As I've mentioned a few times, I've represented some fairly unsympathetic clients in my time. Plastics manufacturers, HMOs, lawyers, arbitrators, real estate developers -- basically everyone except The Christopher & Dana Reeve Foundation. So I've been in situations where I've had to communicate news to an audience who didn't want to hear it.
The absolute bare minimum you have to do is at least phrase the bad news in context of why it is necessary for the audience. "We're sorry you're health premiums had to rise 20% but somebody's got to pay for all those MRIs that are saving lives in your community," "Raising late fees on your credit card makes it possible to eliminate annual fees," "Arbitrators reduce costs for all parties by coming to a decision quickly even if they take the jackpot justice verdict off the table," etc.
Which brings us to Jennifer Levitz's story on Louisiana casket makers suing monks who build coffins without a license.
What's the casket manufacturers' excuse for using regulations to keep a low-cost supplier of quality coffins out of the market?
"They're cutting into our profit," says Leonard Dunn, the owner of Serenity Funeral Home, located a short drive from the abbey. He adds. "I don't think the monks are actually making the caskets—I think it's a marketing gimmick."
So the reason the monk's activity is objectionable is that they make life difficult for the competition (the customers will be really sympathetic to that argument) and oh yeah, the monks are liars.
Regardless of how you feel about these kinds of regulations - there is no way to be sympathetic to that argument.
Another quoted spokesperson later in the article tries to suggest the monks don't have the know-how to build a quality coffin - but offers no proof to support the viewpoint.
It never would have been easy for the cartel to come off as sympathetic in a story like this - but these responses they made a bad situation worse, not better.