Wick Communications

Posts Tagged ‘Words’

White House, blue language

In Language on 3 Aug 2017 at 2:28 pm

Hey, remember when the White House employed a communications director named Anthony Scaramucci? I know. It was a long time ago. Way back last week. It seems things change pretty quickly these days, doesn’t it?

Well, if the name rings a bell, you probably remember the rant that apparently got him fired. While talking to a reporter for New Yorker magazine, he used what he later described as “colorful language” to describe his feelings about some fellow White House denizens. Colorful as in suggesting that one coworker was really, really mentally ill and another gentleman was doing something elaborate in service to his own interests… only way more colorful than that.

That left those in the mainstream media to decide whether to do what I just did and tread politely along the euphemism boulevard or to simply print what the man said, even though it was vulgar.

This time, some of the big print outlets printed words their editors likely never thought they would print. The New York Times was among them. Later, it offered a very short explanation of why top editors chose to use the profane words. In short: The newspaper thought it newsworthy.

USA Today, chose a different tack. Here is how it described Scaramucci’s comments about White House rival Steve Bannon:

Scaramucci used an explicit sexual reference to accuse Bannon of doing more to blow himself up in the media and build his own brand than to serve the country.

Huh. It’s fun to write with a wink, but personally, I agree with the New York Times on this one. … Read the rest of this entry »


They is wrong

In Writing on 30 Mar 2017 at 12:42 pm

Because nothing is sacred and there are no longer any rules whatsoever, the Associated Press has announced that the new stylebook will allow use of the word they in singular constructions. There is no word yet on whether the AP also plans to give up vegetables, spit into the wind and sleep through church services.

Can you tell this one peeves me?

The AP says it (they?) is mostly bowing to societal pressure. You know, like the grammatical equivalent of jumping off the bridge just because everyone is doing it. (Sorry, but I’m steamed.) In other words, people say things like, Somebody left their umbrella in the office,” and “A journalist should not be compelled to reveal their sources.” Well, in 2017, I guess that just makes it right. So go on and do it yourself. Or yourselves. Or whatever.

Actually, my own histrionics aside, the advice is a bit more circumspect. The new stylebook addresses the issue like this:

They, them, their In most cases, a plural pronoun should agree in number with the antecedent: The children love the books their uncle gave them. They/them/their is acceptable in limited cases as a singular and-or gender-neutral pronoun, when alternative wording is overly awkward or clumsy. However, rewording usually is possible and always is preferable. Clarity is a top priority; gender-neutral use of a singular they is unfamiliar to many readers. We do not use other gender-neutral pronouns such as xe or ze. …
Read the rest of this entry »

They are wrong again

In Writing techniques on 14 Jan 2016 at 2:52 pm

Screen Shot 2016-01-13 at 2.58.00 PM

In case you missed it, the apocalypse is upon us. The American Dialect Society, an organization dedicated to the proper use of words, has made the singular they its Word of the Year. Or should I say the American Dialect Society has made they their Word of the Year?

Either way, I guess. It’s only a matter convention, right? Who cares? While you are at it, go ahead and eat the family cat and urinate in the street. No one will mind. Go ahead, I’ll wait. Just because some proper fussbudget told you they was plural shouldn’t stop you from doing what you please in 2016. There are no rules now. They won’t mind. (By the way, the ADS made #blacklivesmatter its Word of the Year for 2014. That’s not even a word, for crying out loud.)

I have spent roughly a third of my adult life editing around the word they as if it were a scorpion composed entirely of letters skittering across the desert of some writer’s dusty prose. You could argue I could have spent my time on more productive concerns. All I know is it just makes my skin crawl to read

The U.S. Department of Agriculture changed their rules today… or

Every American deserves their tax refund … or

Even writing these examples made their head hurt!

The Washington Post says it’s OK to conflate the singular and the plural in this way. The slackers who took control of the English language say I’m a prude for thinking differently. This guy right here says people like me, well, they can get stuffed!

