Disaster

So, we have escaped disaster! The VVD has been running the Directorate-General for Public Works and Water Management (Rijkswaterstaat) for years! I expect chamber questions to #CvNieuwenhuizen? How many more bridges and tunnels have not been properly inspected? #onevandaag

Case study closure of Merwede bridge for freight traffic due to danger of collapse, Rijkswaterstaat

So suggests a conclusion, a small word with great eloquencez

The scenario that ‘we have escaped disaster’ is phrased more factually than subjectively. The tweeter says ‘so, we have’, instead of, what could have been, ‘I think we have’. This way, the rumour is presented as truth; the scenario outlined is made plausible.

The first question is whether the scenario outlined (in this case, escaping disaster) is true. If it is not correct, question the scenario outlined by saying how it is and provide more context if necessary. If the scenario is partially correct, explain what is correct about it, what is not, and add additional context if necessary.
If the scenario outlined is correct, decide to what extent the organisation is willing and able to be transparent about it. You might choose to provide process information in this case and, for example, explain what procedures are followed when inspecting bridges and/or what actions are taken to ensure the safety of road users. The example also asks a specific question. It is good to answer it. But it can also be different and simple as shown in the example below.

Breakdown New Botlek Bridge. Nuisance for road and shipping traffic. We are working on it to rectify the fault (28 September, 1.17 AM)

The above tweet consisting of three short sentences contains a lot of factual information. For instance, the tweet immediately opens with an on-the-spot formulation: ‘Breakdown New Botlek Bridge’. This suggests that RWS is on the spot or at least can observe the spot, Botlek Bridge, here now. This reinforces the truthfulness of the message and lends authority to RWS. This message is followed with the equally brief sentence ‘Nuisance for road and shipping traffic’. Clearly, without further digression or details, we are presented here with the implication of the disruption. Thereby, specific target groups are named in ‘road and shipping traffic’, in accessible terms and yet at the same time in technical language. Everyone now knows that rail passengers will not also be affected (in a direct sense) by this. The use of ‘nuisance’ instead of, say, trouble or worse disastrous, gives a neutral description of the consequences. It is inconvenience but also no more than that.

Finally, the tweet concludes with what RWS is doing, ‘we are working on it’, again phrased ‘on-the-spot’: RWS is working on it here and now and on the spot. Above all, the tweet is constructed as a so-called ’three-part-list’. Three suggests completeness because it is a trinity. That also makes the tweet robust, no question. In other words: we don’t need to explain this.

Beschrijvende taal

Here is another good example with equally factual and on-the-spot language:

Due to damage to the ceiling of the Beneluxtunnel (#A4), the right tunnel tube is closed. Traffic from The Hague towards Rotterdam can use the other tunnel tube. It is not known when the road will be free again.

Scenariovorming 3