Time for a rant.
Journalists seem to love certain words that no one actually uses in normal conversations. Have you remarked on the “acrimonious” divorce your friends are going through? (Almost 300 hits in Nexis in the past month.) How about those “temblors” that have shaken the world recently”? (More than 300 uses in the past month.) Did you ever note that your favorite team has been “beset” by injuries? (Nearly 700 hits.) Have you ever said that you were “slated” for surgery next week? (More than 3,000 hits.)
All of the words are perfectly good English, but people just don’t talk that way. They’re really jargon—non-idiomatic uses of words that rarely appear anywhere but news reports.
Journalism, written or spoken, should be conversational, so it can make a better connection with the audience. Depending on audience, the language can be informal, even slangy. But these words go in the opposite direction.
“Acrimonious” has an nice onomatopoeic ring to it, a harsh word for a harsh relationship. But it’s not very familiar to many people. Why it has replaced “bitter,” “caustic,” or even the slightly more colloquial “nasty” is anyone’s guess, but it’s definitely a favorite of journalists.
In some cases, as in the case of “temblor,” writers are probably looking for a synonym for “earthquake,” “quake,” or “tremor.” A more obvious synonym, “trembler,” shows up only twice to “temblor’s” more than 300 appearances in the past shaky month. “Temblor” is a reach outside conventional usage, the way “canine,” “pup,” “Fido,” and “man’s best friend” are far-out synonyms for “dog.”
“Beset” is a great headline word, but in text, where space is at less of a premium, there are better, more fluid alternatives: “hobbled,” which has the benefit of also being literally true in many cases; “plagued,” which while not literally true is more conversational; “troubled”; or even “bedeviled.”
“Slated” also probably arose because it’s shorter than “scheduled.” But it’s not shorter than “set,” so why do so many news articles or anchors say that “the trial has been slated for next week, instead of “the trial has been set for next week”? If you’re really looking to save words, how about “the trial is next week”?
It’s hard to imagine some terms ever becoming common usage. Joe Barnes, for example, wrote to CJR to complain about traffic reporters who use words that no one can understand. “Maybe it’s just me,” he wrote, “but I’ve commuted by car my entire life. I have no idea what a ‘gore point’ is. Heck, I don’t even know if I’m spelling it right. Or how about the ‘collector distributor lanes.’”
No, Mr. Barnes, it’s not just you. It’s unlikely that anyone ever called home to say, “Honey, I’ll be late because a pileup in the gore has snarled traffic in the collector distributor lanes.” Or ever will.
I don't agree that journalism should have a conversational tone. When I read, I want to enjoy the writing, even if I'm just reading for information. If the words used in an article are not everyday words commonly used in speech, that only adds to my pleasure in the writing, if the writing is good. For me, the use of interesting words in a text functions the same way that accessorizing an outfit does - the small adornments add a certain pop to the ensemble.
#1 Posted by Paula Newman, CJR on Tue 13 Apr 2010 at 07:18 AM
Um ... With the exception of "tremblor" and "gore," I confess to occasionally having used all of these words in conversation. (I'm an editor, so maybe that's my affliction.) Regarding "gore," up here in Vermont, gores are slivers (usually triangular) of land that are leftovers from when towns were created. The one nearest to me is Buells Gore, and I believe it has six inhabitants. I would love to know what "gore point" means as it relates to traffic.
#2 Posted by Virginia Simmon, CJR on Tue 13 Apr 2010 at 05:16 PM
A gore area as it relates to traffic is the somewhat triangular area (generally painted with yellow, slanted lines) found, for example, where a two-way roadway splits into a divided roadway with a median. The transition area between where the two-way road begins to split, to the place where the roadway is completely split into a two-way road with a grassy median separating the lanes, is called the gore (area).
#3 Posted by elizabeth gambaccini, CJR on Wed 14 Apr 2010 at 09:11 AM
The phrase that grates most for me is "campaign coffer". Every candidate has or doesn't have millions in his/her coffer. Probably the last time anyone actually put money in a coffer was during the Thirty Years' War, but it sounds more elegant than saying, the candidate needs more money in the bank (or the office safe, if this is Watergate). Down with coffers ! They're heavy, and they sink, so it should be easy to send them to Davy Jones.
#4 Posted by steve merlan, CJR on Wed 14 Apr 2010 at 12:26 PM
Weird. I am a graphic designer, a shiatsu practitioner, a marketing manager at a structural engineering firm. I am neither a journalist nor any other kind of writer. I frequently use those words that you say only journalists use: beset, acrimonious, slated, gore, tremblor (that's what happens when you're interested in seismic events), coffer. I used "contumely" in a sentence the other day, as well as "garrulous," "affable," "exigencies" and "idiosyncratic." My friends, who are mostly all quite literate, all understand and sometimes share my vocabulary. My problem with the current state of journalism is that it seems to have been terribly eroded in the past thirty years, and the degree of its decline has become much steeper in the past fifteen and ten years. I majored in the sociology of mass communications in college; I think that the profession has been dumbed down and continues to be and that that is a terrible state of affairs. For you to wish that journalists wrote in the vernacular is ridiculous. It's bad enough. Let's actually improve journalistic standards, not decrease them further. Remember Jacob Riis? Samuel Clemmens? Heck, James Reston? Sydney Schaumberg? Robert K. Massie? How about the writers of the "new journalism"? Norman Mailer? Joan Didion? et al et al et al et al.....All journalists, all good writers....
#5 Posted by Gina Phelan, CJR on Wed 14 Apr 2010 at 04:15 PM
God, yes, stop these people from using words that aren't in the a fifth-grader's vocabulary!
(PS Wrods that are obscure or somewhat rare are not definitionally "jargon."
#6 Posted by John, CJR on Wed 14 Apr 2010 at 08:16 PM
The use of the word "optics" has been woefully misused by the media recently. I hear it more often than I read it and hope that it is a trend that will die out soon. Reporters on MSNBC are big offenders and use it to add pseudo-profundity to the usually petty notions of public perception. Instead of saying "how does this look to the polling public," they say "what are the optics of this." Ugh!
#7 Posted by jodi, CJR on Sun 18 Apr 2010 at 08:59 AM
There are plenty of examples of this in the British Press, particularly in headlines. Does anyone ever actually talk about a 'mercy dash' or 'the stock exchange plummeting' (when it actually lost only a few points). Whoever uses 'traffic snarl-up' in normal conversation? Politicians have 'spats' all the time, but the people I come into contact with don't. Maybe I just move in the wrong circles.
#8 Posted by Alistair Reeves, CJR on Mon 19 Apr 2010 at 09:15 AM
I agree with those observing the "dumbing down" of journalists.
But in recent years, I have become absolutely tired to death of the multiple repetitions use in faux sophisticated talk and writing such as:
1. at the end of the day
2. someone's plate is full
3. someone else is going to do the heavy lifting
4. that said
5. ....and many more TNTM!
Are people's brains getting smaller, or what?
#9 Posted by Roger D Paterson, CJR on Fri 7 May 2010 at 08:42 PM