They will win, because your hero is outnumbered. I will continue to change they into grammatically correct pronouns because it’s the right thing to do. I think you should as well. … Read the rest of this entry »

Zing! Oust! Flee!

In journalism on 20 Nov 2015 at 8:50 am


Last week, Poynter joined a storied tradition of making fun of the use of words that only a journalist could love. You know the ones I’m talking about.

  • Congress fired its first salvo at the president on Monday…
  • The Pontiff issued his holiday decree from the Vatican…
  • The candidate used the new poll numbers to bolster his claim…

We all know there are words floating around that we use just because they sound all journalistical. When was the last time you heard anyone other than an ink-stained wretch refer to a fire as a blaze?

Much of the time, these words exist as part of a language I might call headlinese. They provide action words that are short and don’t mimic what’s in the body of the story.

Personally, I say no harm done, really. I agree that we should seek to be clear and concise and conversational. But in the list of crimes committed in the daily war of words we know as journalism, I would rank this one as a misdemeanor. (Speaking of words no one says.) Plus, it’s not going to hurt any of our readers to learn a new word now and then. … Read the rest of this entry »

Countless misuse of the term

In Writing on 12 Feb 2015 at 2:47 pm


When you are an editor, you are bound to come across various usage misdemeanors and felonious crimes of style that drive you crazy. It’s a hazard of the job.

Sometimes these peculiarities say as much about said editor as they do the ruffian who made the mistake. For instance, I continue to rail about the “over/more than thing” (over conveys a spatial relationship as in “the book is over the desk,” while more than is a quantitative thing) even though AP recently ruled it was a distinction without a difference. No matter! I soldier on, berating any poor soul who writes, “there are over 200 million people in America.” But I digress.

Recently, Mark Memmott, the standards editor for NPR went on a tirade about misusing the modifier “countless.” While he did not find countless incidents of misuse, he did find a lot. Two-hundred-and-fifty-five in NPR broadcasts and Web publishing in the last year, to be exact. I wouldn’t know about this particular and wholly justifiable crusade were it not for Benjamin Mullin’s column on the Poynter site.

As Memmott points out, countless means “too many to count; innumerable; myriad.” Which means there aren’t really “countless” reincarnations of Lauren Bacall’s career or “countless” handshakes from a particular politician on the campaign trail.

Just for fun, I decided to check “countless” Wick papers (OK, three) and see how often we misuse the term. I counted 28 uses of the word in the past year in the Pierre Capital Journal. The misused modifier appeared as often as not in obituaries, so that hyperbole is likely due to family submissions. There were 27 “countlesses” in the last year in the Mat-Su Frontiersman. … Read the rest of this entry »

Should we be reading faster?

In Reading on 30 Jan 2015 at 10:26 am


Twice in the last week, really smart people have mentioned to me that they feel limited by how fast they are able to read, and that they are doing something about it. It made me wonder whether they are on to something we should all be thinking about.

Avi Tuschman is a political anthropologist and holds a doctorate from Stanford. He speaks seven languages and has written a widely regarded book called, “Our Political Nature.” Suffice to say, he thinks about language and words and learning a lot.

Avi mentioned to me that he has “given up” and turned to an application called Spritz. Perhaps you have heard of it. The idea is this: Traditionally, when you read a line of text, your eye skitters along from left to right, settling ever so briefly on each word in order to determine its meaning before moving on. (You may be able to pick up groups of words, but the idea is the same. Start and stop, start and stop.) Spritz says when we do this we are looking for the “optimal recognition point” – some place in the heart of the word that allows us to nearly instantaneously determine its meaning.

The trouble is all that eye movement, according to Spritz.

If you are like me, you probably read about 300 words a minute, give or take. Spritz claims it can improve that markedly by moving the words for you and highlighting the OPR in red. It’s difficult to explain but easy to understand once you try it yourself. And you can test yourself for free here. Read the rest of this entry »

What to call us geezers

In Writing on 18 Jul 2014 at 8:16 am

Screen Shot 2014-07-17 at 5.12.09 PM

Hey, how do you like getting older? I know I am enjoying my creaking knees and poor memory. And don’t we look great with our new crow’s feet and wrinkly everything?

