Would journalists ever learn the correct meaning of the words they use?

Snickers Man

OK, probably will get closed pretty sharpish but this is a pet peeve of mine: journalists in national media, who should really know better, or should have their copy checked by people who know better, clearly misusing words because they sound like, or look like, or share a few important letters with the words they probably MEANT to use.

Not so much a "name and shame" of the journalists but more a dig at the titles that employ them. This is a systemic problem. Shouldn't happen because quality control (ie subeditors) should pick it up.

Here's one from the Irish Independent today. As part of its program of tributes to Paul O'Connell whose international rugby career has been cut short, if only by a few weeks, by a bad injury, The Indo said:

It is however an exchange between O'Driscoll and O'Connell, two of the greatest servants to Irish rugby, which illustrates just why the Limerick man is receiving platitudes near and far for his character as well as playing ability.

Think perhaps the paper meant to use the word "plaudits" instead of platitudes?

What would you say Al Murray?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7VD9YVhjxU

coylemj

Shouldn't your thread title be ...

Will journalists ever learn the correct meaning of the words they use?

and while we're at, let's make the word 'meaning' plural since it refers to (plural) 'words'......

which would make it.......

Will journalists ever learn the correct meanings of the words they use?

qweerty

coylemj wrote: »

Shouldn't your thread title be ...

Will journalists ever learn the correct meaning of the words they use?

and while we're at, let's make the word 'meaning' plural since it refers to (plural) 'words'......

which would make it.......

Will journalists ever learn the correct meanings of the words they use?

I don't ubderstand what point you're making. Is it that the OP can hardly complain given their grammar? Because it doesn't disprove the point they're making. An argument in that regard would be that, of the hundreds of thousands of words in national newspapers every week, the OP cited an Independent.ie article; a site whose rolling news content is produced seperately to the newspaper by inexperienced journalists.

I also find the number of mistakes in online content irritating (caused by the copy editing cut-backs and the nature of online media (which includes the hiring of non-journalists to create content)). But one would be hard pressed to find mistakes in print editions.

Also, and I'm not really interested in giving grammatical reasons, the "would" in the OP's title isn't incorrect.

Snickers Man

coylemj wrote: »

Shouldn't your thread title be ...

Will journalists ever learn the correct meaning of the words they use?

and while we're at, let's make the word 'meaning' plural since it refers to (plural) 'words'......

which would make it.......

Will journalists ever learn the correct meanings of the words they use?

Point 1:

I speak Hiberno English, in which version of the language the subtler differences in meaning and usage of the words "shall", "will" and "would" are not the same as they are in other variants.

Irish people tend to say "I will" in cases where an English person would say "I shall"

We also tend to say "would" in cases where the English say "should".

In similar vein, the Irish idiom "Would you ever" is a well understood and unambiguous construction.

There are some usages in modern English which I must now accept as being correct even though they grate harshly on my ear and, I suspect, on most other Irish ears judging by the infrequency with which one hears them in this country. "I was sat on my sofa" instead of "I was sitting" or "I was seated" are abominations to me, but I must concede they are now acceptable English.

But we tend not to use such ugly terms here. We're not wrong and, sadly, neither are they.

Point 2:

I did think at the time of writing to use the plural "meanings" but decided to keep the singular because to use the plural might imply that all the words referred to have multiple meanings, which of course some words do.

To summarise: I think the constructions I used are at least defensible. But what is the Indo's justification for using the word "platitude" in the copy quoted?

Of course it might say that it intended to use the word "platitude" with its correct meaning. If it dug out a Concise Oxford dictionary it would find that word defined as "commonplace remark, especially one solemnly delivered".

Or if it went to Chambers's dictionary it would find the definition "an empty remark made as if it were important", which is much closer to my instinctive understanding of the term.

Are either of these definitions a worthy description of a statement honouring the great Mr O'Connell's career? I don't think so.

Elmo

I have to say the use of the new use word "sat" is really irritating. It's something that has been pick up by English TV and hence now used by almost all Irish TV presenters and in Irish scripts. More infuriating when you here yourself say "I am sat here".

Do you find the no question at the end of questions irritating? ... Or no? (Americans but its creeping in).

I also find the number of mistakes in online content irritating (caused by the copy editing cut-backs and the nature of online media (which includes the hiring of non-journalists to create content)). But one would be hard pressed to find mistakes in print editions.

Non-journalist: if a "qualified" journalist can working in IT with little or no experience and do it badly then a qualified IT professional can scribble down something every now and then.

Fogmatic

I've been noticing more and more mistakes in print editions of late, often a wrong (though slightly similar-looking) word, as in the OP's example. I suspect they're down to over-reliance on digital spell checkers, especially those that haven't been 'trained' for long enough (or with the subject in question). They can make nonsense of the most carefully composed text (as happened to a piece of mine once, though fortunately it wasn't of any importance!).
Perhaps the newspapers run everyone's copy through a spell checker "just to make sure"?

KingBrian2

The papers have a lot of nonsense in them.