Misused Phrasing

 There's a line from Princess Bride that goes something like "I do not think that means what you think it means".  That's kind of how I feel about something I've been reading over the last couple of days.

 

My online news source is yahoo.  When I pulled it up yesterday the big story was about Chris Harrison leaving The Bachelor franchise.  According to the article, Chris was paid a "mid eight figure" (tens of millions of dollars!) payoff on the condition that he not talk about his leaving.  And for what it's worth, pay me a mid eight figure payoff and you wouldn't hear a peep from me again!  But I digress.

But here's the thing.  The first article came out first thing in the morning.  It was only a few hours later that the headline for another article was "Chris Harrison breaks his silence . . .".  The article goes on to say that Chris posted I think it was a tweet that basically said he's enjoyed what he did but it's time to move on, as if he had a choice in the matter and wasn't paid an obscene amount of money to leave.

Then this morning I see another headline that says "Rachel Lindsey breaks her silence . . ." and talks about Chris leaving the franchise.  It said she "spoke" yesterday on I think it was Extra.

Here's what I think they don't understand the meaning of "breaks *their* silence".  To me that means that people have been after them for a period of a time (usually a long time - more than later that same day!) and they've refused to comment.  Based on what I read it seemed to be a "we'll put out our statement and then you can say this and then anyone else that wants to can comment".  But I don't see how someone is "breaking a silence" when it's practically a run on sentence from the first article with no real "breaks" in between. And since Chris spoke, does he forfeit the money?  I mean, that was part of the deal, according to the first article.

I just think the phrasing was wrong.

But speaking of Chris leaving the franchise.  I haven't watched it in years and started watching late in the game so it's not like it makes a big difference to me one way or the other but, personally, I think they're making a huge mistake in letting him go.  He's the face of the show and he handled it seamlessly through the years.  Last year they replaced Tom Bergeron on Dancing with the Stars and again, in my opinion, that was a disaster.  Nothing against Tyra Banks but I don't think she was a good fit for the show - and that is one I've watched from day one.  I think whoever they get to replace Chris will suffer the same way and hurt the show in a negative way.

That all said, as for the controversy that caused this "result" I want to say this:  In my opinion, Chris was in a no-win situation in that interview he did with Rachel Lindsey.  The show was still airing new episodes but had "wrapped" months before.  Chris knew how the season ended and who the bachelor picked in the end.  Was he supposed to (or expected to) trash her?  Would the end result (him getting tens of millions of dollars after being let go) be any different if he'd chosen that path?

I just think he was put in an impossible position and I think the result would've been the same either way.  And I think the show will suffer for his leaving, if it survives at all.  It's a bad situation all the way around and I think the way it's been handled only made it worse.  But that's just my opinion.