What was I saying?

Oh, right. Aging isn’t always so great. Perhaps that is why so many of us wince when we’re called “senior citizens” or “elderly.” Last week, NPR ran the results of a small unscientific poll of its listeners to see how older people wish to be referred. Turns out we really don’t like being referred to that way at all. But “older people” and “senior” (without “citizen,” thank you very much) seemed to be the least objectionable.

For it’s part, the AP Stylebook says to use “elderly” and “senior citizen” sparingly. “Do not refer to a person as elderly unless it is clearly relevant to the story. It is appropriate in generic phrases that do not refer to specific individuals (such as “concern for the elderly.”)

On balance, I think I like “senior,” which to me refers to someone 65 and above. It seems to me “older people” is a relative term. I was taught that “elderly” referred to someone 80 and above, but that doesn’t seem to be the norm. … Read the rest of this entry »

The best blog post ever

In Writing on 19 Jun 2014 at 4:05 pm


Kudos to the Los Angeles Times for tackling one of my pet peeves in its latest ethics policy. The policy is the subject of a Poynter post here.

Superlatives are a bane of the modern world. Actually, they were probably a bane of the ancient world as well, now that I think about it. (“Marcus Agrippa’s pantheon is the greatest building of all time,” said Augustus…)

It’s one thing for a politician to proclaim some new program the “biggest” or the “most important” but it’s another for us to pass it along. We are supposed to check such claims and not mindlessly pass them along in the manner of a stenographer.

Specifically, the L.A. Times policy says:

Superlatives such as “biggest,” “worst” and “most” should be employed only when the writer has proof. It is the responsibility of assigning editors and copy editors to challenge all questionable claims. The burden of proof rests with the writer; it is not the desk’s responsibility to prove the writer wrong.

It is unacceptable to hedge an unverified or unverifiable assertion with words such as “arguably” or “perhaps.” Our job is to report what is true, not what might be.

Can I get an Amen? … Read the rest of this entry »

Cut it out

In Writing on 24 Apr 2014 at 4:40 pm

Screen Shot 2014-04-23 at 4.15.59 PM

As with Oreos, sometimes fewer words are better than more words. Succinct is always better than verbose.

I recently went on a public diatribe about meaningless adjectives. (You can see it here. It’s in the April 22 report.) I decided to call these scourges relational adjectives; they are words like “small” and “huge” and “awesome” that only work in relation to some other thing that you don’t even mention in your story.

Alas, that is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to things you should throw out of your nice, neat story. Here’s quite a list of literally amazing stuff that you could really just do without. (If you read the list, I swear you’ll laugh…)

The point, as writer Shanna Mallon suggests in the above piece, is that lean writing is strong writing. I’ll spare you examples of bloated copy if only you’ll promise to reread your next story and look for relational adjectives and the fillers mentioned in Mallon’s piece. Do that and I will consider this a banner day. Really. Literally.


File ‘homosexual’ with ‘colored’

In journalism on 28 Mar 2014 at 8:08 am


Recently, I was talking with a former intern who has now gone on to great things. She was telling me that, when she was a student journalist, she used the word “homosexual” in the school newspaper and caught hell for it from gay and lesbian support groups on campus. I told her that I hadn’t heard that anyone found the term offensive and was surprised at that reaction.

That’s because I was ignorant.

Sunday’s New York Times included an interesting discourse on the word and its usage. I read it and came away convinced that I had been wrong and that the word should be expunged from our coverage. (By the way, take a look at this cool Times Topics page on homosexuality. Did you know you can make collections like this yourself in Blox?)

I can see that the word has been co-opted by haters as a way of marginalizing people. And I was moved by what should have been obvious: The word is a coupling of “homo,” which has long been a derogative, and “sexuality.” It’s just strange to reduce a class of people to its sexuality, isn’t it? Do you commonly refer to people as “heterosexuals?” Aren’t we more than who we love? … Read the rest of this entry »