there was just a verbiage issue. As you grow as a company, you learn about claims. If you look a product that says this may help with wrinkles you can’t say this will eradicate wrinkles.
That is, you can’t if it doesn’t. If she weren’t peddling woo she wouldn’t have to be careful about the “verbiage” in that way. She can’t say it eradicates wrinkles for the simple reason that it doesn’t. Saying it “may help with” is legal because it’s empty…but, sadly, persuasive to the inattentive.
The interview went on to discuss the Carnelian crystal that claims to help treat infertility.
Gwyneth pointed out that though she’d never tried it she believed there are “ancient healing modalities that have existed the power of oils and crystals for thousands of years that people find really effective.”
Who cares what she believes? This isn’t Tinkerbell. And calling them “modalities” doesn’t make them work any better.
It wasn’t long before people took to Twitter to let their thoughts on the interview known.
Gwyneth Paltrow on BBC Radio 4 basically saying Goop is still learning how to write product descriptions for their bullshit products which won’t result in lawsuits they lose.
— Mike (@6byNine) October 9, 2018
“There was just a verbiage issue”
Gwyneth Paltrow on being caught out making false claims on her mumbo-jumbo products— Matt Chorley (@MattChorley) October 9, 2018
I found a few myself.
Paltrow is peddling harmful quackery, aimed at women, and allowing her to give glib answers to serious questions is just not good enough. @BBCr4today
— Andy (@lecanardnoir) October 9, 2018
BBC ‘balance’: putting climate change deniers like Nigel Lawson up against the global scientific community, yet allowing Paltrow to spout her Goop nonsense with impunity. Flat earth for breakfast, anyone? https://t.co/soXE5rupKK
— Dr Rachel Clarke (@doctor_oxford) October 9, 2018
Lack of evidence and complete sham is not the same as troubling terms https://t.co/MUNadSHwJz
— Jennifer Gunter (@DrJenGunter) October 9, 2018
I read part of an interview with her in a magazine a few weeks ago, and she claimed that people were just jealous because she got rich.
Hell, no. I’m not jealous of her. I couldn’t manage to spend a dime of my money knowing I had made any of it selling harmful products to people who have been led to believe they help. Stick jade eggs up the vagina? No, sir.
I guess you could say I am angry she got rich, but mostly it’s because of making money off people who might be harmed by her products. That’s no better than if a pharmaceutical company sold cyanide and called it a cure for insomnia.
One point of comparison is that Nigel Lawson is happy to appear in the face of expert opposition because this grants (false) legitimacy. He’s an easy booking to fill air time, probably at a moment’s notice.
Paltrow won’t appear if there is any opposition of any kind. She’s perceived as a valuable booking, but one whose conditions must be met.
So, they reflect two different (but equally unfortunate) ways to fill airtime for the producers at the BBC.
Of course, when they put “dramatic debate” in the first case and celebrity face time in the second ahead of clear presentation of truths widely accepted by knowledgeable experts, they have left journalism far, far behind.
It strikes me that this is indicative of a broader issue which is that the media likes to talk to celebrities because they’re celebrities. And because interviewing celebrities is more of a marketing exercise than an attempt to establish facts, these celebs tend to get far too easy a ride.
There are two subjects about which Gwyneth Paltrow has something interesting to say: What film is she currently working on and whether she will be in Avengers 4.
For any other subject she should be talking to a real journalist.
I also agree with Latverian Diplomat on the subject of Nigel Lawson and similar political figures. The BBC has fallen into the trap of thinking that balanced means give both sides equal airtime without attempting to asses the relative merits of the respective positions.
I don’t like knocking the BBC because I think we would all be worse off without it, but they really do need to up their game.
The BBC is really on a roll:
https://mobile.twitter.com/BBC/status/1049359029330477057
@4: I see than Glamrou identifies as Muslim. Is that different from, like, being Muslim?
Skeletor, I don’t know whether to thank you or curse you for that.
Anyway, to the theme at hand. Much as it pains me to say so, the title of this post is an accurate assessment of the real problem here, namely that companies can sell any old crap as long as the advertising stays within the letter of the law.
A case in point is an advert I heard on the radio earlier tonight for Marks and Spencer’s new range of ready meals. Now, ready meals are ready meals are reafy meals, but M&S want theirs to sound better than the competition so the advert says that their exotic dishes are created by their award-winning chefs using ‘authentic cooking methods”, and goes on about sizzling woks and all the rest.
There is nothing false about that. Their chefs do indeed create the dishes in such a way. The insinuation there is that the meal the shopper buys has been lovingly and expertly cooked just as described rather than made in giant vats like the muck the competition sells, but there’s the catch. Once the chef has perfected the recipe it is passed to the manufacturer who multiplies each ingredient by 10,000 or so and produces the stuff in massive amounts in giant vats. Yes, the recipe was created in a wok by a proper chef, but the stuff on sale is mass-produced just like any other mass-produced junk, but it will sell because consumers have been led to believe that the box of food they’ve paid over the odds for was individually prepared just for them.
No lies, just subtle wording, and that is how one can sell any old crap – from yoghurts containing ‘biffidum bullshiticus’ and herbal ‘remedies’ to ‘healing’ crystals and cars that will make traffic jams disappear – and stay within the law.
‘Balanced’ coverage on demand, when leveraged by the wealthy and powerful, has given us a world of ‘alternate’ facts and flat-earthism legitimized.
Trump and Goop are, equally, beneficiaries of this erosion of standards. That we have separate, Pink and Blue categories of snake oil is nothing to be