1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Obfuscating language

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by Buck, Sep 8, 2015.

  1. Bronco77

    Bronco77 Well-Known Member

    I spent a few years as business copy desk chief with a previous employer, and I'd clash with the business editor almost every day about something her staff would try to slip into the paper. She was generally a pretty good editor, but she thought many of those "bizspeak" terms were OK. And when I'd point out that something went against AP or the paper's style, she'd often express disagreement with the correct style and just keep using the style she wanted.

    When quoting sources, she also had her reporters write, "S0-and-so said in an interview." It bugged me and I asked her why "in an interview" was necessary, and her response was that her reporters occasionally got quotes by email instead of in person or over the phone. Well, isn't an email Q&A session between reporter and source still an "interview"?

    I'll add "parameters" and "metrics" to the bizspeak list, although "metrics" has crept into far too many newsrooms.
     
  2. Buck

    Buck Well-Known Member

    'Stakeholder' is a tough one.
    I don't like it, but I've learned to live with because I have yet to find a word that covers it's meaning.
    It is very useful some times, but it is often used when not needed.
     
  3. da man

    da man Well-Known Member

    Yeah, we use that one fairly often, too.
     
  4. da man

    da man Well-Known Member

    Analytics.
     
  5. Buck

    Buck Well-Known Member

    'Analytics' and 'metrics' are great examples that get over-used, or used intentionally to obfuscate.

    Often times, those terms are used in place of 'data,' but they are not really interchangeable.

    'Data' implies the information is raw, without real context.
    People often say 'analytics' because they want to imply they've analyzed the data when they haven't.
    They often say 'metrics' because they want to imply there are benchmarks and a measurement context for analysis when there isn't.

    Great examples.
     
  6. Buck

    Buck Well-Known Member

    I almost forgot my No. 1 most hated word of the past 10 years: Brand.

    If I had $1 for every time some dum-dum throws that word around with no regard to its meaning, I'd be rich.
    And all the other dum-dums in the room sit there nodding their heads.
     
  7. MisterCreosote

    MisterCreosote Well-Known Member

    It's also often used to describe people who don't actually hold a stake in what you do.
     
  8. SpeedTchr

    SpeedTchr Well-Known Member

    "XYZ University would like to thank..."

    But you're not going to?

    That one chaps my chaps.
     
  9. Bronco77

    Bronco77 Well-Known Member

    One more that often found its way into local news copy at my former paper was "blue-ribbon panel" or "blue-ribbon committee." It was banned by the newsroom stylebook, but people tried to get away with it anyway. I recall the news copy desk chief famously and sarcastically asking an assistant city editor who let it slip through, "Blue-ribbon committee -- does it mean the committee members have to drink PBR?"
     
  10. Spartan Squad

    Spartan Squad Well-Known Member

    I'm curious why Blue-ribbon committee got banned. Was it that people over used it and used it wrongly or was there some other reason for the disdain?
     
  11. Buck

    Buck Well-Known Member

    I think the assumption is that panels and committees of people with no credentials should not be overseeing anything.
    If you are asked to participate, it's assumed you are well credentialed in the subject.

    In a news context, if the panel members are extremely well credentialed, their credentials speak for themselves without adding the term 'blue ribbon.'

    I'd say from a PR aspect, I guess one might use it to reinforce the idea that these people are the truly the best in their fields, understanding that a reporter or assigning editor on the receiving end of my communications might not be familiar with the professional recognitions in a given field.

    On the other hand, it's so over-used that it has probably no 'impact' even if used correctly.
     
  12. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    You guys ought to sit in some of the meetings I have to attend ...

    The one I get to go to tomorrow will be lead by an Indian associate dean (former professor of accounting) who will, I shit you not, say "in terms of" at least a hundred times in the one hour this meeting's supposed to last.

    Then, on Friday I get to go to one with a fellow associate professor who will not only say "as a function of" a hundred times, he'll also punctuate the majority of his sentences with a sharp "Ok?" Further, he'll try to throw a handful of Latin words/phrases in there ... and he'll fuck up every one of them. I'll never forget the time he told a senior colleague that he would "deign" to her judgement. Later that day he said we should go to a bar for "an informal colloquia" and he pronounced it "co-lo-kwee-aye."
     
    SpeedTchr likes this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page