No. 10 for November 2002
Overused words and phrases
We fall in love with some words or phrases in journalism because they convey much information quickly, they give that sexy little edge to copy or because ... well, just because.
Overused or used with little thought, they become journalese, that strange, often trite language that can estrange us from our audience. People don’t talk that way. They don’t think that way. So why should we write that way?
In the spirit of the upcoming holidays, then, let’s give these words and phrases a couple months of rest. In the new year, if we are tempted to come back to them, let’s ask if we really need them to be effective storytellers.
In the wake of: Although the words since, following, after or because are more direct, this overblown phrase mushroomed “in the wake of” Sept. 11, 2001. Maybe it was the seemingly funereal tone despite the nautical origins.
I recently checked in the Lexis/Nexis databases, and in just a month’s worth of USA Today, The New York Times, the Boston Globe and The Washington Post came up with more than 200 uses, or about 199 too many.
For instance, USA Today reported that NBC
“decided against an early renewal of
West Wing last year in the wake of (after) creator Aaron Sorkin's arrest for
drug possession.” The Post noted “Jurisdictions,
leagues and events that announced plans yesterday in the wake (because) of the
sniper attacks.” And in the Times, it was “Finding financing for
merchant plants without guaranteed customers has become nearly impossible in
the wake of (since) the Enron scandal, financial analysts said.”
These days, when much of
what are about is saving words, we might take the advice of one copy editor who
recently noted his paper had become a “wake-free zone.”
The bulk of: Why make the simple complicated? Instead of “the
bulk of the funding” or “the bulk of those involved,” try
“most of the funding” and “most of those involved.”
Claimed the life of: I keep having this vision of Death with a claim check in
an outstretched, bony hand. Accidents, fires and the like kill people. Pure,
simple, direct: There’s no need for euphemism. Let’s just hope Death
doesn’t want the valet parking, too.
Thanks to: The Wall
Street Journal reported that college tuitions were rising “thanks largely
to the hit college endowments have taken in the stock market.” Now, I
have one son in college and another maybe headed that way, and I can’t
remember ever thanking anyone for higher tuition. Neither is it likely that
taxpayers were shouting “Hallelujah” the last time we reported
their taxes were going up “thanks to a 10 percent budget increase.”
Save this phrase for when thanks really are called for, such as when a needy
family gets help “thanks to” the community’s generosity.
Declined to: I admit this is an editor’s hang-up of mine. Somewhere the idea apparently formed that it was impolite to say a person “would not” comment. But “would not” is the way people speak, and we should try using it from time to time. Would you go home to your wife, husband, significant other, dog or cat and say, “My *$&*#(% boss declined to give me a raise”? If not, why not use the words real people use – within reason, of course.
Don’t, however, substitute the loaded term “refused to.” And “declined” really has no good substitute when we write “she declined an interview.” Again, “refused” carries loaded connotations and “would not grant” is a bit wordy, though certainly a fine substitute otherwise.
Voiced: Let people’s voices rest for a while. Let them express their opinions or give their complaints – or better yet, just let them complain. Do the same with such journalese as launched. Let someone simply begin an investigation. And why do things have to be virtually complete or ready? The word means in effect, although not in fact. Even in this era of virtual reality, let’s take the word “almost” around the block for a spin occasionally.
Adjacent: This is widely misused to mean next to. Two things are adjacent if there is no similar thing in between. So two houses can be adjacent, even several miles apart, if there is no house between them. Adjoining is the word usually needed. And the writer who recently told us that a street “ran adjacent to the park and post office” would have done better to write that it ran “past” them.
Stable: Unfortunately, with holiday drinking and driving, we’re likely to hear this nonsense patient condition from nurses and PR people quite a bit in the coming weeks. The American Hospital Association recognizes as valid conditions only undetermined, good, fair, serious and critical. The definitions are at www.hospitalconnect.com/aha/key_issues/disaster_readiness/readiness/MaGuideInfoPatientB1108.html.
The AHA specifically says “the term ‘stable’ should not be used as a condition.” That’s its emphasis, not mine. And stable should not be used in combination with other conditions. When nurses and PR offices insist on “stable,” I often inquire as to whether I should report the person is dead. That is, after all, the most stable condition. You have the right to insist on one of the AHA conditions, and you should.
Doug Fisher, a former AP news editor, teaches journalism at the University of South Carolina and can be reached at dfisher@sc.edu or 803-777-3315.