Stock response

Reader question:

Please explain “stock response” in this sentence (Saying sorry is not enough. The church has got to change, The Observer, March 21, 2010):

Usually, when old and powerful institutions are found guilty of some systemic failure, the stock response is to promise reform.

My comments:

A stock response is a routine response to a typical question. Understand “stock response” as a response “in stock”. Goods in stock are finished products kept in the warehouse, ready to be shipped to the customer as soon as payments are made.

In the above example, “the stock response” implies that the church has given a pat answer, that is, a run-of-the-mill, going-through-the-motion, non-committal reply. Therefore, it might be just another empty promise. It sounds insincere.

In other words, a stock response is the standard reply one generally expects to get. It’s a ready, pre-prepared answer people have for a given situation – one that’s given everyday. If you write in applying to a job, for instance, and they don’t want to give the job to you, they might give you a stock reply saying: “We no longer have the advertised vacancy. Thank you for your application and we’ll be in touch with you if and when the next vacancy becomes available.”

They may no longer have the vacancy – having hired someone else – or they may still have it. By giving you that kind of “stock reply”, they get rid of you without appearing to hurt your feelings.

If, on the other hand, you are a journalist asking for an official response to a mining accident – which, of course, doesn’t make any official or the industry governing body as a whole look good – the official you’re seeking may not want to meet you. Instead, he may have his people give you a seemingly harmlessly polite reply: “He’s not in at the moment. Please leave your contact information and we’ll get back to you as soon as possible.”

That’s the kind of standard answer journalists get everyday, harmless perhaps, but trite and dull. And they do not buy it. They know the official might be right there sitting behind the desk, face in his hands, his hands on elbow, leaning on the table racking his brains in search of an escape route from yet another black-eye incident.

Sometimes, of course, officials will have his people give you a more interesting but less professional answer, for instance, a blunt “He’s not in. No-one knows where he is.”

Ah, well, you get the point. Here is a media example of what a real stock response from authorities looks like:

The Bush administration reacted angrily yesterday to renewed accusations that it may have ignored advance warning of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack. The White House reluctantly confirmed that the president received a letter from Osama Bin Laden just days before the attack. The letter, written on stationery labeled “The Caves at Tora Bora: A Luxury Terrorist Headquarters and Spa,” is believed by the FBI to be genuine. It said:

Dear President Bush:

On September 11, or maybe September 12, I plan to hijack several airplanes and fly them into a building or two in lower Manhattan, and maybe a military facility of some sort in Northern Virginia. Consider yourself warned.

Yours sincerely,

Osama

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer rejected any suggestion that this letter should have alerted the administration about Bin Laden’s plans for Sept. 11. “Look,” he said, “This was a highly ambiguous signal, which was subject to a variety of interpretations. The letter says Sept. 11 or 12. How were we supposed to know that the attack would come on Sept. 11? It might have come on Sept. 12. It would have been the height of irresponsibility to alarm the American people about the possibility of an attack on Sept. 11 when it could just as easily have occurred Sept. 12.”

He also noted that there are many buildings in lower Manhattan—“most of which to this very day have never been subject to a terrorist attack of any sort”—and that Northern Virginia contains a variety of military facilities. “It is easy in hindsight to observe that the Pentagon is in Northern Virginia, but there was no way to be certain that Bin Laden knew this. Many foreigners are under the impression the Pentagon is in the District of Columbia.

“Governing is about judgment,” Fleischer continued. “It is about filtering the tremendous amount of information that pours in and deciding what is relevant and what is not. Do you know how many letters we get from terrorists every week? No, I'm not saying how many. The point is, you don’t know. And you’re not going to find out from me. This administration is not afraid to make the tough calls. It doesn't matter whether a call is right or wrong. What matters is that it's tough. Ignoring a clear warning from a known terrorist was one tough call, and this administration is proud to have made it.”

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice noted in an interview that there are several Osamas listed in the Kabul telephone directory. “If Mr. Bin Laden wished us to take his message seriously, he should have had the common courtesy to sign with his last name. Although the president is a friendly and outgoing person, it would not serve America's interests for him to appear to be on a first-name basis with a terrorist by responding or reacting to Mr. Bin Laden’s letter.”

The White House later clarified that President Bush had, in fact, responded to Bin Laden’s letter, but an official insisted that it was the stock response sent to all letters threatening to hijack airplanes and that there was no special policy applying to letters that also threatened to fly the planes into large buildings. “In fact,” the official said, “It’s the stock response we use for all letters from wealthy individuals.” The response said:

Dear Osama:

Thank you for your generous contribution to the Republican National Committee. With the help of Republicans in Congress, I look forward to signing the legislation you request exactly as you have written it.

Best wishes,

George W. Bush

Vice President Dick Cheney, appearing on 18 TV talk shows yesterday, called Bin Laden’s letter “a cowardly attempt to sow confusion among the forces of civilization and freedom. If the guy had any guts, he would have told us exactly where and when he planned to attack, rather than hiding behind two alternative dates and a variety of possible locations.”

Cheney said that by ending his letter with the words, “Consider yourself warned,” Bin Laden made it impossible for the administration to take his warning seriously. “For the U.S. government to have indicated in any way that we considered ourselves warned would have been a victory for terrorism. Only by considering ourselves unwarned, and acting as such, could we protect the vital interests of the United States.”

- The Hindsight Saga, Slate.msn.com, May 20, 2002.