Pedants' Paradise

[french frank]

One of those journalistic headlines that newspaper editors warn their subs not to use:

'Family stunned by possible meteorite crashing through roof' (it seems everyone was out at the time - and not for the count).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-65550761

[oddoneout]

One of those journalistic headlines that newspaper editors warn their subs not to use:

'Family stunned by possible meteorite crashing through roof' (it seems everyone was out at the time - and not for the count).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-65550761

Increasingly I wonder if editorial input exists anymore. If it does then such people appear to be lacking in the necessary skills*. My local rag used to be respected for the quality of its writing, but no longer. Clumsy headlines such as you quote have become common, and the associated article more often than not continues the theme of poor construction. The website is too often a poor cut and paste job on individual stories which manages to either omit facts or get them wrong on a regular basis. When the likes of police Twitter posts are reproduced as screen shots I find it telling that the material shown is then just reproduced verbatim in the guise of an article - not even meriting quotation status - even though it may be grammatically lacking and the spelling suspect.
It appears to be the price of having "secured the paper's future" by selling out to a large national outfit where quantity over-rides quality every time.

* or perhaps not permitted to exercise such skills, says I trying to be less judgemental about individuals when it may be a corporate fault.

[Historian]

Increasingly I wonder if editorial input exists anymore. If it does then such people appear to be lacking in the necessary skills*. ..

It appears to be the price of having "secured the paper's future" by selling out to a large national outfit where quantity over-rides quality every time.

* or perhaps not permitted to exercise such skills, says I trying to be less judgemental about individuals when it may be a corporate fault.

Sadly sub-editors and experienced journalists cost money. Most local (and indeed national) newspapers are struggling economically hence savage cuts to staffing which leads to unclear expression and diminished levels of journalistic input/competence. I recently found some copies of a local newspaper from twenty years ago and was struck by the limited nature of current news coverage and the low standard of much of the writing.

[Serial_Apologist]

ATtribute, or atTRIBute?

It's a bit like CONtribute versus conTRIBute, except that ATtribue was always used as a noun, atTRIBute a verb. However, I am increasingly hearing ATtribute being used by presenters etc for both. How long before we start hearing the ADdress Americanism becoming commonplace as we proceed down the sidewalk to the elevator? What do others think?

[french frank]

ATtribute, or atTRIBute?

It's a bit like CONtribute versus conTRIBute, except that ATtribue was always used as a noun, atTRIBute a verb. However, I am increasingly hearing ATtribute being used by presenters etc for both. How long before we start hearing the ADdress Americanism becoming commonplace as we proceed down the sidewalk to the elevator? What do others think?

Inevitable change, I'm afraid. But it wasn't always exactly ever thus. What's different now is that the linguistic changes predominantly show the influence of a single external source - Americanisms. Natural linguistic evolution was essentially 'home-grown'. Even when Latin was the language imposed upon people, it developed in different ways influenced by the nation's internal factors. As I see it.

[kernelbogey]

When the likes of police Twitter posts are reproduced as screen shots I find it telling that the material shown is then just reproduced verbatim in the guise of an article - not even meriting quotation status - even though it may be grammatically lacking and the spelling suspect.

Is there some journalistic rule - or at least common practice - about quoting Twitter et al? The Guardian does this repetition too.

[Serial_Apologist]

Inevitable change, I'm afraid. But it wasn't always exactly ever thus. What's different now is that the linguistic changes predominantly show the influence of a single external source - Americanisms. Natural linguistic evolution was essentially 'home-grown'. Even when Latin was the language imposed upon people, it developed in different ways influenced by the nation's internal factors. As I see it.

Thanks ff - this is my impression too. Next time I'm hosting a dinner I'll send you an INVITE!

[french frank]

Thanks ff - this is my impression too. Next time I'm hosting a dinner I'll send you an INVITE!

I'm free most days. And would cancel for a good offer!

[Serial_Apologist]

I'm free most days. And would cancel for a good offer!

I'm frequently anxious of being "cancelled", or rather, "canceled" these days when one is trepidacious (?) of one's misusing language - not grammatically but by causing unintentional offense. Your observation on the English language being everywhere at the mercy of American cultural hegemonisation bears ironic false analogy with speciation, whereby Darwin's discovery of the positive consequences of species travel compared to the dangers of stagnation and decline for those stranded on isolated islands have bcome reverse-conflated. It has become a big launch pad for debate on what differentiates today from in earlier historical eras regarding cultural cross-pollination, and whether or not it is automatically A Good Thing.

[oddoneout]

Is there some journalistic rule - or at least common practice - about quoting Twitter et al? The Guardian does this repetition too.

It's not the repetition I take issue with but the failure to indicate that that is what it is, especially when later versions of the article may not include the original screen shot of the tweet.

[french frank]

It's not the repetition I take issue with but the failure to indicate that that is what it is, especially when later versions of the article may not include the original screen shot of the tweet.

Whether we like it or not, social media have become a rich source of 'copy' for journalists (and, added plus, they don't even have to leave the office). It brings to mind McLuhan's "The medium is the message" where, if I understand it, too little time is spent evaluating the medium itself, with attention focused on the immediately grasped 'message'.

I'm frequently anxious of being "cancelled", or rather, "canceled" these days when one is trepidacious (?) of one's misusing language - not grammatically but by causing unintentional offense. Your observation on the English language being everywhere at the mercy of American cultural hegemonisation bears ironic false analogy with speciation, whereby Darwin's discovery of the positive consequences of species travel compared to the dangers of stagnation and decline for those stranded on isolated islands have bcome reverse-conflated. It has become a big launch pad for debate on what differentiates today from in earlier historical eras regarding cultural cross-pollination, and whether or not it is automatically A Good Thing.

I wasn't, of course, thinking of cancelling you , but of cancelling any prior engagement. I'm not sure that I went as far as to refer to linguistic change as being 'at the mercy of American cultural hegemonisation'. I was merely reflecting on the number of examples here where usages challended turned out to be common Americanisms. Any feeble reciprocity is likely to be crushed on the American information superhighway.

[oddoneout]

Whether we like it or not, social media have become a rich source of 'copy' for journalists (and, added plus, they don't even have to leave the office). It brings to mind McLuhan's "The medium is the message" where, if I understand it, too little time is spent evaluating the medium itself, with attention focused on the immediately grasped 'message'.

Which is why I didn't say such sources shouldn't be used at all, but that it should be obvious when and where they have been used.
Mind you, it has to be said that the standard of writing in the local rag has declined so much that even when the words aren't an unattributed social media quote there are occasions when there isn't a lot of difference between the journo's words and those of a hastily written tweet that's not been read before sending.

[smittims]

I say attribute as a noun, attribute as a verb. Ignorance, or poor education , is the cause of the confusion you mention, as it is when people say 'incredible' when they mean 'remarkable', 'mischeevious', 'cathartic' when they mean 'therapeutic', 'absolutely devastated' when they mean 'disappointed', and so on.

[Bryn]

I say attribute as a noun, atribute as a verb. Ignorance, or poor education , is the cause of the confusion you mention, as it is when people say 'incredible' when they mean 'remarkable', 'mischeevious', 'cathartic' when they mean 'therapeutic', 'absolutely devastated' when they mean 'disappointed', and so on.

Eh? "atribute" is simply a fairly common misspelling of "attribute".

[smittims]

I didn't know that, Bryn! But, as a tribute to your perspicacity, I've corrected my typo!