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!

Obnoxious Vocabulary

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by McNuggetsMan, Mar 7, 2011.

  1. McNuggetsMan

    McNuggetsMan Active Member

    In this case, it was spotted by a frequent newspaper reader (not me, I could not care less about Pitt basketball. But a friend of mine reads everything Pitt in the P-G and the Trib and then reads the opponents coverage in their local papers before every game as well.) Why would you want to write over the head of a dedicated news consumer? How did using that word enhance the coverage of Pitt basketball? Sure it enhanced Collier's ego, but how did it serve the read?
     
  2. This. Had an ongoing thing with a co-worker where one picks a word for the other to work into a story. Writers in the NYT use "big" words all the time and I don't see anyone complaining. Why should we underestimate the intelligence of the reader by using monosyllabic words?
     
  3. copperpot

    copperpot Well-Known Member

    It definitely seemed out of place to me, as did the word "rooters." Why not just say fans? Who calls fans rooters? "I'm a Pitt rooter."
     
  4. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    Sorry, but your friend is not a "reader." He's a Pitt basketball fan.

    Also, was this a game story or a column? It makes a difference.

    And, why is a word you don't know "obnoxious?"
     
  5. McNuggetsMan

    McNuggetsMan Active Member

    He's not a reader? I am not sure how you define "reader," but I think someone that opens every story about Pitt basketball every day in two major Pittsburgh media companies and then goes out seeking additional stories in other outlets qualifies as a reader.

    He does the same thing for Steelers and Penguins coverage as well, but to a lesser extent. For example, he does not go to the Baltimore paper to read about the Ravens but I know for a fact that before the NCAA tournament, he read the Johnson City paper to get more information on ETSU.

    It was a column. Collier is one of the P-G's columnists. I think there are

    I don't think the word is obnoxious, but I think vocabulary can be obnoxious. Words such as somnambulant do not advance the readers understanding of the game, it just creates confusion. I find that vocabulary obnoxious because it does not assist the reader with understanding a situation, it only glorifies the columnist's ego. I think that is unpleasant and harmful to the reader, and thus, obnoxious.
     
  6. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    Let's define "a reader" in this case as someone who reads for pleasure across a wide range of interests and topics and styles, fiction and nonfiction, newspapers and books and magazines.

    That's what I mean by reader. In those terms, your friend is not "a reader."

    As you put it, your friend is a "news consumer." Your friend is mostly interested in gathering data about a narrow interest, which is Pittsburgh sports. Fine.

    Had the word 'somnambulant' cropped up in straight game story, I'd grant your objection.

    But in a column? Come on. Part of the joy of reading - at least among the kind of 'reader' I just described - is encountering the fullness and the beauty of the English language.

    The rest of your objection is personal, not practical.
     
  7. You think "vocabulary" can be obnoxious?? And you went into a profession where words are the trade? God help us.
    Do you want to eat fast food for the rest of your life, or do you like the odd finely cooked meal? All Collier's doing is adding a bit of spice to the menu. Power to those people who have a "vocabulary" and aren't afraid to use it.
     
  8. McNuggetsMan

    McNuggetsMan Active Member

    OK by your definition he is not a "reader." I'll use your definition for the rest of this post for clarity's sake.

    Shouldn't the P-G be directing it's sports product toward news consumers? They are the people who are consistently driving clicks and therefore revenue to the company. I am not arguing for rah-rah coverage of sports teams or "Team A can do no wrong!" stories. I am just saying that the tools used to convey information should the clearest and most useful to the target audience.

    Readers might be the intended audience for the New Yorker or even the New York Times but P-G sports coverage should be directed toward news consumers.

    I would be very surprised if any readers read Collier's column and then turned to a fellow reader and said "You must read this analysis of Pitt basketball by Gene Collier. His grasp of the language is simply enthralling." However, I would not be surprised if my friend the news consumer was the only one who read that line and said "what the hell does that mean?" The word had a clear negative impact on the news consumer and the positive impact on readers is likely nil.

    Let's put it this way, you build a news organization with Pitt basketball coverage intended for readers. I'll build one for news consumers. In a year, I would be very surprised if I didn't have more clicks, subscriptions or any other way of measuring use of the medium.
     
  9. McNuggetsMan

    McNuggetsMan Active Member

    To use your analogy, if I ordered a cheeseburger at Wendy's and they told me it was going to take 20 minutes because they needed to properly blend the pate, I would be upset. I came for a cheeseburger, not a gourmet meal. Now, when I go to my favorite restaurant and they serve me Ragu when I expect freshly made sauce, I would also be upset.

    It's all about knowing your audience. There is a publication and audience for higher level vocabulary. I don't see how a sports column about Pitt basketball in a newspaper best serves its audience with somnambulant as opposed to simpler, more direct language.
     
  10. Mystery Meat II

    Mystery Meat II Well-Known Member

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 15, 2014
  11. McNuggetsMan

    McNuggetsMan Active Member

    I actually think that's pretty good. I had to look up the word, but given the audience and the publication, I find it fitting and interesting.
     
  12. 21

    21 Well-Known Member

    This topic always makes me think of National Anthem singers who get all fancy with the riffs and style. Just sing the song. It's not about you.

    Same rule for women wearing too much jewelry; if they notice the 'stuff' and not the woman, you've overdone it.

    To me, if one word stands out, if it makes the reader stop and think 'hm, somnambulent, okay,' it's gotta go. That's not dumbing down, it's just good writing.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page