D4

Norbert Cunningham

Stumble Upon

del.icio.us

Digg

Facebook

Print

Email

Speak Up

Hello everybody and here we go zooming headlong into 2009 now the holidays are over! And it will, of course, be another year of words, language and all things related in this space:

My list

Everyone and their dog seems to compile some kind of list round about New Year's, often a "top 10" or "worst of" list. And a university in northern Michigan annually puts out a list of "banned" words, otherwise described as faddish words or those in such overuse just the sound of them makes those who care about our language run away screaming . . . or want to.

I was disappointed with that list this year, it being rather mundane and less fun than in the past. So instead of repeating that one, which we published in any event, here is a list of words and phrases you can easily, and really should, avoid:

1. Transformational.

This seems to be coming from both the world of business and the world of politics. It's even worse when the word "change" is added, making it obviously redundant. A close relative often used is "transformative," which is better, but not by much. There isn't truly a need for these two and they come across instantly as being hot air from one trying to make something sound more important than it is.

2. I personally. . .

Have you ever heard anybody say "I impersonally think. . ."? Of course not! Why be so cloyingly redundant when all you need is "I", as in "I think. . ." or "I have tried it and it's good"? "I personally" comes close to being like "it's just my opinion, but. . .", which demonstrates a lack of confidence and tends to imply to listeners that even you don't really take your own opinion very seriously. Hardly a way to impress others!

3. "Fairly unique":

There are variants, as in "somewhat unique," but please folks, memorize the meaning of "unique"! Something unique is one of a kind, period. Things are unique or they are not. If you aren't sure, you could fudge with "believed to be unique." But "fairly unique" is meaningless. If you want to say it is rare, then say so. . . or even "fairly rare."

4. "At this moment in time":

Wordy and redundant. Try "now" or "at this time" or "at this moment," but never use "at this moment in time. . ."

5. "Yes we can":

Thank Barack Obama, but when this little bit of positive political sloganeering is even showing up in television ads, it's time to hang it up. You know a fad is dead when advertisers expropriate it!

Journalism

There is plenty that is wonderful about, and in, journalism, but there is also much that is trite, silly, makes much ado about nothing and/or is just plain thoughtless.

Some of that is a reflection of society itself; some of it is perhaps a result of the daily crush of assignments with little time to research and write and, of course, editors who want the story five minutes ago and who treat it as really big stuff.

What that gives us are stories and headlines like the following one that appeared across Canada during the holidays:

"Aging patients skewing hospital mortality rates"

I imagine they would! Remember those columns I wrote on critical thinking? Ask yourself, just what does this say and mean? It was presented, thanks to the wording, as a negative thing and perhaps even as something alarming. "Skewing" does the trick in both cases. But is it these things? Or are the headline and story just a statement of what should be obvious?

With more and more elderly people (thanks to aging baby boomers), the number of people dying in hospitals is going up. What else would we expect?

The other thing to question here is the phrase "hospital mortality rates."

Can't you just see administrators and bureaucrats wringing their hands? Gosh, mortality rates are up! What's wrong? If the population as a whole wasn't aging, then perhaps there'd be reason to wonder and worry. But this? Naw!

It's a non-story; a piece of trivia at best.

Warning

Remember the terror attacks on the hotels in Mumbai, India before Christmas? Somebody at the Canadian Press wire service thought it crucially important to write a story that told us "Canada had no advance warning of the deadly attacks in Mumbai. . ." That nugget courtesy of our minister of foreign affairs.

What's wrong with that? It's hardly news! In fact, it is manufactured news about a crisis going on in India (and it was continuing at the time this story ran). Editors must have felt a little left out or simply "HAD" to have a fresh story, so they went and asked a politician, "hey, did you have any warning of the attacks?" Do reporters actually think terrorists will take the time to phone the capitals of the world to tell them they're going to attack and where? The question might be worth asking, but the answer would only be significant if it was "yes, we had warning." Even bigger news if we had warning and didn't act!

One last thing: shame on CP, its writer and its editors for allowing "advance warning" to make it onto their wires! There is no other kind of warning. If it isn't in advance, then it's not a warning but rather a statement of what happened. That's sloppy writing of the sort CP's own stylebook deplores.

The last word

Here is Wendell Phillips, a U.S. orator whose eloquence helped the anti-slavery cause leading up to the American Civil War:

"What is fanaticism today is the fashionable creed tomorrow, and trite as the multiplication table a week after."

* Lex Talk! is researched and written by Times & Transcript editorial page editor Norbert Cunningham. It appears in this space every Monday.