Last week, a post at the Poynter Institute took a strong stand: “It’s time for copy editors to loosen the cardigan when it comes to ‘media,’” Andrew Beaujon wrote. He said he felt “like a tool writing ‘The media are.’”
No reason to feel like a tool. “Media” as a mass noun, taking a singular the way “furniture” does, has reached Stage 5 on the Language-Change Index, Bryan A. Garner’s Modern American Usage says, meaning it is completely proper English. Garner does note, however, that “that usage still makes some squeamish.”
But let’s not be so fast to set “rules” that can jettison a useful distinction.
Three years ago, we wrote that “media” was heading toward universal singular acceptance. But today, as then, The Associated Press Stylebook wants to keep it plural: “In the sense of mass communication, such as magazines, newspapers, the news services, radio, television and online, the word is plural: The news media are resisting attempts to limit their freedom.” Note the use of the word “news” before “media,” which somehow softens the plurality of “media.” And, just to show that Garner can wear cardigans when necessary, the grammar section that he wrote for The Chicago Manual of Style says: “In scientific contexts and in reference to mass communications, the plural of medium is media.”
In other words, those cardigan-wearing copy editors were told to put on that sweater. Don’t kill the messenger, please.
Even granting that most people use “media” wantonly, making “media” singular all the time creates a monolithic label, with all sorts of connotations. (Does anyone think the label “MSM” for “mainstream media” is a compliment?)
So instead of following a “rule,” let’s use the same guidelines that govern whether “couple” is a singular or a plural: If the two members of the couple are acting as one, use a singular: “The couple is planning a vacation to the Bahamas.” If the two members are acting separately, make them plural: “The couple disagree whether to go by boat or plane.”
Using that guideline (and a brain), “media” would be singular when speaking of news organizations as a single unit: “The media plans to file a FOIA request.” But when there needs to be a distinction among the members of the media, make it plural: “The media are unclear about whether to request some or all of the documents.”
Even copy editors in cardigans should know enough to take it off when the heat is on, without worrying about catching a linguistic chill.
Eminently sensible, as always, Merrill.
#1 Posted by Julie Johnson, CJR on Wed 29 Feb 2012 at 01:16 PM
Alas, poor Merrill, you are wrong.
“The media plans to file a FOIA request.” This are doubly wrong.
1. Media can't plan anything. Or file anything. They are abstractions, perhaps legal entities. Media lawyers can plan (though probably seldom as one). Media can't.
2. No reason to treat media, even in this instance, as anything but what they
are--plural and pluralistic. Some media will want to file requests. Some won't.
Your example shows why it is always wrong to treat media as anything but the plural they are. It's not just a pedantic insistence on good Latin we're talking about. It's about thinking straight. "Media plan..." suggests there is a monolith, thinking and acting as one. There is not, whether the action is filing an FOI suit or writing a story about the president
And, as a practical matter, your method would require a lot of judgment calls, not as easy to make as you suggest. Indeed, your example and my demurral illustrate the point. The clean and simple solution is to insist on using media for the plural and medium for the singular.
#2 Posted by Dean Mills, CJR on Wed 7 Mar 2012 at 07:10 PM
I have to agree with Dean Mills on this one. Perhaps the world would be a better place if there were no universal rules. Then again, perhaps not. In this case, the rule on "media" as the plural of "medium" is -- and should forever remain -- carved in granite, lest we inadvertently create a perilous patchwork of grammarian landmines.
#3 Posted by Jim Rogers, CJR on Tue 13 Mar 2012 at 02:09 PM