If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
this board is disturbingly good natured this morning.......
Don't knock it, team
It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
What would your preferences be, then? If that's what each of them is, how do you think that they should instead be described?
'Reporter'.
What media staff pompously love to call each other 'in house' is only of any real interest to them and the increasingly patronised, easily-impressionable listener, ahinton!
What media staff pompously love to call each other 'in house' is only of any real interest to them and the increasingly patronised, easily-impressionable listener, ahinton!
So should I assume that you believe that all such staff should be described only as "our reporter"? If so and if indeed the norm determined that they'd be so, it would remind me of a professional colleague who once pronounced upon the perils of getting the football correspondent to write concert and record reviews in local newspapers. Do you not find it acceptable that professional people, including journalists, have specialities? This isn't about "what media staff pompously love to call each other 'in house'"; for one thing, there's no inherent pomposity in any of the descriptors that you mention and, for another, it's not about what an organisation's staff calls other members of its staff but what those other staff members actually are and do. Accordingly, I don't see the problem. If something sets your teeth on edge, would you deny the profession of the dentist whom you consulted about it?
No, as has already been hinted at by our Assistant Deputy Chief Member of Absolutely Nothing, A. N. Other, you should 'assme' nothing, ahintom, though I do appreciate the rich irony of your typo!
If so and if indeed the norm determined that they'd be so, it would remind me of a professional colleague who once pronounced upon the perils of getting the football correspondent to write concert and record reviews in local newspapers. Do you not find it acceptable that professional people, including journalists, have specialities? This isn't about "what media staff pompously love to call each other 'in house'"; for one thing, there's no inherent pomposity in any of the descriptors that you mention and, for another, it's not about what an organisation's staff calls other members of its staff but what those other staff members actually are and do. Accordingly, I don't see the problem. If something sets your teeth on edge, would you deny the profession of the dentist whom you consulted about it?
Oh, I have nothing against a meaningful adjective in front of the noun, ahinton. 'Our political/religious/economic correspondent' would be just fine by me in revealing the particular current 'speciality' of the reporter though, as reporters often move from one sphere of news interest to another, the 'speciality' may be of far less importance than simply reporting the facts, which, after all, is the employee's main role, surely. The issue is not one of meaningful titles but entirely one of those relatively modern grandiose, self-advertising meaningless ones beloved by large corporates!
It is only right that a dentist is referred to as a 'dentist' or even a 'dental surgeon'. However if my dentist advertised him/herself as Dr Jones, Assistant Deputy Chief of the Dental Practice Association, I would tend to think he/she might be rather more concerned with advertising his/her supposed "high office" than concentrating on the care of patients' teeth, so I would probably switch to good old plain Mr/Ms Smith, Dentist, across the road, ahinton!
Oh, come off (it), Mr Tippster, don't be so gratuitously patronising...
I certainly have/had no intention of 'gratuitously patronising' Richard or anyone else here, ahinton, indeed I simply responded to his post which I considered both telling and amusing, and which is clearly not always the case with some valued members!
Comment