April Newsletter: Reading the News Like a Language Detective

Hello and welcome to April’s newsletter. This one is being written overlooking a very expensive marina in Portugal. None of the boats belong to me (no deception detected!).

I’m going to start with a story that was huge for a week here in the UK. The morning presenter on our biggest radio station was fired out of the blue. His name is Scott Mills and, unusually for these kinds of stories, there was no foresight that this was coming, no rumors or even vague hints.

In the first hours following the announcement, the biggest questions on UK social media were “why was Scott fired?” and “what the hell has he done?”

His employer, the BBC, issued a very bland statement confirming the facts, but the press also got hold of an internal email announcing Mills’ departure. It read:

“I wanted to personally let you know that Scott Mills has left the Breakfast show, and the BBC.

I know that this news will be sudden and unexpected, and therefore must come as a shock. Not least as so many of us have worked with Scott over a great many years, across a broad range of our programmes on R1, 5Live, R2 and TV.

I felt it was important to share this news with you at the earliest opportunity. Of course, it will also come as a shock to our audience and loyal breakfast show listeners too. I will update everyone with more information on plans for the show when I’m able to. While I appreciate that many of us will have questions, I hope you can understand that I am not going to be saying anything.”

Compared to the official announcement, this email had a lot of interesting word choices that I felt revealed what had gone on. With events moving quickly, I emailed my analysis to some members of the Never A Truer Word Facebook Group with a promise that, whether I was right or wrong, I’d share what I said here and look at how accurate I was.

I said:

“She focusses on the emotion and hides the reason for the sacking—she is upfront that she will not discuss the reason. She says it will come as a shock twice; I think this is projection. It shocked her especially as one of the people who ‘have worked with Scott.’

That makes me think it’s a really bad thing that’s going to come out, totally about Scott and his life, nothing to do with the BBC. Illegal is my thinking, not immoral. There’s no justification like ‘we expect our presenters to behave to the highest standards’; they don’t need to justify, they know when it comes out, it’s bad.

Also, this news ‘will be’—not this news ‘is’—sudden, hinting at more to come in the future.

My guess is an arrestable offense—if he hasn’t already been arrested. Stretching it more, but it will involve anonymity of the victim, which is some of the worst of the offenses I can think of.”

Reading that back, I should have said: “illegal is my thinking, not only immoral.”

In the days that followed, the reasons for Mills’ sacking emerged. How close was I? Here’s a summary of everything that came out:

“In late March 2026, Scott Mills was fired by the BBC following an investigation into his personal conduct and a historic relationship dating back over ten years. According to reports from the BBC and major UK outlets, the broadcaster terminated his contract after receiving ‘new information’ regarding a police investigation into alleged sexual offenses involving a teenager under the age of 16 that reportedly occurred between 1997 and 2000.”

I was not far off at all. My suspicion regarding the victim’s anonymity was correct, a direct result of the alleged victim being a minor at the time. The one part I missed was the historical nature of the allegations. I probably could have picked that up from the mention of Mills having worked at the BBC for a number of years.

What is remarkable to me is that I’d bet this email was drafted and redrafted many times. It was checked over to ensure it had the right information while remaining bland enough to hide the depths of what was happening and yet, it still had traces in the words that meant, if someone looked hard enough, they could find exactly what was behind it.

It’s time for a couple more examples of how the word “never” gets misused. First, from a professional dancer speaking about how dedicated she is to her craft:

“I was never a party girl. I’ve never even been drunk, I don’t like the feeling.”

Two “nevers” for the price of one. Have you spotted it? If she’s “never” been drunk, how does she know she doesn’t like the feeling?

Next, a convicted fraudster, tracked down by a reporter and asked if she stole money. Guess what she said?

That is one of those uses of “never” that is working too hard. Stealing money is binary: she either did or she didn’t. However, because she did steal but wants to deny it, she feels she can’t simply say “no, I didn’t.” Instead, she adds “never,” meaning “not at any time.” The “never” doesn’t change the literal meaning, but it reveals a desperate need to convince us.

First, apologies to the boyfriend in question!

I don’t think I’ve covered restarts and corrections in the newsletter before. A restart is when someone starts to say something and thinks better of it; they stop and restart saying something else.

This sounds like:

• “Then I started walk—running to get help.”

• “I knew I was mak—I knew we were making a mistake.”

A correction is similar, but the person says one thing then restates it with a change to the content. Like:

• “Watching reality TV is so addictive—not that I watch it.”

• “It was a complete waste of time—well, apart from seeing my sister.”

In most cases, our words are automatic. Our brain handles what we say subconsciously, in the same way it looks after our breathing and blinking. It decides how much oxygen we need or notices when our eyes need a clean.

Our brain knows the truth—what we’ve experienced and how we feel—and it sends the words that represent that truth to our mouths. Therefore, the first thing we say is usually instinctive. The restarts and corrections come when our conscious brain picks up on what was just said and feels the need to edit the record.

In the examples above, the process looks like this:

• “Then I started walk—running to get help”: Walking is the truth, but it makes it sound like you weren’t being urgent enough. Stop saying walking; say running instead.

• “I knew I was mak—I knew we were making a mistake”: This makes it sound like you were the only person at fault. Go back and say “we” made the mistake.

• “Watching reality TV is so addictive—not that I watch it”: You’re making it sound like you’re addicted to reality TV, and that isn’t the impression you want to give. Make it clear that’s not you.

• “It was a complete waste of time—well, apart from seeing my sister”: You thought the weekend was awful, but that sounds harsh on your sister. Make sure you’re nice about her.

In general, the automatic first thing we say is the most truthful, and the restart or correction is less so. Which makes me feel sorry for the guy in this clip!

One of my mantras is: if you want to know if someone is being truthful and open, look at how directly they answer questions.

Now, have a look at this clip:

The question was: how did the group come to the decision to reform as a trio? Do you know the answer? They didn’t answer directly, so it’s obvious they are hiding the true story.

What else can I spot there?

The first word of the answer is “well” always a signal that instead of a straightforward answer, you’re going to get an explanation or a reframing of the question.

• “What time did you start work today?” “Well, I normally start at 9 but traffic was bad so about quarter past.”

• “How many times a week do you go to the gym?” “Well, for me the gym isn’t everything to do with fitness...”

Here: “How did you decide to be a trio?”

“Well, I mean… ahhh… listen… we are just—we are like—we are so… as women today…”

Bonus points if you spotted the “just” indicating she was going to do some minimizing, plus the restarts we discussed earlier.

We then get: “I mean it has been an ever-changing line-up, you know this is what it looks like now in 2026 and you never know what comes next and I think ultimately we’ve got to protect our peace and when—when something like the Pussycat Dolls has so much history—we have ruptured in the past and right now we are repairing.”

The mention of “protect our peace,” “history,” and “ruptured” indicates a large amount of animosity between the trio and those who aren’t part of the new line-up. I also note that “we are repairing” is present tense—it isn’t “we have repaired,” suggesting there is still significant tension!

If you want to be less of a pussycat and more of a tiger when YOU speak, then check out my podcast, How Words Work. We look at why we can all sound deceptive when we speak and how to remove that impression to talk with more clarity, authority, and confidence.

I’m off for a mooch around the marina.

Jack